Climate gaga or the 97% scourge
Dear children, dear youths, dear Schulschwänzer,
until about 30 years ago, there was a state in the middle of Europe, which, contrary to the actual ruling in that country, shamed all the seriousness of the “German Democratic Republic”. As a rule, “elections” to which the citizens of this Unlawful State are called, amounted to 98% in favor of the ruling party.
We know similar conditions today. from North Korea. The electoral big, beloved or wise leaders of this communist country read, as it were, from their undertakers from time to time with unbelievable 99% and more ‘reelection’.
These examples must, in fact, be enough to say that such results are unrealistically unreasonably demanding, critically demanding! So too does the ominous 97% “of all scientists” who, according to widely accepted narratives, consider anthropogenic climate change as expected. Faithful to Winston Churchill (very falsely) quoted quotes “Don’t trust any statistics you have not self-deceived” in this statement once summed up by a study by Australian cognition scientists (!) John Cook. This valuable 2013 compiled (Abstract) out of 12000 studies, which in some way related to climate change. Dazu words this, who man e.g. can be read in the World Week of March 20, 2019 (The 97 Percent Myth), divided into the following categories:
- Climate warming is mainly caused by humans.
- People are involved in climate warming.
- The study takes reference to anthropogenic warming.
- No statement was made on anthropogenic climate warming.
- The role of man is mentioned, but no locks were sucked.
- People had an undue influence on climate warming.
- The influence of man on climate warming is not evident.
- The anthropogenic CO2 emission is negligible.
Category 1-3 is rated as approval of anthropogenic climate change, 6-8 as aberration. 4-5, when a share of about two-thirds of all studies came forward, were eliminated as irrelevant. Through this statistical trick, the approximately 32% (1-3) suddenly gained 97% approval. It would have been just as good if it had been desired, or could have read about 68% off, if the 4-5 group were not simply ignored. Also noteworthy were those who decreed visitors to 12,000 studies with only climate scientists, but also to some historians, economists, lawyers, etc.
For other studies to turn to Belieben and turn around, whichever one suits them, the following, perhaps not very serious congregations (or anyways?) Should say:
A research team should say that the color of the socks has no undue influence on health, says the cancer development in men. They are doing a large-scale long-term study with a total of 300 participants. Over a period of 8 years, 100 men will be allowed to rot daily, the second third blue and the rest of the green socks. At this time, balance is drawn and the researchers find that in the red group 6 men are sick with cancer, in the blue two and in the green no one.
Therefore, without exaggeration, manipulation and misconduct, it can be concluded that green socks obviously protect men from cancer, blue socks are still responsible for 2% of men’s cancer cancers, which can be more than three times higher when wearing red socks.
Of course, here too, in the case of human-made climate change, it is mistaken for CO2 causality with correlation, which manufacturers and lovers of green socks would be more sure to ask who the manufacturers and operators of fungi from the soil-producing wind turbines are looking for whoever of the above is sure to have hands rubbing!