May 13, 2021

GIL

Daily Global New Media

THE CONSENSUS FRAUD part 2 – Climate of Freedom #2

1 min read

40 thoughts on “THE CONSENSUS FRAUD part 2 – Climate of Freedom #2

  1. 7:50 Monckton is lying. Let's see what Cook's categories actually were:
    (1) Explicit endorsementwith quantification: Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming (e.g. ‘The global warming during the 20th century iscaused mainly by increasing greenhouse gas concentration especially since the late 1980s’)
    (2) Explicit endorsementwithout quantification: Explicitly states humans are causing global warming or refers to anthropogenic globalwarming/climate change as a known fact (e.g. ‘Emissions of a broad range of greenhouse gasesof varying lifetimes contribute to global climate change’)
    (3) Implicit endorsemen: Implies humans are causing global warming. (e.g. 'carbon sequestration in soil is important formitigating global climate change')
    This makes in total 32.6% of all abstracts, 1% rejection/uncertain and 66.4% giving no position in there.
    Since giving no position isn't possible to evaluate, this makes 97% of all scienitsts accepting the consensus.

    Everyone can check this for himself in the actual study in Table 2:
    https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

  2. Stimmt leider nicht was du sagt. Solltest nochmal genau nachlesen. Macht eine Auswertung von einer Auswertung und verdreht die Bedeutung der 1 am Ende der Zeile.

  3. 5:00
    It is very easy. 66,4% of abstracts where excluded because they have nothing to do with global warming.
    So the amount of paper who are related to manmade global warming are 11944-7930 = 4014. Interesting. 13 papers are missing. You know what? That 13 papers are the only one who denied an effect on manmade global warming. And 13 / 4027 * 100 = 0,3% . Means 0,3 % deny manmade global warming. Wonder why you excluded them from you picture.
    3896 statet we cause SOME global warming. 3896 of 4027 makes 97%.
    There you have your consensus. We cause global warming. Open is the question by how much. But we do.

  4. Another baseless video harping on about what percentage of scientists thinks, and once again not giving anything about actual scientific facts. Who bloody cares what percentage think (which has been studied numerous times since this one you keep harping about and found the numbers are actually higher then 97% anyway by at least half dozen more studies so really kind of pointless to harp on about such silly thing anyway), instead how about you present the actual scientific facts instead and show us how there is no such man contributions to global warming. Go on and debunk all that evidence and data of scientific facts instead of attempting to debunk one silly study. Get to the scientific facts like you promised in both videos. You claim you want to have climate debate about the science, yet you have not even addressed any of the ACTUAL science. First you must bring up an actual issue or issues that you have about the actual science. What do you expect someone to bring up ALL of the evidence to you or what? No ONE needs to convince you, simply do the research, look at the papers yourself, listen to the international committees that has done numerous meetings on this. And stop messing around with with minor point of how many percentage of scientists think … well unless you can not think for yourself I guess. I did years ago and it really was not that hard.

    FYI: why are you even using such an old outdated study for anyway when there are many more recent ones? More thorough ones? Is it because those all came up with even higher then 97% amounts? The reality is that there is NO discussion or issues amongst the experts about this, the only discussions is about how much or how little that humans are impacting it and how much of an issue it will be in what time frames from now.

  5. Wow. Ms. Seibt bigmouths a new series that'll debunk climate science. All she's got until now is two videos on one and the same subject. About a paper from 2013. Classic Straw-man agenda from Ms. Seibt, because she has not yet talked about the actual climate change science.
    But anyway, here are again the facts about the 97% study: https://www.cleanenergy-project.de/umwelt/klimawandel/klimawandel-leugner-widerlegt-die-wissenschaft-ist-sich-doch-einig/

    http://www.klimaretter.info/forschung/nachricht/21052-klimawandel-97-prozent-studie-bestaetigt

    By the way, this shows how science works: by studies, and follow-up studies and people actually churning data. Not some Lord-douchebag citing greek philosophers.

  6. apart from the co2 religion i like to know how 1 part of co2 in about 2000 part of air by mass is responsible for warming or cooling
    in and around 1955 we enhanced co2 levels in greenhouses to about 5% like in our breath with was about 100 times over the normal level then we grow pine seedlings with great success 3 to 5 times faster or stronger in the same time hence i think the co2 levels today 410 ppm or so only make the planet greener and co2 is absolutely necessary for live in general

  7. I am a climate realist as well, but I'm also not impressed with this video, and I'll state why: you could – at the very least – provide quotes from certain papers in order to prove that what you're saying is true. Or links to the papers. Or anything. We just have your word against theirs. Surely it's not that much work to provide direct evidence from the paper you're commenting on in order to show the audience that what you're saying is accurate?
    Like for example you talk about the number 1 at the end of certain lines, and how Cook himself says what the number 1 refers to. Just show us the quote from Cook's paper where he says this. That's an easy quote to put on screen to demonstrate that what you just said follows from the direct evidence.
    So to put that clearly: there's nothing wrong with your argument, but there's definitely something lacking in your presentation. You're not going to convince climate cultists how they are wrong if you don't directly show them. Give us some reading links and pictures!!!

  8. In my opinion, Models should not be in the mix for analyzing climate, it’s too open to fraud and corruption just like mail in voting so of course people who want to control the Narrative will always defer to computerized models their window to control the narrative.

  9. The 'consensus' statement says not that global warming is net harmful, but that recent warming (since 1950) is mostly manmade, but still the 97% is only 0.3%.

    At 4:22: Why would this number, 97%, become such an essential figure that climate activists and allegedly climate scientists from all over the world keep coming back to when they want to demonstrate their dominance in the scientific realm of climate change? ~ Naomi Seibt

  10. Naomi Seibt is paid & trained by Heartland "Institute", a tobacco & CO2 (coal, gas, petrol industry) lobby group, which organize interviews for her with extreme right-wing and Russian TV stations for interviews. Seibt is a member of the right-wing extremist and anti-constitutional group "Junge Alternative" according to the German Office for the Protection of the Constitution. For Heartland ""Institute"" see ​https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute

  11. It was good to hear the data behind the 97% consensus fraud. In any other field such a fraud might well be taken more seriously, even though the consequences are catastrophic for our future health wealth and prosperity it gets ignored. I cannot understand why the main stream media (it would seem Sky News Australia is an exception) don't pick up on what is the greatest scientific scandal of our time!

  12. I look forward to the coming episodes. Thanks to you n both for so carefully scripting the arguments so anyone can validate them indeendnently. Real science is so rare these days where political agendas lead the science produced to support political ends. Eisenhower's "military Industrial complex" controlling the output of scientific research for their particular purposes.

    See two links below for the simple reality of nature that observational science has carefully measured.
    You can compare current change with the measured reality of the last 500,000 years, on short and long time scales, which I am sure this series also will, in geological history and the last 100 years. The reality disproves the models, because the models were made to prove a theory that justified a particular solution. That climate change we observe is caused by CO2 we produce therefore it must be stopped. This never was and remains an unproven effect of CO2. THer "theory" was always an anti energy use/anti human advancement Malthusian program, promoted and funded by UN politicians to deliver some uniformly miserable global society they want to impose by laws that limit our energy use, when in fact all humanity can achieve a decent life through more plentiful energy use, by nuclear power that is zero CO2 for example, and most sustainable of all. CO2 has little or no detectable effect on the large range of natural change we observe below, none of it in any human lifetime.
    The politics came before the UN activist funded science, their proposition has never been proven by what the Earth actually does, because its wrong, as Freeman Dyson put it so clearly.
    The cries for action become more shrill as nothing unusual has happened after 50 years of reliable consistent satellite measurements, showing the presumptive models predictions are seriously wrong. Yet they are still presented as if fact by a "consensus of experts". Most of the public promoters of this pseudo science fraud are unqualified in climate or related sciences, and the modellers funded to prove CO2 as causal are far more conservative than the activists, who exaggerate their particular predictions as real, when they are consistently excessive and wrong versus measured reality, Because they are not doing real science, which would be to test their one CO2 idea against all possibilities, properly weighted/forced, to determine what actually causes climate to change.
    In fact the short term 2 degrees up and down every 1,000 years we clearly observe in the interglacial record, now claimed to be man made, is overtly unexceptional and natural on the observed facts, mostly, and is only the noise on the much larger and slower natural change of the orbital forcing of the ice age.
    That's real science, by observations made to determine cause. Not to decide the cause and fund models to pretend to show natural change is due to a chosen problem – that is not proven because its wrong.
    But we must believe and pay many BIllions per nation per annum to solve what is a non problem,, with a solution that cannot deliver the energy we need sustainably, reliably, affordably – on the proven physics and engineering of electrical supply.
    Its a comprehensive fraud, snake oil sales, driven by a UN need for power, to control the rate of human progress, and to enrich insiders through the energy poverty of the masses by law as a local spin off in nation states. This was the stated objective of Maurice Strong and his successors at the UN when forming the UN IPCC. Also the rhetoric of Greta Thunberg and ER, who understand nothing of climate or energy science, or the facts of the improvements that increasing and sustainable energy use is delivering across the planet, when she claims the opposite to scare people with the studied deceit put into her mouth.

    Naomi can think rationally and check facts, Greta cannot.
    A colleague just asked me this question….. of the well known data of the ice ages linked here. "If you were talking to your broker and he showed you this track record below (the actual ice core temperature records, that happen totally naturally and cyclically), and recommended you bet on it getting MUCH MUCH warmer, would you change broker? You decide.
    The scale is 2 degrees per graduation vertically. THIS is change. But very slow,
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/21k0ogfnzdo4ete/Vostok%20.jpg?dl=0
    While I am at it, here is the short term data from Greenland, the change we see NOW is normal, well within the natural range of the last 10,000 warm years, and in fact we still can't farm permafrost Greenland as the Vikings did during the last warm peak of the cyclic change 1,000 years ago, so its not really even as warm as then. The data is overstating the actual rise relative to 1,000 years ago. It's colder than then, and many other earlier maximums this short warm interglacial that allowed our civilisation to be developed, fastest when it was warmest.

    Again, what happens next, and is what we observe abnormal change or simply normal and cyclical, claimed to be man made by politicians with an agenda? Deceiving short live humans with claims of future change they will never se because it is natural and happens too slowly, who may have some belief things never change, which is largely a fact as regards overall global climate, in their lifetimes, they really don't.
    So the phoney fear in what is natural cannot be tested by those imposing a phoney cure. Religion also works this way.
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/h9ks01kb0fo2ewc/Interglacial%20Temperature%20Observations%20BRL%20CATT.jpg?dl=0

  13. Naomi thax so much ! Young girl standing up to a world full of idiots!👏👏 A debate with Geta
    Please! But i recon she too scared of you keep up the good
    work all the best!😉

  14. in 1886, Mr James Croll discovered the global cooling/warming cycle to prove glaciation causes u shaped valleys. In the 1930s Mr Mulitan Milanchovitch one of the top mathematicians proved the Earth is 3% into a cooling phase.

  15. I live in Germany and I support you! (I don’t watch TV or listen to the radio though, so I guess I’m not as brainwashed as most Germans)

  16. NAOMI…you better get hip to CHEmtRAILS and the GEOENGINEERING programs going on in the developed nations. Bill Gates' "Global Dimming Project" and the reduction of sunlight hitting the ground will be CATASTROPHIC for humanity…and that;s what they want! population reduction…aka…genocide. I really don't know how else to get through to you except by comments here. Best Wishes. I will contribute financially to you …as soon as able.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

7 + 6 =