EU Parlament Clown: Furious Brainwashed Barroso Hails Junk “Science”, Scolding Satellite Climate Images as “Nonsense”, Flops over UK Nation State Defence

Posted By Anders On September 15, 2013 @ 00:04 In English, Euromed | No Comments

MORE EU FURY DUE TO TRUTH EXPOSURE: [1] Danish Newspaper, BT 13 Sept. 2013: : (EU Council President van Rompuy was in the European Parliament to give a speech on what (EU) auditors do and had a startling message.
- “Every year, they issue reports generating headlines with allegations to fraud and poor management”, van Rompuy said in his speech.
-When giving the media this information, which helps form public opinion in some countries, a more detailed report is desired.
Last year, the EU’s auditors reported that 790 billions (euros) were spent, which were “affected by material errors.

*

It is a sad fact that the world is ruled not only by rascals  - but also ignorants and ideologically brainwashed liars - as shown by the following.

In the following video, Nigel Farage shows the European Parliament the Daily Mail satellite photographs showing the Arctic ice to have increased by 60% in one year ([2] The Daily Mail 8 Sept. 2013) - admonishing the MEPs to give up their disastrous green climate policy.  Everybody can compare the arctic ice at any  given day since 1979 on “[3] The Cryosphere Today”.  Mr. José Barroso has no other arguments than to say in an agitated manner that 99% of scientists say the man made CO2 climate warming (AGW) is a settled fact and that other scientific facts are nonsense!!  Mr. Barroso lies or is [4] brainwashed, for all science show[5] s [5] no warming since 1995 in spite of increasing CO2 - of which [6] only 1% is derived from human activities.

And Barroso is not alone: [7] Pres. Obama tweeted the figure of 97% consensus among scientists on AGW! Here is where they have this figure from:

[8] Climate-Endorsements

On [9] 16 May 2013 on Skeptical Science, a cooked report by warmists John Cook, a climate activist,  Dana Nucitelli of the Guardian and a “team of (unspecified) international volunteers”!! warmed the hearts of all warmists - showing 97% consensus on AGW among climate scientists -right [10] (The Guardian 16 May 2013).

The authors* of the study (Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature) painstakingly sifted through nearly 12,000 academic journal article to reach their conclusion.

Biased worst-case junk “science” governs world climate lie, being the main argument for one world governance and robbery of our money
The New American 21 May 2013
even writes:  When stripped down to the bare truth, the actual number of studies in the Cook sampling that can be said to endorse the position that human activity is responsible for most of the experienced global warming is —sixty-five. Yes, 65, or around half a percent, not 97 percent! And this miniscule number of strong endorsers is actually less than the number of skeptical scientific papers included in the Cook study.


Methods
A critical survey of the Cook-Nucitelli survey shows blatant manipulation and worst-kind junk science:
1. They omitted 8000 critical articles from their Survey (video) 2. They omitted 33 of the 50 most prominent climate researchers (video). 3. They took the most vigorous protesters against AGW among the 97% (video). 4. The 97 percent figure refers to studies that took a position on whether global warming was manmade or not (66 percent of the studies surveyed did not express a position). !! ([11] The Washington Post 17 May 2013). 5. In our survey, among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus (Skeptical Science).  So, in fact, [12] 32.6% of the surveys , at most, are for AGW (Climate Depot).  Skeptical Science goes on writing:   6. Doran and Zimmerman (2009) surveyed Earth scientists, and found that of the 77 scientists responding to their survey who are actively publishing climate science research, 75 (97.4%) agreed that “human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.”  But that is high bias in the selection of the material.
7. As an independent test of the measured consensus, we also emailed over 8,500 authors and asked them to rate their own papers using our same categories.  The most appropriate expert to rate the level of endorsement of a published paper is the author of the paper, after all.  We received responses from 1,200 scientists who rated a total of over 2,100 papers. (this is because 7.300 serious scientists disregarded this junk “science” team).

AGW opponents registered as warmists
Forbes 30 May 2013
states: Investigative journalists at Popular Technology looked into precisely which papers were classified within Cook’s asserted 97 percent. The investigative journalists found Cook and his colleagues strikingly classified papers by such prominent, vigorous skeptics as Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, Nils-Axel Morner and Alan Carlin as supporting the 97-percent consensus.

What it is observed right now is utter dishonesty by the IPCC advocates. … They are gradually engaging into a metamorphosis process to save face. … And in this way they will get the credit that they do not merit, and continue in defaming critics like me that actually demonstrated such a fact since 2005/2006,” Scafetta added. Others said similar things. “I couldn’t write these things more explicitly in the paper because of the refereeing, however, you don’t have to be a genius to reach these conclusions from the paper,” Shaviv added. Morner, a sea level scientist and Soon, an astrophysicist, similarly objected to Cook classifying his paper as “no position.”

[13] Climate-gap_consensus_gap_450

“I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct,” said Soon.These biased, misleading, and totally irrelevant “surveys” form the best “evidence” global warming alarmists can muster in the global warming debate. And this truly shows how embarrassingly feeble their alarmist theory really is.

Misleading the public about consensus opinion regarding global warming, of course, is precisely what the Cook paper sought to accomplish.
The alarmists encourage the media and fellow global warming alarmists to cite these biased, subjective, totally irrelevant surveys as conclusive evidence for the lie that nearly all scientists believe humans are creating a global warming crisis.


Article printed from Euro-med: http://euro-med.dk

URL to article: http://euro-med.dk/?p=30894

URLs in this post:
[1] Danish Newspaper, BT 13 Sept. 2013: http://www.bt.dk/politik/rompuy-vil-give-egne-revisorer-mundkurv-paa
[2] The Daily Mail 8 Sept. 2013: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warmi
ng-predictions.html

[3] The Cryosphere Today”: http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=09&fd=09&fy=2010&sm=09&sd=09&am
p;sy=2013

[4] brainwashed: http://euro-med.dk/?p=27003
[5] s : http://euro-med.dk/?p=30847
[6] only 1% is derived from human activities: http://www.co2web.info/Icecap_CarbonDioxide.pdf
[7] Pres. Obama tweeted: http://thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/15457-global-warming-consensus-cooking-the-books
[8] Image: http://euro-med.dk/bil/climate-endorsements.jpg
[9] 16 May 2013 on Skeptical Science, : http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=4&t=207&&n=1994
[10] (The Guardian 16 May 2013).: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/16/climate-change-scie
nceofclimatechange?guni=Article:in%20body%20link

[11] The Washington Post 17 May 2013).: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/05/17/97-percent-of-scientific-stud
ies-%20agree-on-manmade-global-warming-so-what-now/

[12] 32.6% of the surveys , at most, are for AGW : http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/14/fuzzy-math-in-a-new-soon-to-be-published-paper-john-cook-claim
s-consensus-on-32-6-of-scientific-papers-that-endorse-agw/

[13] Image: http://euro-med.dk/bil/climate-gap-consensus-gap-450.jpg