There have been two viral consensus surveys that received notable publicity over the last few years and one these just recently became popular.

In both cases there was a very impressive upper 90 percentile consensus among scientists or scientific papers that man-made global warming was real.

When you look at these numbers that say 97 % consensus you have to ask yourself if that number is real because that is overwhelmingly high.

Seriously, there will never be a consensus so high for something that has shown to be impossible to predict even a decade or two out into the future.

The analysis involved warmest, John Cook, offering the public a 97 % consensus study to devour and re-tweet like mad which they did.

These studies that masquerade as a scientific fact often get devoured by liberal artist types who want to appear smart themselves in the scientific realm.

I’m not saying liberal artists are not smart they just aren’t scientists and so they should make sure what they are so happy to believe in is in fact true.

According to Cook’s study 66% of papers didn’t endorse man-made global warming. Cook calls this ‘an overwhelming consensus’ but I’m sorry I am not seeing how this is overwhelming or even a consensus?

His study confuses a consensus of climate scientists for a scientific consensus, not that a consensus proves anything anyway, especially considering they receive excessive government grant money for continuing to promote man-mad global warming studies.

The absolute monopolistic grants given to climate science in the last 20 years makes any consensus looking results entirely predictable.

When you look at the number of papers on global warming this is simply evidence in itself where all the government grants are going to.

Had there been more money given to skeptical scientists to question the IPCC you would see more papers coming from this group.

The level of government grants to these global warming climate scientists is unbelievably high and it’s not a conspiracy.

The IPCC has admitted the real overall purpose is to create a global carbon tax to fundamentally change global wealth by redistributing the wealth of the world across all nations.

Over $79 billion has been invested into climate science research and technology from 1989 to 2009 so of course you will have many papers showing proof of man-made global warming even though the facts are quite the contrary.

The papers listed as endorsing man-made global warming includes “implicit endorsement”, which makes this study more an example of funding instead of any so-called evidence.

Consider that money paid to believers is 3500 times larger than that paid to skeptics. Of these researchers many are studying carbon sequestion which is quite different that the study of outgoing radiation from the upper troposphere.

These scientists have probably never looked into the obvious assumptions about relative humidity in climate simulations because that is not their niche.

Many scientists concentrate on such things as changes in lemurs, polar bears, etc. as it relates to climate change but have no idea about ocean heat content calculations.

What you end up with are a bunch of “me too” scientists which works really well into the whole consensus idea which the public just eats up.

In summary Cook’s study is nothing more than activist propaganda which is needed to fund the $79 billion in research already given in the name of global warming, and the $70 billion spent annually subsidizing renewables. Carbon markets go through about $170 billion annually, and renewables investment amounts to 1/4 of a trillion dollars. Why do you think these consensus studies come out? Do you think it’s the truth or simply propaganda to influence public opinion so we continue to see man-made global warming science in a positive light?

Just so ya’ll know I write about this topic because a large carbon tax is coming down the pike for the US like it has in other countries if they are able to persuade public opinion in the US that doomsday really is just around the corner because of man-made global warming. It just isn’t true and their agenda is something completely different than what they claim it will be for. This is a large power grab the world has never experienced before and it’s not about saving the earth. Do you really want your electric bill to increase 100 % in the name of this bogus science?