Well if that ain’t a kick in the pants

You know how Barack Obama likes to crow about 97% of scientists agree about Climate Change?

I’m sure you’ve seen his clever little Twitter posts like this one:

Well isnt this a kick in the pants

There’s a consensus all right.

Problem is, the consensus isn’t saying what Barack wants it to say.

According to an article in Forbes, with the unfortunate title “Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis,” a survey of earth scientists and engineers show that a paltry 36% “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”

The others?

Not so much.

The survey finds that 24 percent of the scientist respondents fit the “Nature Is Overwhelming” model. “In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.” Moreover, “they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.”
Another group of scientists fit the “Fatalists” model. These scientists, comprising 17 percent of the respondents, “diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused. ‘Fatalists’ consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They are skeptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling.” These scientists are likely to ask, “How can anyone take action if research is biased?”
The next largest group of scientists, comprising 10 percent of respondents, fit the “Economic Responsibility” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being natural or human caused. More than any other group, they underscore that the ‘real’ cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable. Similar to the ‘nature is overwhelming’ adherents, they disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal life. They are also less likely to believe that the scientific debate is settled and that the IPCC modeling is accurate. In their prognostic framing, they point to the harm the Kyoto Protocol and all regulation will do to the economy.”
The final group of scientists, comprising 5 percent of the respondents, fit the “Regulation Activists” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life.” Moreover, “They are also skeptical with regard to the scientific debate being settled and are the most indecisive whether IPCC modeling is accurate.”
Taken together, these four skeptical groups numerically blow away the 36 percent of scientists who believe global warming is human caused and a serious concern.

Well if that ain’t a kick in the pants.

I guess Obama’s going to have to start accusing scientists of being “Deniers.”

Which, in case you weren’t aware, is the 21st Century equivalent of “Heretic.”

Invasion of the Body Snatchers

It is only because all that smoke would effect our carbon footprint that Obama hasn’t signed an executive order that all “deniers” be burned at the stake.

Look. Climate Change is a fraud perpetrated on the people by Government. It is a ploy to destroy our Free Market, wrest individual liberty from the people and redistribute wealth.

I’m only glad enough scientists can see through the bullshit.

Share, share, share

4 thoughts on “Well if that ain’t a kick in the pants

  • April 24, 2015 at 10:09 pm

    I wonder how many of those 36% are on the government payroll.

  • April 25, 2015 at 12:06 am

    I’m sure the easy answer from inside the beltway is that this was a 2012 study done by anti-multicultural fascists bent on preserving the big business model of oppression and subjugation. Clearly, as has so often been pointed out by Obama Administration officials and understood by the overwhelming masses of our most socially-aware university population ever, this study and climate deniers everywhere continue to fail at recognizing that the primary interrelation between climate and sub-climate effects on humanity necessitates that urgent consideration of the like must utilize and be functionally interwoven with the philosophy of commonality and the application of rigorous measures as the meteorological situational specifications evolve over time. I mean, it’s obvious isn’t it? I just don’t know why climate deniers, like those that produced this study, don’t get it. 😉

Comments are closed.