ORIGIN OF THE 97% LIE OF GLOBAL WARMING
Andre Jute explains where this misrepresentation originated

That "the science is settled, and 97% of scientists believe in manmade global warming" is an article of faith of the thicker global warmies and the more doctrinaire pols, and greedy manipulators like Fat Al Gore who has made his billion from the global warming scare.

99.999999% of those who make this foolish statement cannot name the statistical study their claim is based on, and of the few who can name Margaret Zimmerman as the author of the study, 99 out of every 100 have never read it, or they would know it is as crooked as the rest of the statistics behind Michael Mann's hockey stick, on which the whole global warming church wobbles like an upside down pyramid of jelly.

***

This is it, the founding scroll of the "97% consensus":

MSc thesis, University of Illinois, 2008:
M Zimmerman, The consensus of the consensus
http://www.lulu.com/shop/m-r-k-zimmerman/the-consensus-on-the-consensus/ebook/product-17391505.html

Zimmerman's "survey" was a two-question, online questionnaire sent to 10,257 earth scientists, of whom 3,146 responded.

Of the 3146 scientists, 96.2 per cent came from North America. 6.2 per cent came from Canada.

So the United States is overrepresented even within that North American sample.

9% of US respondents came from California.

California is overrepresented within the US sample.

In addition California has over twice as large a share of the sample as Europe, Asia, Australia, the Pacific, Latin America and Africa combined.

Of the 10% non-US respondents, Canada has 62 per cent.

What sort of a distorted sample is this?

***

Before you conclude that North American scientists, even when carefully preselected for assumed complaisance, are uniquely and particularly stupid, let's examine the questions Zimmerman asked them.

Zimmerman carefully crafted two questions to which most earth scientists would answer "yes", including most prominent climate change skeptics.

It's a fit-up job. See for yourself:

Zimmerman's first question was, "When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?"

As a disgusted reader of her thesis said, rating it one star out of five, said "Q1 is worthless for distinguishing climate alarmists from climate skeptics. 'Pre-1800s' was the middle of the Little Ice Age, and it is obviously warmer now than it was then. But nearly all of the human contribution to atmospheric GHG levels has occurred since the 1940s, so this question has nothing to do with anthropogenic climate change. Even most prominent climate change skeptics would answer 'risen' to this question."

Oops. Let's see whether Zimmerman's other question holds any more water: "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"

Oh dear. Another, loaded question of the "Have you stopped beating your wife yet" school of statistics. The same disgusted reader of Zimmerman's theses tells us why this question is misleading: "Q2 is just as bad. Since aerosols from smoke clearly cause cooling (a fact which was one of the main causes for the 1970s ice age scare), few people would doubt that human activity can change temperatures, so even most of those who doubt that anthropogenic CO2 and CH4 cause worrisome global warming would have to answer 'yes' to Q2."

The reader concludes, as anyone with experience of tendentious statistics would, as I do too: "Zimmerman could have asked [for] a meaningful answer about anthropogenic climate change, but chose not to do so."

***

To add insult to injury, she then selected 79 (that's right, seventy-nine) of her sample and declared them "experts", though later she excluded two more. In the event only 75 out of 77 made it through to the final round.

97.4 per cent of 75 "experts" in an extremely biased "sample" were found to agree with "the consensus" because they were asked loaded questions.

The 75 respondents -- count 'em, seventy-five --carefully pre-selected for compliance with questions loaded just to make sure, still revolted. Two respondents didn't give the expected answer!

This is a very Michael Mann "reconstruction": just as a couple of Californian bristlecones can determine the climate for a millennium, so a half-dozen Californian scientists can determine the consensus of the world.

Amazing what you can do with statistics!

***

There's more to this revolt that isn't normally reported by the global warmies, probably because they get their facts from Apocalypse TV rather than by reading scientific papers.

Zimmerman invited comments from these selected and presumably disciplined respondents.

Mann's hockey stick attracted three comments - one blandly positive, the other two damning:

1. "I will note that Mann's "hockey stick curve" has been demonstrated to be incorrect."

2. "The "hockey stick" graph that the IPCC so touted has, it is my understanding, been debunked as junk science. While they've never admitted this to be so, it's my understanding that the graph has disappeared from IPCC publications."

So, 67 per cent consensus from The consensus on the consensus that Mann's stick is "incorrect" "junk"?

But without the hockey schtick there is no global warming!

***

Even more that will not make the global warmie faithful happy, and is thus never mentioned:

Zimmerman, despite "shaping" the questions and the statistics to toe the global warmie party line (presumably because otherwise she would not have got her masters), was herself not convinced of global warming by such carefully shoddy numbers. In her own words:

"This entire process has been an exercise in re-educating myself about the climate debate and, in the process, I can honestly say that I have heard very convincing arguments from all the different sides, and I think I'm actually more neutral on the issue now than I was before I started this project. There is so much gray area when you begin to mix science and politics, environmental issues and social issues, calculated rational thinking with emotions, etc." -- M Zimmerman.

Of course Zimmerman's conclusion and opinion from her study (it's in the appendix to her thesis) is never quoted by the global warmies.

All of the smoke of "consensus" was blown by others; Zimmerman, the author of the study they quoted (and didn't read!) knew better.

***

There is an amusing analysis of this material in Mark Steyn's "A Disgrace to the Profession", a highly recommended bestseller which quotes scientists all round the world being scathingly dismissive of global warming, the hockey stick and Michael Mann, and which proves conclusively that there isn't now and never was any consensus about manmade global warming.

No consensus, period.

***

The so-called consensus, of course, is merely more poor quality statistical smoke blown by the global warmies. It is designed to avoid the question of whether scientific consensus shouldn't be called by its proper name: pressure group politics, in this case by scientists who want the rich pickings of grants and the glow of a "moral" justification to indulge their urge for bullying everyone else. The so-called consensus is scientism at its most brutal and offensive, and totally unacceptable.

Scientism is the doctrine that scientists are superior beings who shouldn't be questioned by mere mortals. In the case of global warming, the global warmie spear carriers reinforce this objectionable doctrine (and obvious lie) with the additional lie of the "consensus of scientists".

The very concept of consensus is unscientific and anti-scientific. Science doesn't take a vote, it iterates experiments. Consensus belongs to politics, not science. It takes just one scientist to be right.

The global warmies either lie, or are gullibly taken in by the lies of their high priests. Either way, they have no right to speak of "science", or even of "consensus".

One of the warmies' most fundamental claims, that "97% of scientists agree that global warming is dangerous and manmade" is a perfect example of the poor quality of their lies.

The socalled "consensus" is just another gross lie by the global warmies.

Quad erat demonstrandum.

Copyright (c) 2009, 2015, 2021 Andre Jute

On 12/13/2021 12:11 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
> ORIGIN OF THE 97% LIE OF GLOBAL WARMING
> Andre Jute explains where this misrepresentation originated
>
> That "the science is settled, and 97% of scientists believe in manmade global warming" is an article of faith of the thicker global warmies and the more doctrinaire pols, and greedy manipulators like Fat Al Gore who has made his billion from the global warming scare.
>
> 99.999999% of those who make this foolish statement cannot name the statistical study their claim is based on, and of the few who can name Margaret Zimmerman as the author of the study, 99 out of every 100 have never read it, or they would know it is as crooked as the rest of the statistics behind Michael Mann's hockey stick, on which the whole global warming church wobbles like an upside down pyramid of jelly.
>
> ***
>
> This is it, the founding scroll of the "97% consensus":
>
> MSc thesis, University of Illinois, 2008:
> M Zimmerman, The consensus of the consensus
> http://www.lulu.com/shop/m-r-k-zimmerman/the-consensus-on-the-consensus/ebook/product-17391505.html
>
> Zimmerman's "survey" was a two-question, online questionnaire sent to 10,257 earth scientists, of whom 3,146 responded.
>
> Of the 3146 scientists, 96.2 per cent came from North America. 6.2 per cent came from Canada.
>
> So the United States is overrepresented even within that North American sample.
>
> 9% of US respondents came from California.
>
> California is overrepresented within the US sample.
>
> In addition California has over twice as large a share of the sample as Europe, Asia, Australia, the Pacific, Latin America and Africa combined.
>
> Of the 10% non-US respondents, Canada has 62 per cent.
>
> What sort of a distorted sample is this?
>
> ***
>
> Before you conclude that North American scientists, even when carefully preselected for assumed complaisance, are uniquely and particularly stupid, let's examine the questions Zimmerman asked them.
>
> Zimmerman carefully crafted two questions to which most earth scientists would answer "yes", including most prominent climate change skeptics.
>
> It's a fit-up job. See for yourself:
>
> Zimmerman's first question was, "When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?"
>
> As a disgusted reader of her thesis said, rating it one star out of five, said "Q1 is worthless for distinguishing climate alarmists from climate skeptics. 'Pre-1800s' was the middle of the Little Ice Age, and it is obviously warmer now than it was then. But nearly all of the human contribution to atmospheric GHG levels has occurred since the 1940s, so this question has nothing to do with anthropogenic climate change. Even most prominent climate change skeptics would answer 'risen' to this question."
>
> Oops. Let's see whether Zimmerman's other question holds any more water: "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"
>
> Oh dear. Another, loaded question of the "Have you stopped beating your wife yet" school of statistics. The same disgusted reader of Zimmerman's theses tells us why this question is misleading: "Q2 is just as bad. Since aerosols from smoke clearly cause cooling (a fact which was one of the main causes for the 1970s ice age scare), few people would doubt that human activity can change temperatures, so even most of those who doubt that anthropogenic CO2 and CH4 cause worrisome global warming would have to answer 'yes' to Q2."
>
> The reader concludes, as anyone with experience of tendentious statistics would, as I do too: "Zimmerman could have asked [for] a meaningful answer about anthropogenic climate change, but chose not to do so."
>
> ***
>
> To add insult to injury, she then selected 79 (that's right, seventy-nine) of her sample and declared them "experts", though later she excluded two more. In the event only 75 out of 77 made it through to the final round.
>
> 97.4 per cent of 75 "experts" in an extremely biased "sample" were found to agree with "the consensus" because they were asked loaded questions.
>
> The 75 respondents -- count 'em, seventy-five --carefully pre-selected for compliance with questions loaded just to make sure, still revolted. Two respondents didn't give the expected answer!
>
> This is a very Michael Mann "reconstruction": just as a couple of Californian bristlecones can determine the climate for a millennium, so a half-dozen Californian scientists can determine the consensus of the world.
>
> Amazing what you can do with statistics!
>
> ***
>
> There's more to this revolt that isn't normally reported by the global warmies, probably because they get their facts from Apocalypse TV rather than by reading scientific papers.
>
> Zimmerman invited comments from these selected and presumably disciplined respondents.
>
> Mann's hockey stick attracted three comments - one blandly positive, the other two damning:
>
> 1. "I will note that Mann's "hockey stick curve" has been demonstrated to be incorrect."
>
> 2. "The "hockey stick" graph that the IPCC so touted has, it is my understanding, been debunked as junk science. While they've never admitted this to be so, it's my understanding that the graph has disappeared from IPCC publications."
>
> So, 67 per cent consensus from The consensus on the consensus that Mann's stick is "incorrect" "junk"?
>
> But without the hockey schtick there is no global warming!
>
> ***
>
> Even more that will not make the global warmie faithful happy, and is thus never mentioned:
>
> Zimmerman, despite "shaping" the questions and the statistics to toe the global warmie party line (presumably because otherwise she would not have got her masters), was herself not convinced of global warming by such carefully shoddy numbers. In her own words:
>
> "This entire process has been an exercise in re-educating myself about the climate debate and, in the process, I can honestly say that I have heard very convincing arguments from all the different sides, and I think I'm actually more neutral on the issue now than I was before I started this project. There is so much gray area when you begin to mix science and politics, environmental issues and social issues, calculated rational thinking with emotions, etc." -- M Zimmerman.
>
> Of course Zimmerman's conclusion and opinion from her study (it's in the appendix to her thesis) is never quoted by the global warmies.
>
> All of the smoke of "consensus" was blown by others; Zimmerman, the author of the study they quoted (and didn't read!) knew better.
>
> ***
>
> There is an amusing analysis of this material in Mark Steyn's "A Disgrace to the Profession", a highly recommended bestseller which quotes scientists all round the world being scathingly dismissive of global warming, the hockey stick and Michael Mann, and which proves conclusively that there isn't now and never was any consensus about manmade global warming.
>
> No consensus, period.
>
> ***
>
> The so-called consensus, of course, is merely more poor quality statistical smoke blown by the global warmies. It is designed to avoid the question of whether scientific consensus shouldn't be called by its proper name: pressure group politics, in this case by scientists who want the rich pickings of grants and the glow of a "moral" justification to indulge their urge for bullying everyone else. The so-called consensus is scientism at its most brutal and offensive, and totally unacceptable.
>
> Scientism is the doctrine that scientists are superior beings who shouldn't be questioned by mere mortals. In the case of global warming, the global warmie spear carriers reinforce this objectionable doctrine (and obvious lie) with the additional lie of the "consensus of scientists".
>
> The very concept of consensus is unscientific and anti-scientific. Science doesn't take a vote, it iterates experiments. Consensus belongs to politics, not science. It takes just one scientist to be right.
>
> The global warmies either lie, or are gullibly taken in by the lies of their high priests. Either way, they have no right to speak of "science", or even of "consensus".
>
> One of the warmies' most fundamental claims, that "97% of scientists agree that global warming is dangerous and manmade" is a perfect example of the poor quality of their lies.
>
> The socalled "consensus" is just another gross lie by the global warmies.
>
> Quad erat demonstrandum.
>
> Copyright (c) 2009, 2015, 2021 Andre Jute
>

Communist theory once tried to blame poverty and suffering
on free markets (which they pejoratively labeled
'capitalism', ignoring actual facts).

On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 8:09:19 PM UTC, AMuzi wrote:
> On 12/13/2021 12:11 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
> > ORIGIN OF THE 97% LIE OF GLOBAL WARMING
> > Andre Jute explains where this misrepresentation originated
> >
> > That "the science is settled, and 97% of scientists believe in manmade global warming" is an article of faith of the thicker global warmies and the more doctrinaire pols, and greedy manipulators like Fat Al Gore who has made his billion from the global warming scare.
> >
> > 99.999999% of those who make this foolish statement cannot name the statistical study their claim is based on, and of the few who can name Margaret Zimmerman as the author of the study, 99 out of every 100 have never read it, or they would know it is as crooked as the rest of the statistics behind Michael Mann's hockey stick, on which the whole global warming church wobbles like an upside down pyramid of jelly.
> >
> > ***
> >
> > This is it, the founding scroll of the "97% consensus":
> >
> > MSc thesis, University of Illinois, 2008:
> > M Zimmerman, The consensus of the consensus
> > http://www.lulu.com/shop/m-r-k-zimmerman/the-consensus-on-the-consensus/ebook/product-17391505.html
> >
> > Zimmerman's "survey" was a two-question, online questionnaire sent to 10,257 earth scientists, of whom 3,146 responded.
> >
> > Of the 3146 scientists, 96.2 per cent came from North America. 6.2 per cent came from Canada.
> >
> > So the United States is overrepresented even within that North American sample.
> >
> > 9% of US respondents came from California.
> >
> > California is overrepresented within the US sample.
> >
> > In addition California has over twice as large a share of the sample as Europe, Asia, Australia, the Pacific, Latin America and Africa combined.
> >
> > Of the 10% non-US respondents, Canada has 62 per cent.
> >
> > What sort of a distorted sample is this?
> >
> > ***
> >
> > Before you conclude that North American scientists, even when carefully preselected for assumed complaisance, are uniquely and particularly stupid, let's examine the questions Zimmerman asked them.
> >
> > Zimmerman carefully crafted two questions to which most earth scientists would answer "yes", including most prominent climate change skeptics.
> >
> > It's a fit-up job. See for yourself:
> >
> > Zimmerman's first question was, "When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?"
> >
> > As a disgusted reader of her thesis said, rating it one star out of five, said "Q1 is worthless for distinguishing climate alarmists from climate skeptics. 'Pre-1800s' was the middle of the Little Ice Age, and it is obviously warmer now than it was then. But nearly all of the human contribution to atmospheric GHG levels has occurred since the 1940s, so this question has nothing to do with anthropogenic climate change. Even most prominent climate change skeptics would answer 'risen' to this question."
> >
> > Oops. Let's see whether Zimmerman's other question holds any more water: "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"
> >
> > Oh dear. Another, loaded question of the "Have you stopped beating your wife yet" school of statistics. The same disgusted reader of Zimmerman's theses tells us why this question is misleading: "Q2 is just as bad. Since aerosols from smoke clearly cause cooling (a fact which was one of the main causes for the 1970s ice age scare), few people would doubt that human activity can change temperatures, so even most of those who doubt that anthropogenic CO2 and CH4 cause worrisome global warming would have to answer 'yes' to Q2."
> >
> > The reader concludes, as anyone with experience of tendentious statistics would, as I do too: "Zimmerman could have asked [for] a meaningful answer about anthropogenic climate change, but chose not to do so."
> >
> > ***
> >
> > To add insult to injury, she then selected 79 (that's right, seventy-nine) of her sample and declared them "experts", though later she excluded two more. In the event only 75 out of 77 made it through to the final round.
> >
> > 97.4 per cent of 75 "experts" in an extremely biased "sample" were found to agree with "the consensus" because they were asked loaded questions.
> >
> > The 75 respondents -- count 'em, seventy-five --carefully pre-selected for compliance with questions loaded just to make sure, still revolted. Two respondents didn't give the expected answer!
> >
> > This is a very Michael Mann "reconstruction": just as a couple of Californian bristlecones can determine the climate for a millennium, so a half-dozen Californian scientists can determine the consensus of the world.
> >
> > Amazing what you can do with statistics!
> >
> > ***
> >
> > There's more to this revolt that isn't normally reported by the global warmies, probably because they get their facts from Apocalypse TV rather than by reading scientific papers.
> >
> > Zimmerman invited comments from these selected and presumably disciplined respondents.
> >
> > Mann's hockey stick attracted three comments - one blandly positive, the other two damning:
> >
> > 1. "I will note that Mann's "hockey stick curve" has been demonstrated to be incorrect."
> >
> > 2. "The "hockey stick" graph that the IPCC so touted has, it is my understanding, been debunked as junk science. While they've never admitted this to be so, it's my understanding that the graph has disappeared from IPCC publications."
> >
> > So, 67 per cent consensus from The consensus on the consensus that Mann's stick is "incorrect" "junk"?
> >
> > But without the hockey schtick there is no global warming!
> >
> > ***
> >
> > Even more that will not make the global warmie faithful happy, and is thus never mentioned:
> >
> > Zimmerman, despite "shaping" the questions and the statistics to toe the global warmie party line (presumably because otherwise she would not have got her masters), was herself not convinced of global warming by such carefully shoddy numbers. In her own words:
> >
> > "This entire process has been an exercise in re-educating myself about the climate debate and, in the process, I can honestly say that I have heard very convincing arguments from all the different sides, and I think I'm actually more neutral on the issue now than I was before I started this project. There is so much gray area when you begin to mix science and politics, environmental issues and social issues, calculated rational thinking with emotions, etc." -- M Zimmerman.
> >
> > Of course Zimmerman's conclusion and opinion from her study (it's in the appendix to her thesis) is never quoted by the global warmies.
> >
> > All of the smoke of "consensus" was blown by others; Zimmerman, the author of the study they quoted (and didn't read!) knew better.
> >
> > ***
> >
> > There is an amusing analysis of this material in Mark Steyn's "A Disgrace to the Profession", a highly recommended bestseller which quotes scientists all round the world being scathingly dismissive of global warming, the hockey stick and Michael Mann, and which proves conclusively that there isn't now and never was any consensus about manmade global warming.
> >
> > No consensus, period.
> >
> > ***
> >
> > The so-called consensus, of course, is merely more poor quality statistical smoke blown by the global warmies. It is designed to avoid the question of whether scientific consensus shouldn't be called by its proper name: pressure group politics, in this case by scientists who want the rich pickings of grants and the glow of a "moral" justification to indulge their urge for bullying everyone else. The so-called consensus is scientism at its most brutal and offensive, and totally unacceptable.
> >
> > Scientism is the doctrine that scientists are superior beings who shouldn't be questioned by mere mortals. In the case of global warming, the global warmie spear carriers reinforce this objectionable doctrine (and obvious lie) with the additional lie of the "consensus of scientists".
> >
> > The very concept of consensus is unscientific and anti-scientific. Science doesn't take a vote, it iterates experiments. Consensus belongs to politics, not science. It takes just one scientist to be right.
> >
> > The global warmies either lie, or are gullibly taken in by the lies of their high priests. Either way, they have no right to speak of "science", or even of "consensus".
> >
> > One of the warmies' most fundamental claims, that "97% of scientists agree that global warming is dangerous and manmade" is a perfect example of the poor quality of their lies.
> >
> > The socalled "consensus" is just another gross lie by the global warmies.
> >
> > Quad erat demonstrandum.
> >
> > Copyright (c) 2009, 2015, 2021 Andre Jute
> >
> Communist theory once tried to blame poverty and suffering
> on free markets (which they pejoratively labeled
> 'capitalism', ignoring actual facts).
>
> Once the bright-line difference became obvious to all (as
> has been noted, "Communism can only achieve equality of
> poverty") the Party Line changed to blame free markets for
> despoiling the planet which completely disregards the
> abysmal track record of all communist regimes (and our
> relentless improvement).
>
>
> And yet here we are, the Big Lie has triumphed once more. We
> are so doomed.
> Stay tuned because, as Capt Bryan Suits often notes, "You
> can vote your way into communism but you have to shoot your
> way out."
>
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>
But such blatant lies, parroted by American Presidents! Where are their fact-checkers? --- AJ

On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 14:09:14 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 12/13/2021 12:11 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
>> ORIGIN OF THE 97% LIE OF GLOBAL WARMING
>> Andre Jute explains where this misrepresentation originated
>>
>> That "the science is settled, and 97% of scientists believe in manmade global warming" is an article of faith of the thicker global warmies and the more doctrinaire pols, and greedy manipulators like Fat Al Gore who has made his billion from the global warming scare.
>>
>> 99.999999% of those who make this foolish statement cannot name the statistical study their claim is based on, and of the few who can name Margaret Zimmerman as the author of the study, 99 out of every 100 have never read it, or they would know it is as crooked as the rest of the statistics behind Michael Mann's hockey stick, on which the whole global warming church wobbles like an upside down pyramid of jelly.
>>
>> ***
>>
>> This is it, the founding scroll of the "97% consensus":
>>
>> MSc thesis, University of Illinois, 2008:
>> M Zimmerman, The consensus of the consensus
>> http://www.lulu.com/shop/m-r-k-zimmerman/the-consensus-on-the-consensus/ebook/product-17391505.html
>>
>> Zimmerman's "survey" was a two-question, online questionnaire sent to 10,257 earth scientists, of whom 3,146 responded.
>>
>> Of the 3146 scientists, 96.2 per cent came from North America. 6.2 per cent came from Canada.
>>
>> So the United States is overrepresented even within that North American sample.
>>
>> 9% of US respondents came from California.
>>
>> California is overrepresented within the US sample.
>>
>> In addition California has over twice as large a share of the sample as Europe, Asia, Australia, the Pacific, Latin America and Africa combined.
>>
>> Of the 10% non-US respondents, Canada has 62 per cent.
>>
>> What sort of a distorted sample is this?
>>
>> ***
>>
>> Before you conclude that North American scientists, even when carefully preselected for assumed complaisance, are uniquely and particularly stupid, let's examine the questions Zimmerman asked them.
>>
>> Zimmerman carefully crafted two questions to which most earth scientists would answer "yes", including most prominent climate change skeptics.
>>
>> It's a fit-up job. See for yourself:
>>
>> Zimmerman's first question was, "When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?"
>>
>> As a disgusted reader of her thesis said, rating it one star out of five, said "Q1 is worthless for distinguishing climate alarmists from climate skeptics. 'Pre-1800s' was the middle of the Little Ice Age, and it is obviously warmer now than it was then. But nearly all of the human contribution to atmospheric GHG levels has occurred since the 1940s, so this question has nothing to do with anthropogenic climate change. Even most prominent climate change skeptics would answer 'risen' to this question."
>>
>> Oops. Let's see whether Zimmerman's other question holds any more water: "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"
>>
>> Oh dear. Another, loaded question of the "Have you stopped beating your wife yet" school of statistics. The same disgusted reader of Zimmerman's theses tells us why this question is misleading: "Q2 is just as bad. Since aerosols from smoke clearly cause cooling (a fact which was one of the main causes for the 1970s ice age scare), few people would doubt that human activity can change temperatures, so even most of those who doubt that anthropogenic CO2 and CH4 cause worrisome global warming would have to answer 'yes' to Q2."
>>
>> The reader concludes, as anyone with experience of tendentious statistics would, as I do too: "Zimmerman could have asked [for] a meaningful answer about anthropogenic climate change, but chose not to do so."
>>
>> ***
>>
>> To add insult to injury, she then selected 79 (that's right, seventy-nine) of her sample and declared them "experts", though later she excluded two more. In the event only 75 out of 77 made it through to the final round.
>>
>> 97.4 per cent of 75 "experts" in an extremely biased "sample" were found to agree with "the consensus" because they were asked loaded questions.
>>
>> The 75 respondents -- count 'em, seventy-five --carefully pre-selected for compliance with questions loaded just to make sure, still revolted. Two respondents didn't give the expected answer!
>>
>> This is a very Michael Mann "reconstruction": just as a couple of Californian bristlecones can determine the climate for a millennium, so a half-dozen Californian scientists can determine the consensus of the world.
>>
>> Amazing what you can do with statistics!
>>
>> ***
>>
>> There's more to this revolt that isn't normally reported by the global warmies, probably because they get their facts from Apocalypse TV rather than by reading scientific papers.
>>
>> Zimmerman invited comments from these selected and presumably disciplined respondents.
>>
>> Mann's hockey stick attracted three comments - one blandly positive, the other two damning:
>>
>> 1. "I will note that Mann's "hockey stick curve" has been demonstrated to be incorrect."
>>
>> 2. "The "hockey stick" graph that the IPCC so touted has, it is my understanding, been debunked as junk science. While they've never admitted this to be so, it's my understanding that the graph has disappeared from IPCC publications."
>>
>> So, 67 per cent consensus from The consensus on the consensus that Mann's stick is "incorrect" "junk"?
>>
>> But without the hockey schtick there is no global warming!
>>
>> ***
>>
>> Even more that will not make the global warmie faithful happy, and is thus never mentioned:
>>
>> Zimmerman, despite "shaping" the questions and the statistics to toe the global warmie party line (presumably because otherwise she would not have got her masters), was herself not convinced of global warming by such carefully shoddy numbers. In her own words:
>>
>> "This entire process has been an exercise in re-educating myself about the climate debate and, in the process, I can honestly say that I have heard very convincing arguments from all the different sides, and I think I'm actually more neutral on the issue now than I was before I started this project. There is so much gray area when you begin to mix science and politics, environmental issues and social issues, calculated rational thinking with emotions, etc." -- M Zimmerman.
>>
>> Of course Zimmerman's conclusion and opinion from her study (it's in the appendix to her thesis) is never quoted by the global warmies.
>>
>> All of the smoke of "consensus" was blown by others; Zimmerman, the author of the study they quoted (and didn't read!) knew better.
>>
>> ***
>>
>> There is an amusing analysis of this material in Mark Steyn's "A Disgrace to the Profession", a highly recommended bestseller which quotes scientists all round the world being scathingly dismissive of global warming, the hockey stick and Michael Mann, and which proves conclusively that there isn't now and never was any consensus about manmade global warming.
>>
>> No consensus, period.
>>
>> ***
>>
>> The so-called consensus, of course, is merely more poor quality statistical smoke blown by the global warmies. It is designed to avoid the question of whether scientific consensus shouldn't be called by its proper name: pressure group politics, in this case by scientists who want the rich pickings of grants and the glow of a "moral" justification to indulge their urge for bullying everyone else. The so-called consensus is scientism at its most brutal and offensive, and totally unacceptable.
>>
>> Scientism is the doctrine that scientists are superior beings who shouldn't be questioned by mere mortals. In the case of global warming, the global warmie spear carriers reinforce this objectionable doctrine (and obvious lie) with the additional lie of the "consensus of scientists".
>>
>> The very concept of consensus is unscientific and anti-scientific. Science doesn't take a vote, it iterates experiments. Consensus belongs to politics, not science. It takes just one scientist to be right.
>>
>> The global warmies either lie, or are gullibly taken in by the lies of their high priests. Either way, they have no right to speak of "science", or even of "consensus".
>>
>> One of the warmies' most fundamental claims, that "97% of scientists agree that global warming is dangerous and manmade" is a perfect example of the poor quality of their lies.
>>
>> The socalled "consensus" is just another gross lie by the global warmies.
>>
>> Quad erat demonstrandum.
>>
>> Copyright (c) 2009, 2015, 2021 Andre Jute
>>
>
>Communist theory once tried to blame poverty and suffering
>on free markets (which they pejoratively labeled
>'capitalism', ignoring actual facts).
>
>Once the bright-line difference became obvious to all (as
>has been noted, "Communism can only achieve equality of
>poverty") the Party Line changed to blame free markets for
>despoiling the planet which completely disregards the
>abysmal track record of all communist regimes (and our
>relentless improvement).
>
>
>And yet here we are, the Big Lie has triumphed once more. We
>are so doomed.
>Stay tuned because, as Capt Bryan Suits often notes, "You
>can vote your way into communism but you have to shoot your
>way out."

On 12/13/2021 6:48 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 14:09:14 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> On 12/13/2021 12:11 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
>>> ORIGIN OF THE 97% LIE OF GLOBAL WARMING
>>> Andre Jute explains where this misrepresentation originated
>>>
>>> That "the science is settled, and 97% of scientists believe in manmade global warming" is an article of faith of the thicker global warmies and the more doctrinaire pols, and greedy manipulators like Fat Al Gore who has made his billion from the global warming scare.
>>>
>>> 99.999999% of those who make this foolish statement cannot name the statistical study their claim is based on, and of the few who can name Margaret Zimmerman as the author of the study, 99 out of every 100 have never read it, or they would know it is as crooked as the rest of the statistics behind Michael Mann's hockey stick, on which the whole global warming church wobbles like an upside down pyramid of jelly.
>>>
>>> ***
>>>
>>> This is it, the founding scroll of the "97% consensus":
>>>
>>> MSc thesis, University of Illinois, 2008:
>>> M Zimmerman, The consensus of the consensus
>>> http://www.lulu.com/shop/m-r-k-zimmerman/the-consensus-on-the-consensus/ebook/product-17391505.html
>>>
>>> Zimmerman's "survey" was a two-question, online questionnaire sent to 10,257 earth scientists, of whom 3,146 responded.
>>>
>>> Of the 3146 scientists, 96.2 per cent came from North America. 6.2 per cent came from Canada.
>>>
>>> So the United States is overrepresented even within that North American sample.
>>>
>>> 9% of US respondents came from California.
>>>
>>> California is overrepresented within the US sample.
>>>
>>> In addition California has over twice as large a share of the sample as Europe, Asia, Australia, the Pacific, Latin America and Africa combined.
>>>
>>> Of the 10% non-US respondents, Canada has 62 per cent.
>>>
>>> What sort of a distorted sample is this?
>>>
>>> ***
>>>
>>> Before you conclude that North American scientists, even when carefully preselected for assumed complaisance, are uniquely and particularly stupid, let's examine the questions Zimmerman asked them.
>>>
>>> Zimmerman carefully crafted two questions to which most earth scientists would answer "yes", including most prominent climate change skeptics.
>>>
>>> It's a fit-up job. See for yourself:
>>>
>>> Zimmerman's first question was, "When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?"
>>>
>>> As a disgusted reader of her thesis said, rating it one star out of five, said "Q1 is worthless for distinguishing climate alarmists from climate skeptics. 'Pre-1800s' was the middle of the Little Ice Age, and it is obviously warmer now than it was then. But nearly all of the human contribution to atmospheric GHG levels has occurred since the 1940s, so this question has nothing to do with anthropogenic climate change. Even most prominent climate change skeptics would answer 'risen' to this question."
>>>
>>> Oops. Let's see whether Zimmerman's other question holds any more water: "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"
>>>
>>> Oh dear. Another, loaded question of the "Have you stopped beating your wife yet" school of statistics. The same disgusted reader of Zimmerman's theses tells us why this question is misleading: "Q2 is just as bad. Since aerosols from smoke clearly cause cooling (a fact which was one of the main causes for the 1970s ice age scare), few people would doubt that human activity can change temperatures, so even most of those who doubt that anthropogenic CO2 and CH4 cause worrisome global warming would have to answer 'yes' to Q2."
>>>
>>> The reader concludes, as anyone with experience of tendentious statistics would, as I do too: "Zimmerman could have asked [for] a meaningful answer about anthropogenic climate change, but chose not to do so."
>>>
>>> ***
>>>
>>> To add insult to injury, she then selected 79 (that's right, seventy-nine) of her sample and declared them "experts", though later she excluded two more. In the event only 75 out of 77 made it through to the final round.
>>>
>>> 97.4 per cent of 75 "experts" in an extremely biased "sample" were found to agree with "the consensus" because they were asked loaded questions.
>>>
>>> The 75 respondents -- count 'em, seventy-five --carefully pre-selected for compliance with questions loaded just to make sure, still revolted. Two respondents didn't give the expected answer!
>>>
>>> This is a very Michael Mann "reconstruction": just as a couple of Californian bristlecones can determine the climate for a millennium, so a half-dozen Californian scientists can determine the consensus of the world.
>>>
>>> Amazing what you can do with statistics!
>>>
>>> ***
>>>
>>> There's more to this revolt that isn't normally reported by the global warmies, probably because they get their facts from Apocalypse TV rather than by reading scientific papers.
>>>
>>> Zimmerman invited comments from these selected and presumably disciplined respondents.
>>>
>>> Mann's hockey stick attracted three comments - one blandly positive, the other two damning:
>>>
>>> 1. "I will note that Mann's "hockey stick curve" has been demonstrated to be incorrect."
>>>
>>> 2. "The "hockey stick" graph that the IPCC so touted has, it is my understanding, been debunked as junk science. While they've never admitted this to be so, it's my understanding that the graph has disappeared from IPCC publications."
>>>
>>> So, 67 per cent consensus from The consensus on the consensus that Mann's stick is "incorrect" "junk"?
>>>
>>> But without the hockey schtick there is no global warming!
>>>
>>> ***
>>>
>>> Even more that will not make the global warmie faithful happy, and is thus never mentioned:
>>>
>>> Zimmerman, despite "shaping" the questions and the statistics to toe the global warmie party line (presumably because otherwise she would not have got her masters), was herself not convinced of global warming by such carefully shoddy numbers. In her own words:
>>>
>>> "This entire process has been an exercise in re-educating myself about the climate debate and, in the process, I can honestly say that I have heard very convincing arguments from all the different sides, and I think I'm actually more neutral on the issue now than I was before I started this project. There is so much gray area when you begin to mix science and politics, environmental issues and social issues, calculated rational thinking with emotions, etc." -- M Zimmerman.
>>>
>>> Of course Zimmerman's conclusion and opinion from her study (it's in the appendix to her thesis) is never quoted by the global warmies.
>>>
>>> All of the smoke of "consensus" was blown by others; Zimmerman, the author of the study they quoted (and didn't read!) knew better.
>>>
>>> ***
>>>
>>> There is an amusing analysis of this material in Mark Steyn's "A Disgrace to the Profession", a highly recommended bestseller which quotes scientists all round the world being scathingly dismissive of global warming, the hockey stick and Michael Mann, and which proves conclusively that there isn't now and never was any consensus about manmade global warming.
>>>
>>> No consensus, period.
>>>
>>> ***
>>>
>>> The so-called consensus, of course, is merely more poor quality statistical smoke blown by the global warmies. It is designed to avoid the question of whether scientific consensus shouldn't be called by its proper name: pressure group politics, in this case by scientists who want the rich pickings of grants and the glow of a "moral" justification to indulge their urge for bullying everyone else. The so-called consensus is scientism at its most brutal and offensive, and totally unacceptable.
>>>
>>> Scientism is the doctrine that scientists are superior beings who shouldn't be questioned by mere mortals. In the case of global warming, the global warmie spear carriers reinforce this objectionable doctrine (and obvious lie) with the additional lie of the "consensus of scientists".
>>>
>>> The very concept of consensus is unscientific and anti-scientific. Science doesn't take a vote, it iterates experiments. Consensus belongs to politics, not science. It takes just one scientist to be right.
>>>
>>> The global warmies either lie, or are gullibly taken in by the lies of their high priests. Either way, they have no right to speak of "science", or even of "consensus".
>>>
>>> One of the warmies' most fundamental claims, that "97% of scientists agree that global warming is dangerous and manmade" is a perfect example of the poor quality of their lies.
>>>
>>> The socalled "consensus" is just another gross lie by the global warmies.
>>>
>>> Quad erat demonstrandum.
>>>
>>> Copyright (c) 2009, 2015, 2021 Andre Jute
>>>
>>
>> Communist theory once tried to blame poverty and suffering
>> on free markets (which they pejoratively labeled
>> 'capitalism', ignoring actual facts).
>>
>> Once the bright-line difference became obvious to all (as
>> has been noted, "Communism can only achieve equality of
>> poverty") the Party Line changed to blame free markets for
>> despoiling the planet which completely disregards the
>> abysmal track record of all communist regimes (and our
>> relentless improvement).
>>
>>
>> And yet here we are, the Big Lie has triumphed once more. We
>> are so doomed.
>> Stay tuned because, as Capt Bryan Suits often notes, "You
>> can vote your way into communism but you have to shoot your
>> way out."
>
> Well Old Bryan is wrong, at least in the case of Russia who shot their
> way into communism and didn't shoot them selves out.
>

On 12/13/2021 7:48 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 14:09:14 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> On 12/13/2021 12:11 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
>>> ORIGIN OF THE 97% LIE OF GLOBAL WARMING
>>> Andre Jute explains where this misrepresentation originated
>>>
>>> That "the science is settled, and 97% of scientists believe in manmade global warming" is an article of faith of the thicker global warmies and the more doctrinaire pols, and greedy manipulators like Fat Al Gore who has made his billion from the global warming scare.
>>>
>>> 99.999999% of those who make this foolish statement cannot name the statistical study their claim is based on, and of the few who can name Margaret Zimmerman as the author of the study, 99 out of every 100 have never read it, or they would know it is as crooked as the rest of the statistics behind Michael Mann's hockey stick, on which the whole global warming church wobbles like an upside down pyramid of jelly.
>>>
>>> ***
>>>
>>> This is it, the founding scroll of the "97% consensus":
>>>
>>> MSc thesis, University of Illinois, 2008:
>>> M Zimmerman, The consensus of the consensus
>>> http://www.lulu.com/shop/m-r-k-zimmerman/the-consensus-on-the-consensus/ebook/product-17391505.html
>>>
>>> Zimmerman's "survey" was a two-question, online questionnaire sent to 10,257 earth scientists, of whom 3,146 responded.
>>>
>>> Of the 3146 scientists, 96.2 per cent came from North America. 6.2 per cent came from Canada.
>>>
>>> So the United States is overrepresented even within that North American sample.
>>>
>>> 9% of US respondents came from California.
>>>
>>> California is overrepresented within the US sample.
>>>
>>> In addition California has over twice as large a share of the sample as Europe, Asia, Australia, the Pacific, Latin America and Africa combined.
>>>
>>> Of the 10% non-US respondents, Canada has 62 per cent.
>>>
>>> What sort of a distorted sample is this?
>>>
>>> ***
>>>
>>> Before you conclude that North American scientists, even when carefully preselected for assumed complaisance, are uniquely and particularly stupid, let's examine the questions Zimmerman asked them.
>>>
>>> Zimmerman carefully crafted two questions to which most earth scientists would answer "yes", including most prominent climate change skeptics.
>>>
>>> It's a fit-up job. See for yourself:
>>>
>>> Zimmerman's first question was, "When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?"
>>>
>>> As a disgusted reader of her thesis said, rating it one star out of five, said "Q1 is worthless for distinguishing climate alarmists from climate skeptics. 'Pre-1800s' was the middle of the Little Ice Age, and it is obviously warmer now than it was then. But nearly all of the human contribution to atmospheric GHG levels has occurred since the 1940s, so this question has nothing to do with anthropogenic climate change. Even most prominent climate change skeptics would answer 'risen' to this question."
>>>
>>> Oops. Let's see whether Zimmerman's other question holds any more water: "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"
>>>
>>> Oh dear. Another, loaded question of the "Have you stopped beating your wife yet" school of statistics. The same disgusted reader of Zimmerman's theses tells us why this question is misleading: "Q2 is just as bad. Since aerosols from smoke clearly cause cooling (a fact which was one of the main causes for the 1970s ice age scare), few people would doubt that human activity can change temperatures, so even most of those who doubt that anthropogenic CO2 and CH4 cause worrisome global warming would have to answer 'yes' to Q2."
>>>
>>> The reader concludes, as anyone with experience of tendentious statistics would, as I do too: "Zimmerman could have asked [for] a meaningful answer about anthropogenic climate change, but chose not to do so."
>>>
>>> ***
>>>
>>> To add insult to injury, she then selected 79 (that's right, seventy-nine) of her sample and declared them "experts", though later she excluded two more. In the event only 75 out of 77 made it through to the final round.
>>>
>>> 97.4 per cent of 75 "experts" in an extremely biased "sample" were found to agree with "the consensus" because they were asked loaded questions.
>>>
>>> The 75 respondents -- count 'em, seventy-five --carefully pre-selected for compliance with questions loaded just to make sure, still revolted. Two respondents didn't give the expected answer!
>>>
>>> This is a very Michael Mann "reconstruction": just as a couple of Californian bristlecones can determine the climate for a millennium, so a half-dozen Californian scientists can determine the consensus of the world.
>>>
>>> Amazing what you can do with statistics!
>>>
>>> ***
>>>
>>> There's more to this revolt that isn't normally reported by the global warmies, probably because they get their facts from Apocalypse TV rather than by reading scientific papers.
>>>
>>> Zimmerman invited comments from these selected and presumably disciplined respondents.
>>>
>>> Mann's hockey stick attracted three comments - one blandly positive, the other two damning:
>>>
>>> 1. "I will note that Mann's "hockey stick curve" has been demonstrated to be incorrect."
>>>
>>> 2. "The "hockey stick" graph that the IPCC so touted has, it is my understanding, been debunked as junk science. While they've never admitted this to be so, it's my understanding that the graph has disappeared from IPCC publications."
>>>
>>> So, 67 per cent consensus from The consensus on the consensus that Mann's stick is "incorrect" "junk"?
>>>
>>> But without the hockey schtick there is no global warming!
>>>
>>> ***
>>>
>>> Even more that will not make the global warmie faithful happy, and is thus never mentioned:
>>>
>>> Zimmerman, despite "shaping" the questions and the statistics to toe the global warmie party line (presumably because otherwise she would not have got her masters), was herself not convinced of global warming by such carefully shoddy numbers. In her own words:
>>>
>>> "This entire process has been an exercise in re-educating myself about the climate debate and, in the process, I can honestly say that I have heard very convincing arguments from all the different sides, and I think I'm actually more neutral on the issue now than I was before I started this project. There is so much gray area when you begin to mix science and politics, environmental issues and social issues, calculated rational thinking with emotions, etc." -- M Zimmerman.
>>>
>>> Of course Zimmerman's conclusion and opinion from her study (it's in the appendix to her thesis) is never quoted by the global warmies.
>>>
>>> All of the smoke of "consensus" was blown by others; Zimmerman, the author of the study they quoted (and didn't read!) knew better.
>>>
>>> ***
>>>
>>> There is an amusing analysis of this material in Mark Steyn's "A Disgrace to the Profession", a highly recommended bestseller which quotes scientists all round the world being scathingly dismissive of global warming, the hockey stick and Michael Mann, and which proves conclusively that there isn't now and never was any consensus about manmade global warming.
>>>
>>> No consensus, period.
>>>
>>> ***
>>>
>>> The so-called consensus, of course, is merely more poor quality statistical smoke blown by the global warmies. It is designed to avoid the question of whether scientific consensus shouldn't be called by its proper name: pressure group politics, in this case by scientists who want the rich pickings of grants and the glow of a "moral" justification to indulge their urge for bullying everyone else. The so-called consensus is scientism at its most brutal and offensive, and totally unacceptable.
>>>
>>> Scientism is the doctrine that scientists are superior beings who shouldn't be questioned by mere mortals. In the case of global warming, the global warmie spear carriers reinforce this objectionable doctrine (and obvious lie) with the additional lie of the "consensus of scientists".
>>>
>>> The very concept of consensus is unscientific and anti-scientific. Science doesn't take a vote, it iterates experiments. Consensus belongs to politics, not science. It takes just one scientist to be right.
>>>
>>> The global warmies either lie, or are gullibly taken in by the lies of their high priests. Either way, they have no right to speak of "science", or even of "consensus".
>>>
>>> One of the warmies' most fundamental claims, that "97% of scientists agree that global warming is dangerous and manmade" is a perfect example of the poor quality of their lies.
>>>
>>> The socalled "consensus" is just another gross lie by the global warmies.
>>>
>>> Quad erat demonstrandum.
>>>
>>> Copyright (c) 2009, 2015, 2021 Andre Jute
>>>
>>
>> Communist theory once tried to blame poverty and suffering
>> on free markets (which they pejoratively labeled
>> 'capitalism', ignoring actual facts).
>>
>> Once the bright-line difference became obvious to all (as
>> has been noted, "Communism can only achieve equality of
>> poverty") the Party Line changed to blame free markets for
>> despoiling the planet which completely disregards the
>> abysmal track record of all communist regimes (and our
>> relentless improvement).
>>
>>
>> And yet here we are, the Big Lie has triumphed once more. We
>> are so doomed.
>> Stay tuned because, as Capt Bryan Suits often notes, "You
>> can vote your way into communism but you have to shoot your
>> way out."
>
> Well Old Bryan is wrong, at least in the case of Russia who shot their
> way into communism and didn't shoot them selves out.

On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 3:34:07 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
> On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 8:09:19 PM UTC, AMuzi wrote:
> > On 12/13/2021 12:11 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
> > > ORIGIN OF THE 97% LIE OF GLOBAL WARMING
> > > Andre Jute explains where this misrepresentation originated
> > >
> > > That "the science is settled, and 97% of scientists believe in manmade global warming" is an article of faith of the thicker global warmies and the more doctrinaire pols, and greedy manipulators like Fat Al Gore who has made his billion from the global warming scare.
> > >
> > > 99.999999% of those who make this foolish statement cannot name the statistical study their claim is based on, and of the few who can name Margaret Zimmerman as the author of the study, 99 out of every 100 have never read it, or they would know it is as crooked as the rest of the statistics behind Michael Mann's hockey stick, on which the whole global warming church wobbles like an upside down pyramid of jelly.
> > >
> > > ***
> > >
> > > This is it, the founding scroll of the "97% consensus":
> > >
> > > MSc thesis, University of Illinois, 2008:
> > > M Zimmerman, The consensus of the consensus
> > > http://www.lulu.com/shop/m-r-k-zimmerman/the-consensus-on-the-consensus/ebook/product-17391505.html
> > >
> > > Zimmerman's "survey" was a two-question, online questionnaire sent to 10,257 earth scientists, of whom 3,146 responded.
> > >
> > > Of the 3146 scientists, 96.2 per cent came from North America. 6.2 per cent came from Canada.
> > >
> > > So the United States is overrepresented even within that North American sample.
> > >
> > > 9% of US respondents came from California.
> > >
> > > California is overrepresented within the US sample.
> > >
> > > In addition California has over twice as large a share of the sample as Europe, Asia, Australia, the Pacific, Latin America and Africa combined.
> > >
> > > Of the 10% non-US respondents, Canada has 62 per cent.
> > >
> > > What sort of a distorted sample is this?
> > >
> > > ***
> > >
> > > Before you conclude that North American scientists, even when carefully preselected for assumed complaisance, are uniquely and particularly stupid, let's examine the questions Zimmerman asked them.
> > >
> > > Zimmerman carefully crafted two questions to which most earth scientists would answer "yes", including most prominent climate change skeptics.
> > >
> > > It's a fit-up job. See for yourself:
> > >
> > > Zimmerman's first question was, "When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?"
> > >
> > > As a disgusted reader of her thesis said, rating it one star out of five, said "Q1 is worthless for distinguishing climate alarmists from climate skeptics. 'Pre-1800s' was the middle of the Little Ice Age, and it is obviously warmer now than it was then. But nearly all of the human contribution to atmospheric GHG levels has occurred since the 1940s, so this question has nothing to do with anthropogenic climate change. Even most prominent climate change skeptics would answer 'risen' to this question."
> > >
> > > Oops. Let's see whether Zimmerman's other question holds any more water: "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"
> > >
> > > Oh dear. Another, loaded question of the "Have you stopped beating your wife yet" school of statistics. The same disgusted reader of Zimmerman's theses tells us why this question is misleading: "Q2 is just as bad. Since aerosols from smoke clearly cause cooling (a fact which was one of the main causes for the 1970s ice age scare), few people would doubt that human activity can change temperatures, so even most of those who doubt that anthropogenic CO2 and CH4 cause worrisome global warming would have to answer 'yes' to Q2."
> > >
> > > The reader concludes, as anyone with experience of tendentious statistics would, as I do too: "Zimmerman could have asked [for] a meaningful answer about anthropogenic climate change, but chose not to do so."
> > >
> > > ***
> > >
> > > To add insult to injury, she then selected 79 (that's right, seventy-nine) of her sample and declared them "experts", though later she excluded two more. In the event only 75 out of 77 made it through to the final round..
> > >
> > > 97.4 per cent of 75 "experts" in an extremely biased "sample" were found to agree with "the consensus" because they were asked loaded questions.
> > >
> > > The 75 respondents -- count 'em, seventy-five --carefully pre-selected for compliance with questions loaded just to make sure, still revolted. Two respondents didn't give the expected answer!
> > >
> > > This is a very Michael Mann "reconstruction": just as a couple of Californian bristlecones can determine the climate for a millennium, so a half-dozen Californian scientists can determine the consensus of the world.
> > >
> > > Amazing what you can do with statistics!
> > >
> > > ***
> > >
> > > There's more to this revolt that isn't normally reported by the global warmies, probably because they get their facts from Apocalypse TV rather than by reading scientific papers.
> > >
> > > Zimmerman invited comments from these selected and presumably disciplined respondents.
> > >
> > > Mann's hockey stick attracted three comments - one blandly positive, the other two damning:
> > >
> > > 1. "I will note that Mann's "hockey stick curve" has been demonstrated to be incorrect."
> > >
> > > 2. "The "hockey stick" graph that the IPCC so touted has, it is my understanding, been debunked as junk science. While they've never admitted this to be so, it's my understanding that the graph has disappeared from IPCC publications."
> > >
> > > So, 67 per cent consensus from The consensus on the consensus that Mann's stick is "incorrect" "junk"?
> > >
> > > But without the hockey schtick there is no global warming!
> > >
> > > ***
> > >
> > > Even more that will not make the global warmie faithful happy, and is thus never mentioned:
> > >
> > > Zimmerman, despite "shaping" the questions and the statistics to toe the global warmie party line (presumably because otherwise she would not have got her masters), was herself not convinced of global warming by such carefully shoddy numbers. In her own words:
> > >
> > > "This entire process has been an exercise in re-educating myself about the climate debate and, in the process, I can honestly say that I have heard very convincing arguments from all the different sides, and I think I'm actually more neutral on the issue now than I was before I started this project. There is so much gray area when you begin to mix science and politics, environmental issues and social issues, calculated rational thinking with emotions, etc." -- M Zimmerman.
> > >
> > > Of course Zimmerman's conclusion and opinion from her study (it's in the appendix to her thesis) is never quoted by the global warmies.
> > >
> > > All of the smoke of "consensus" was blown by others; Zimmerman, the author of the study they quoted (and didn't read!) knew better.
> > >
> > > ***
> > >
> > > There is an amusing analysis of this material in Mark Steyn's "A Disgrace to the Profession", a highly recommended bestseller which quotes scientists all round the world being scathingly dismissive of global warming, the hockey stick and Michael Mann, and which proves conclusively that there isn't now and never was any consensus about manmade global warming.
> > >
> > > No consensus, period.
> > >
> > > ***
> > >
> > > The so-called consensus, of course, is merely more poor quality statistical smoke blown by the global warmies. It is designed to avoid the question of whether scientific consensus shouldn't be called by its proper name: pressure group politics, in this case by scientists who want the rich pickings of grants and the glow of a "moral" justification to indulge their urge for bullying everyone else. The so-called consensus is scientism at its most brutal and offensive, and totally unacceptable.
> > >
> > > Scientism is the doctrine that scientists are superior beings who shouldn't be questioned by mere mortals. In the case of global warming, the global warmie spear carriers reinforce this objectionable doctrine (and obvious lie) with the additional lie of the "consensus of scientists".
> > >
> > > The very concept of consensus is unscientific and anti-scientific. Science doesn't take a vote, it iterates experiments. Consensus belongs to politics, not science. It takes just one scientist to be right.
> > >
> > > The global warmies either lie, or are gullibly taken in by the lies of their high priests. Either way, they have no right to speak of "science", or even of "consensus".
> > >
> > > One of the warmies' most fundamental claims, that "97% of scientists agree that global warming is dangerous and manmade" is a perfect example of the poor quality of their lies.
> > >
> > > The socalled "consensus" is just another gross lie by the global warmies.
> > >
> > > Quad erat demonstrandum.
> > >
> > > Copyright (c) 2009, 2015, 2021 Andre Jute
> > >
> > Communist theory once tried to blame poverty and suffering
> > on free markets (which they pejoratively labeled
> > 'capitalism', ignoring actual facts).
> >
> > Once the bright-line difference became obvious to all (as
> > has been noted, "Communism can only achieve equality of
> > poverty") the Party Line changed to blame free markets for
> > despoiling the planet which completely disregards the
> > abysmal track record of all communist regimes (and our
> > relentless improvement).
> >
> >
> > And yet here we are, the Big Lie has triumphed once more. We
> > are so doomed.
> > Stay tuned because, as Capt Bryan Suits often notes, "You
> > can vote your way into communism but you have to shoot your
> > way out."
> >
> > --
> > Andrew Muzi
> > <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> > Open every day since 1 April, 1971
> >
> But such blatant lies, parroted by American Presidents! Where are their fact-checkers? --- AJ

On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 5:11:13 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> On 12/13/2021 6:48 PM, John B. wrote:
> > On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 14:09:14 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On 12/13/2021 12:11 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
> >>> ORIGIN OF THE 97% LIE OF GLOBAL WARMING
> >>> Andre Jute explains where this misrepresentation originated
> >>>
> >>> That "the science is settled, and 97% of scientists believe in manmade global warming" is an article of faith of the thicker global warmies and the more doctrinaire pols, and greedy manipulators like Fat Al Gore who has made his billion from the global warming scare.
> >>>
> >>> 99.999999% of those who make this foolish statement cannot name the statistical study their claim is based on, and of the few who can name Margaret Zimmerman as the author of the study, 99 out of every 100 have never read it, or they would know it is as crooked as the rest of the statistics behind Michael Mann's hockey stick, on which the whole global warming church wobbles like an upside down pyramid of jelly.
> >>>
> >>> ***
> >>>
> >>> This is it, the founding scroll of the "97% consensus":
> >>>
> >>> MSc thesis, University of Illinois, 2008:
> >>> M Zimmerman, The consensus of the consensus
> >>> http://www.lulu.com/shop/m-r-k-zimmerman/the-consensus-on-the-consensus/ebook/product-17391505.html
> >>>
> >>> Zimmerman's "survey" was a two-question, online questionnaire sent to 10,257 earth scientists, of whom 3,146 responded.
> >>>
> >>> Of the 3146 scientists, 96.2 per cent came from North America. 6.2 per cent came from Canada.
> >>>
> >>> So the United States is overrepresented even within that North American sample.
> >>>
> >>> 9% of US respondents came from California.
> >>>
> >>> California is overrepresented within the US sample.
> >>>
> >>> In addition California has over twice as large a share of the sample as Europe, Asia, Australia, the Pacific, Latin America and Africa combined.
> >>>
> >>> Of the 10% non-US respondents, Canada has 62 per cent.
> >>>
> >>> What sort of a distorted sample is this?
> >>>
> >>> ***
> >>>
> >>> Before you conclude that North American scientists, even when carefully preselected for assumed complaisance, are uniquely and particularly stupid, let's examine the questions Zimmerman asked them.
> >>>
> >>> Zimmerman carefully crafted two questions to which most earth scientists would answer "yes", including most prominent climate change skeptics.
> >>>
> >>> It's a fit-up job. See for yourself:
> >>>
> >>> Zimmerman's first question was, "When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?"
> >>>
> >>> As a disgusted reader of her thesis said, rating it one star out of five, said "Q1 is worthless for distinguishing climate alarmists from climate skeptics. 'Pre-1800s' was the middle of the Little Ice Age, and it is obviously warmer now than it was then. But nearly all of the human contribution to atmospheric GHG levels has occurred since the 1940s, so this question has nothing to do with anthropogenic climate change. Even most prominent climate change skeptics would answer 'risen' to this question."
> >>>
> >>> Oops. Let's see whether Zimmerman's other question holds any more water: "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"
> >>>
> >>> Oh dear. Another, loaded question of the "Have you stopped beating your wife yet" school of statistics. The same disgusted reader of Zimmerman's theses tells us why this question is misleading: "Q2 is just as bad. Since aerosols from smoke clearly cause cooling (a fact which was one of the main causes for the 1970s ice age scare), few people would doubt that human activity can change temperatures, so even most of those who doubt that anthropogenic CO2 and CH4 cause worrisome global warming would have to answer 'yes' to Q2."
> >>>
> >>> The reader concludes, as anyone with experience of tendentious statistics would, as I do too: "Zimmerman could have asked [for] a meaningful answer about anthropogenic climate change, but chose not to do so."
> >>>
> >>> ***
> >>>
> >>> To add insult to injury, she then selected 79 (that's right, seventy-nine) of her sample and declared them "experts", though later she excluded two more. In the event only 75 out of 77 made it through to the final round..
> >>>
> >>> 97.4 per cent of 75 "experts" in an extremely biased "sample" were found to agree with "the consensus" because they were asked loaded questions.
> >>>
> >>> The 75 respondents -- count 'em, seventy-five --carefully pre-selected for compliance with questions loaded just to make sure, still revolted. Two respondents didn't give the expected answer!
> >>>
> >>> This is a very Michael Mann "reconstruction": just as a couple of Californian bristlecones can determine the climate for a millennium, so a half-dozen Californian scientists can determine the consensus of the world.
> >>>
> >>> Amazing what you can do with statistics!
> >>>
> >>> ***
> >>>
> >>> There's more to this revolt that isn't normally reported by the global warmies, probably because they get their facts from Apocalypse TV rather than by reading scientific papers.
> >>>
> >>> Zimmerman invited comments from these selected and presumably disciplined respondents.
> >>>
> >>> Mann's hockey stick attracted three comments - one blandly positive, the other two damning:
> >>>
> >>> 1. "I will note that Mann's "hockey stick curve" has been demonstrated to be incorrect."
> >>>
> >>> 2. "The "hockey stick" graph that the IPCC so touted has, it is my understanding, been debunked as junk science. While they've never admitted this to be so, it's my understanding that the graph has disappeared from IPCC publications."
> >>>
> >>> So, 67 per cent consensus from The consensus on the consensus that Mann's stick is "incorrect" "junk"?
> >>>
> >>> But without the hockey schtick there is no global warming!
> >>>
> >>> ***
> >>>
> >>> Even more that will not make the global warmie faithful happy, and is thus never mentioned:
> >>>
> >>> Zimmerman, despite "shaping" the questions and the statistics to toe the global warmie party line (presumably because otherwise she would not have got her masters), was herself not convinced of global warming by such carefully shoddy numbers. In her own words:
> >>>
> >>> "This entire process has been an exercise in re-educating myself about the climate debate and, in the process, I can honestly say that I have heard very convincing arguments from all the different sides, and I think I'm actually more neutral on the issue now than I was before I started this project. There is so much gray area when you begin to mix science and politics, environmental issues and social issues, calculated rational thinking with emotions, etc." -- M Zimmerman.
> >>>
> >>> Of course Zimmerman's conclusion and opinion from her study (it's in the appendix to her thesis) is never quoted by the global warmies.
> >>>
> >>> All of the smoke of "consensus" was blown by others; Zimmerman, the author of the study they quoted (and didn't read!) knew better.
> >>>
> >>> ***
> >>>
> >>> There is an amusing analysis of this material in Mark Steyn's "A Disgrace to the Profession", a highly recommended bestseller which quotes scientists all round the world being scathingly dismissive of global warming, the hockey stick and Michael Mann, and which proves conclusively that there isn't now and never was any consensus about manmade global warming.
> >>>
> >>> No consensus, period.
> >>>
> >>> ***
> >>>
> >>> The so-called consensus, of course, is merely more poor quality statistical smoke blown by the global warmies. It is designed to avoid the question of whether scientific consensus shouldn't be called by its proper name: pressure group politics, in this case by scientists who want the rich pickings of grants and the glow of a "moral" justification to indulge their urge for bullying everyone else. The so-called consensus is scientism at its most brutal and offensive, and totally unacceptable.
> >>>
> >>> Scientism is the doctrine that scientists are superior beings who shouldn't be questioned by mere mortals. In the case of global warming, the global warmie spear carriers reinforce this objectionable doctrine (and obvious lie) with the additional lie of the "consensus of scientists".
> >>>
> >>> The very concept of consensus is unscientific and anti-scientific. Science doesn't take a vote, it iterates experiments. Consensus belongs to politics, not science. It takes just one scientist to be right.
> >>>
> >>> The global warmies either lie, or are gullibly taken in by the lies of their high priests. Either way, they have no right to speak of "science", or even of "consensus".
> >>>
> >>> One of the warmies' most fundamental claims, that "97% of scientists agree that global warming is dangerous and manmade" is a perfect example of the poor quality of their lies.
> >>>
> >>> The socalled "consensus" is just another gross lie by the global warmies.
> >>>
> >>> Quad erat demonstrandum.
> >>>
> >>> Copyright (c) 2009, 2015, 2021 Andre Jute
> >>>
> >>
> >> Communist theory once tried to blame poverty and suffering
> >> on free markets (which they pejoratively labeled
> >> 'capitalism', ignoring actual facts).
> >>
> >> Once the bright-line difference became obvious to all (as
> >> has been noted, "Communism can only achieve equality of
> >> poverty") the Party Line changed to blame free markets for
> >> despoiling the planet which completely disregards the
> >> abysmal track record of all communist regimes (and our
> >> relentless improvement).
> >>
> >>
> >> And yet here we are, the Big Lie has triumphed once more. We
> >> are so doomed.
> >> Stay tuned because, as Capt Bryan Suits often notes, "You
> >> can vote your way into communism but you have to shoot your
> >> way out."
> >
> > Well Old Bryan is wrong, at least in the case of Russia who shot their
> > way into communism and didn't shoot them selves out.
> >
> Out? Did I miss some big news this week?

On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 6:37:02 PM UTC, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 5:11:13 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> > On 12/13/2021 6:48 PM, John B. wrote:
> > > On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 14:09:14 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 12/13/2021 12:11 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
> > >>> ORIGIN OF THE 97% LIE OF GLOBAL WARMING
> > >>> Andre Jute explains where this misrepresentation originated
> > >>>
> > >>> That "the science is settled, and 97% of scientists believe in manmade global warming" is an article of faith of the thicker global warmies and the more doctrinaire pols, and greedy manipulators like Fat Al Gore who has made his billion from the global warming scare.
> > >>>
> > >>> 99.999999% of those who make this foolish statement cannot name the statistical study their claim is based on, and of the few who can name Margaret Zimmerman as the author of the study, 99 out of every 100 have never read it, or they would know it is as crooked as the rest of the statistics behind Michael Mann's hockey stick, on which the whole global warming church wobbles like an upside down pyramid of jelly.
> > >>>
> > >>> ***
> > >>>
> > >>> This is it, the founding scroll of the "97% consensus":
> > >>>
> > >>> MSc thesis, University of Illinois, 2008:
> > >>> M Zimmerman, The consensus of the consensus
> > >>> http://www.lulu.com/shop/m-r-k-zimmerman/the-consensus-on-the-consensus/ebook/product-17391505.html
> > >>>
> > >>> Zimmerman's "survey" was a two-question, online questionnaire sent to 10,257 earth scientists, of whom 3,146 responded.
> > >>>
> > >>> Of the 3146 scientists, 96.2 per cent came from North America. 6.2 per cent came from Canada.
> > >>>
> > >>> So the United States is overrepresented even within that North American sample.
> > >>>
> > >>> 9% of US respondents came from California.
> > >>>
> > >>> California is overrepresented within the US sample.
> > >>>
> > >>> In addition California has over twice as large a share of the sample as Europe, Asia, Australia, the Pacific, Latin America and Africa combined.
> > >>>
> > >>> Of the 10% non-US respondents, Canada has 62 per cent.
> > >>>
> > >>> What sort of a distorted sample is this?
> > >>>
> > >>> ***
> > >>>
> > >>> Before you conclude that North American scientists, even when carefully preselected for assumed complaisance, are uniquely and particularly stupid, let's examine the questions Zimmerman asked them.
> > >>>
> > >>> Zimmerman carefully crafted two questions to which most earth scientists would answer "yes", including most prominent climate change skeptics.
> > >>>
> > >>> It's a fit-up job. See for yourself:
> > >>>
> > >>> Zimmerman's first question was, "When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?"
> > >>>
> > >>> As a disgusted reader of her thesis said, rating it one star out of five, said "Q1 is worthless for distinguishing climate alarmists from climate skeptics. 'Pre-1800s' was the middle of the Little Ice Age, and it is obviously warmer now than it was then. But nearly all of the human contribution to atmospheric GHG levels has occurred since the 1940s, so this question has nothing to do with anthropogenic climate change. Even most prominent climate change skeptics would answer 'risen' to this question."
> > >>>
> > >>> Oops. Let's see whether Zimmerman's other question holds any more water: "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"
> > >>>
> > >>> Oh dear. Another, loaded question of the "Have you stopped beating your wife yet" school of statistics. The same disgusted reader of Zimmerman's theses tells us why this question is misleading: "Q2 is just as bad. Since aerosols from smoke clearly cause cooling (a fact which was one of the main causes for the 1970s ice age scare), few people would doubt that human activity can change temperatures, so even most of those who doubt that anthropogenic CO2 and CH4 cause worrisome global warming would have to answer 'yes' to Q2."
> > >>>
> > >>> The reader concludes, as anyone with experience of tendentious statistics would, as I do too: "Zimmerman could have asked [for] a meaningful answer about anthropogenic climate change, but chose not to do so."
> > >>>
> > >>> ***
> > >>>
> > >>> To add insult to injury, she then selected 79 (that's right, seventy-nine) of her sample and declared them "experts", though later she excluded two more. In the event only 75 out of 77 made it through to the final round.
> > >>>
> > >>> 97.4 per cent of 75 "experts" in an extremely biased "sample" were found to agree with "the consensus" because they were asked loaded questions.
> > >>>
> > >>> The 75 respondents -- count 'em, seventy-five --carefully pre-selected for compliance with questions loaded just to make sure, still revolted. Two respondents didn't give the expected answer!
> > >>>
> > >>> This is a very Michael Mann "reconstruction": just as a couple of Californian bristlecones can determine the climate for a millennium, so a half-dozen Californian scientists can determine the consensus of the world.
> > >>>
> > >>> Amazing what you can do with statistics!
> > >>>
> > >>> ***
> > >>>
> > >>> There's more to this revolt that isn't normally reported by the global warmies, probably because they get their facts from Apocalypse TV rather than by reading scientific papers.
> > >>>
> > >>> Zimmerman invited comments from these selected and presumably disciplined respondents.
> > >>>
> > >>> Mann's hockey stick attracted three comments - one blandly positive, the other two damning:
> > >>>
> > >>> 1. "I will note that Mann's "hockey stick curve" has been demonstrated to be incorrect."
> > >>>
> > >>> 2. "The "hockey stick" graph that the IPCC so touted has, it is my understanding, been debunked as junk science. While they've never admitted this to be so, it's my understanding that the graph has disappeared from IPCC publications."
> > >>>
> > >>> So, 67 per cent consensus from The consensus on the consensus that Mann's stick is "incorrect" "junk"?
> > >>>
> > >>> But without the hockey schtick there is no global warming!
> > >>>
> > >>> ***
> > >>>
> > >>> Even more that will not make the global warmie faithful happy, and is thus never mentioned:
> > >>>
> > >>> Zimmerman, despite "shaping" the questions and the statistics to toe the global warmie party line (presumably because otherwise she would not have got her masters), was herself not convinced of global warming by such carefully shoddy numbers. In her own words:
> > >>>
> > >>> "This entire process has been an exercise in re-educating myself about the climate debate and, in the process, I can honestly say that I have heard very convincing arguments from all the different sides, and I think I'm actually more neutral on the issue now than I was before I started this project. There is so much gray area when you begin to mix science and politics, environmental issues and social issues, calculated rational thinking with emotions, etc." -- M Zimmerman.
> > >>>
> > >>> Of course Zimmerman's conclusion and opinion from her study (it's in the appendix to her thesis) is never quoted by the global warmies.
> > >>>
> > >>> All of the smoke of "consensus" was blown by others; Zimmerman, the author of the study they quoted (and didn't read!) knew better.
> > >>>
> > >>> ***
> > >>>
> > >>> There is an amusing analysis of this material in Mark Steyn's "A Disgrace to the Profession", a highly recommended bestseller which quotes scientists all round the world being scathingly dismissive of global warming, the hockey stick and Michael Mann, and which proves conclusively that there isn't now and never was any consensus about manmade global warming.
> > >>>
> > >>> No consensus, period.
> > >>>
> > >>> ***
> > >>>
> > >>> The so-called consensus, of course, is merely more poor quality statistical smoke blown by the global warmies. It is designed to avoid the question of whether scientific consensus shouldn't be called by its proper name: pressure group politics, in this case by scientists who want the rich pickings of grants and the glow of a "moral" justification to indulge their urge for bullying everyone else. The so-called consensus is scientism at its most brutal and offensive, and totally unacceptable.
> > >>>
> > >>> Scientism is the doctrine that scientists are superior beings who shouldn't be questioned by mere mortals. In the case of global warming, the global warmie spear carriers reinforce this objectionable doctrine (and obvious lie) with the additional lie of the "consensus of scientists".
> > >>>
> > >>> The very concept of consensus is unscientific and anti-scientific. Science doesn't take a vote, it iterates experiments. Consensus belongs to politics, not science. It takes just one scientist to be right.
> > >>>
> > >>> The global warmies either lie, or are gullibly taken in by the lies of their high priests. Either way, they have no right to speak of "science", or even of "consensus".
> > >>>
> > >>> One of the warmies' most fundamental claims, that "97% of scientists agree that global warming is dangerous and manmade" is a perfect example of the poor quality of their lies.
> > >>>
> > >>> The socalled "consensus" is just another gross lie by the global warmies.
> > >>>
> > >>> Quad erat demonstrandum.
> > >>>
> > >>> Copyright (c) 2009, 2015, 2021 Andre Jute
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Communist theory once tried to blame poverty and suffering
> > >> on free markets (which they pejoratively labeled
> > >> 'capitalism', ignoring actual facts).
> > >>
> > >> Once the bright-line difference became obvious to all (as
> > >> has been noted, "Communism can only achieve equality of
> > >> poverty") the Party Line changed to blame free markets for
> > >> despoiling the planet which completely disregards the
> > >> abysmal track record of all communist regimes (and our
> > >> relentless improvement).
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> And yet here we are, the Big Lie has triumphed once more. We
> > >> are so doomed.
> > >> Stay tuned because, as Capt Bryan Suits often notes, "You
> > >> can vote your way into communism but you have to shoot your
> > >> way out."
> > >
> > > Well Old Bryan is wrong, at least in the case of Russia who shot their
> > > way into communism and didn't shoot them selves out.
> > >
> > Out? Did I miss some big news this week?
> With his usual intellectual superiority, John believes that communism is a thing of the past in Russia.
>
I'm not so sure that we wouldn't wish all our enemies to be hardcore classical communists, because that is a recipe for a despondent populace and and defense force, and incompetence in production, allocations and distribution of necessities for both general populace and the armed forces. The superstructure of the nomenklatura is very expensive, at least as expensive as Washington whether Democrats or Republicans are in power.
>
The problem with Russia, even when much smaller than the Soviets, and with declining population is it is a very effective dictatorship with a lot of the deadwood stripped away.
>
The problem with China is they have a large social class that Messrs Nixon and Kissinger, and American colleges, have made into a rich, successful, pretty competent middle class -- without in the process overthrowing communism as Nixon and Kissinger hoped, and a lot of economists, including me, forecast. Effectively China has been turned in a dictatorship with frightening organizational and productive capabilities, basically like the Soviets but with a Barvard Business School mentality. We will have to pray hard that China's geriatric problem and falling birth rate and deep, deep poverty beyond the great industrial centers, overcomes them before they can launch a war of conquest to keep the result of several decades of one-child policy, the surplus of men without women occupied.
>
I'd much rather fight incompetent commies than competent, western-trained commies.
>
Andre Jute
Thoughtful.

On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 3:39:27 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 6:37:02 PM UTC, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 5:11:13 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> > > On 12/13/2021 6:48 PM, John B. wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 14:09:14 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> On 12/13/2021 12:11 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
> > > >>> ORIGIN OF THE 97% LIE OF GLOBAL WARMING
> > > >>> Andre Jute explains where this misrepresentation originated
> > > >>>
> > > >>> That "the science is settled, and 97% of scientists believe in manmade global warming" is an article of faith of the thicker global warmies and the more doctrinaire pols, and greedy manipulators like Fat Al Gore who has made his billion from the global warming scare.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> 99.999999% of those who make this foolish statement cannot name the statistical study their claim is based on, and of the few who can name Margaret Zimmerman as the author of the study, 99 out of every 100 have never read it, or they would know it is as crooked as the rest of the statistics behind Michael Mann's hockey stick, on which the whole global warming church wobbles like an upside down pyramid of jelly.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> ***
> > > >>>
> > > >>> This is it, the founding scroll of the "97% consensus":
> > > >>>
> > > >>> MSc thesis, University of Illinois, 2008:
> > > >>> M Zimmerman, The consensus of the consensus
> > > >>> http://www.lulu.com/shop/m-r-k-zimmerman/the-consensus-on-the-consensus/ebook/product-17391505.html
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Zimmerman's "survey" was a two-question, online questionnaire sent to 10,257 earth scientists, of whom 3,146 responded.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Of the 3146 scientists, 96.2 per cent came from North America. 6.2 per cent came from Canada.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> So the United States is overrepresented even within that North American sample.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> 9% of US respondents came from California.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> California is overrepresented within the US sample.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> In addition California has over twice as large a share of the sample as Europe, Asia, Australia, the Pacific, Latin America and Africa combined.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Of the 10% non-US respondents, Canada has 62 per cent.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> What sort of a distorted sample is this?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> ***
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Before you conclude that North American scientists, even when carefully preselected for assumed complaisance, are uniquely and particularly stupid, let's examine the questions Zimmerman asked them.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Zimmerman carefully crafted two questions to which most earth scientists would answer "yes", including most prominent climate change skeptics.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> It's a fit-up job. See for yourself:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Zimmerman's first question was, "When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?"
> > > >>>
> > > >>> As a disgusted reader of her thesis said, rating it one star out of five, said "Q1 is worthless for distinguishing climate alarmists from climate skeptics. 'Pre-1800s' was the middle of the Little Ice Age, and it is obviously warmer now than it was then. But nearly all of the human contribution to atmospheric GHG levels has occurred since the 1940s, so this question has nothing to do with anthropogenic climate change. Even most prominent climate change skeptics would answer 'risen' to this question."
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Oops. Let's see whether Zimmerman's other question holds any more water: "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Oh dear. Another, loaded question of the "Have you stopped beating your wife yet" school of statistics. The same disgusted reader of Zimmerman's theses tells us why this question is misleading: "Q2 is just as bad. Since aerosols from smoke clearly cause cooling (a fact which was one of the main causes for the 1970s ice age scare), few people would doubt that human activity can change temperatures, so even most of those who doubt that anthropogenic CO2 and CH4 cause worrisome global warming would have to answer 'yes' to Q2."
> > > >>>
> > > >>> The reader concludes, as anyone with experience of tendentious statistics would, as I do too: "Zimmerman could have asked [for] a meaningful answer about anthropogenic climate change, but chose not to do so."
> > > >>>
> > > >>> ***
> > > >>>
> > > >>> To add insult to injury, she then selected 79 (that's right, seventy-nine) of her sample and declared them "experts", though later she excluded two more. In the event only 75 out of 77 made it through to the final round.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> 97.4 per cent of 75 "experts" in an extremely biased "sample" were found to agree with "the consensus" because they were asked loaded questions.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> The 75 respondents -- count 'em, seventy-five --carefully pre-selected for compliance with questions loaded just to make sure, still revolted. Two respondents didn't give the expected answer!
> > > >>>
> > > >>> This is a very Michael Mann "reconstruction": just as a couple of Californian bristlecones can determine the climate for a millennium, so a half-dozen Californian scientists can determine the consensus of the world.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Amazing what you can do with statistics!
> > > >>>
> > > >>> ***
> > > >>>
> > > >>> There's more to this revolt that isn't normally reported by the global warmies, probably because they get their facts from Apocalypse TV rather than by reading scientific papers.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Zimmerman invited comments from these selected and presumably disciplined respondents.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Mann's hockey stick attracted three comments - one blandly positive, the other two damning:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> 1. "I will note that Mann's "hockey stick curve" has been demonstrated to be incorrect."
> > > >>>
> > > >>> 2. "The "hockey stick" graph that the IPCC so touted has, it is my understanding, been debunked as junk science. While they've never admitted this to be so, it's my understanding that the graph has disappeared from IPCC publications."
> > > >>>
> > > >>> So, 67 per cent consensus from The consensus on the consensus that Mann's stick is "incorrect" "junk"?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> But without the hockey schtick there is no global warming!
> > > >>>
> > > >>> ***
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Even more that will not make the global warmie faithful happy, and is thus never mentioned:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Zimmerman, despite "shaping" the questions and the statistics to toe the global warmie party line (presumably because otherwise she would not have got her masters), was herself not convinced of global warming by such carefully shoddy numbers. In her own words:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> "This entire process has been an exercise in re-educating myself about the climate debate and, in the process, I can honestly say that I have heard very convincing arguments from all the different sides, and I think I'm actually more neutral on the issue now than I was before I started this project. There is so much gray area when you begin to mix science and politics, environmental issues and social issues, calculated rational thinking with emotions, etc." -- M Zimmerman.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Of course Zimmerman's conclusion and opinion from her study (it's in the appendix to her thesis) is never quoted by the global warmies.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> All of the smoke of "consensus" was blown by others; Zimmerman, the author of the study they quoted (and didn't read!) knew better.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> ***
> > > >>>
> > > >>> There is an amusing analysis of this material in Mark Steyn's "A Disgrace to the Profession", a highly recommended bestseller which quotes scientists all round the world being scathingly dismissive of global warming, the hockey stick and Michael Mann, and which proves conclusively that there isn't now and never was any consensus about manmade global warming.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> No consensus, period.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> ***
> > > >>>
> > > >>> The so-called consensus, of course, is merely more poor quality statistical smoke blown by the global warmies. It is designed to avoid the question of whether scientific consensus shouldn't be called by its proper name: pressure group politics, in this case by scientists who want the rich pickings of grants and the glow of a "moral" justification to indulge their urge for bullying everyone else. The so-called consensus is scientism at its most brutal and offensive, and totally unacceptable.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Scientism is the doctrine that scientists are superior beings who shouldn't be questioned by mere mortals. In the case of global warming, the global warmie spear carriers reinforce this objectionable doctrine (and obvious lie) with the additional lie of the "consensus of scientists".
> > > >>>
> > > >>> The very concept of consensus is unscientific and anti-scientific.. Science doesn't take a vote, it iterates experiments. Consensus belongs to politics, not science. It takes just one scientist to be right.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> The global warmies either lie, or are gullibly taken in by the lies of their high priests. Either way, they have no right to speak of "science", or even of "consensus".
> > > >>>
> > > >>> One of the warmies' most fundamental claims, that "97% of scientists agree that global warming is dangerous and manmade" is a perfect example of the poor quality of their lies.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> The socalled "consensus" is just another gross lie by the global warmies.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Quad erat demonstrandum.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Copyright (c) 2009, 2015, 2021 Andre Jute
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >> Communist theory once tried to blame poverty and suffering
> > > >> on free markets (which they pejoratively labeled
> > > >> 'capitalism', ignoring actual facts).
> > > >>
> > > >> Once the bright-line difference became obvious to all (as
> > > >> has been noted, "Communism can only achieve equality of
> > > >> poverty") the Party Line changed to blame free markets for
> > > >> despoiling the planet which completely disregards the
> > > >> abysmal track record of all communist regimes (and our
> > > >> relentless improvement).
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> And yet here we are, the Big Lie has triumphed once more. We
> > > >> are so doomed.
> > > >> Stay tuned because, as Capt Bryan Suits often notes, "You
> > > >> can vote your way into communism but you have to shoot your
> > > >> way out."
> > > >
> > > > Well Old Bryan is wrong, at least in the case of Russia who shot their
> > > > way into communism and didn't shoot them selves out.
> > > >
> > > Out? Did I miss some big news this week?
> > With his usual intellectual superiority, John believes that communism is a thing of the past in Russia.
> >
> I'm not so sure that we wouldn't wish all our enemies to be hardcore classical communists, because that is a recipe for a despondent populace and and defense force, and incompetence in production, allocations and distribution of necessities for both general populace and the armed forces. The superstructure of the nomenklatura is very expensive, at least as expensive as Washington whether Democrats or Republicans are in power.
> >
> The problem with Russia, even when much smaller than the Soviets, and with declining population is it is a very effective dictatorship with a lot of the deadwood stripped away.
> >
> The problem with China is they have a large social class that Messrs Nixon and Kissinger, and American colleges, have made into a rich, successful, pretty competent middle class -- without in the process overthrowing communism as Nixon and Kissinger hoped, and a lot of economists, including me, forecast. Effectively China has been turned in a dictatorship with frightening organizational and productive capabilities, basically like the Soviets but with a Barvard Business School mentality. We will have to pray hard that China's geriatric problem and falling birth rate and deep, deep poverty beyond the great industrial centers, overcomes them before they can launch a war of conquest to keep the result of several decades of one-child policy, the surplus of men without women occupied.
> >
> I'd much rather fight incompetent commies than competent, western-trained commies.

On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 10:37:00 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 5:11:13 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 12/13/2021 6:48 PM, John B. wrote:
>> > On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 14:09:14 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 12/13/2021 12:11 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
>> >>> ORIGIN OF THE 97% LIE OF GLOBAL WARMING
>> >>> Andre Jute explains where this misrepresentation originated
>> >>>
>> >>> That "the science is settled, and 97% of scientists believe in manmade global warming" is an article of faith of the thicker global warmies and the more doctrinaire pols, and greedy manipulators like Fat Al Gore who has made his billion from the global warming scare.
>> >>>
>> >>> 99.999999% of those who make this foolish statement cannot name the statistical study their claim is based on, and of the few who can name Margaret Zimmerman as the author of the study, 99 out of every 100 have never read it, or they would know it is as crooked as the rest of the statistics behind Michael Mann's hockey stick, on which the whole global warming church wobbles like an upside down pyramid of jelly.
>> >>>
>> >>> ***
>> >>>
>> >>> This is it, the founding scroll of the "97% consensus":
>> >>>
>> >>> MSc thesis, University of Illinois, 2008:
>> >>> M Zimmerman, The consensus of the consensus
>> >>> http://www.lulu.com/shop/m-r-k-zimmerman/the-consensus-on-the-consensus/ebook/product-17391505.html
>> >>>
>> >>> Zimmerman's "survey" was a two-question, online questionnaire sent to 10,257 earth scientists, of whom 3,146 responded.
>> >>>
>> >>> Of the 3146 scientists, 96.2 per cent came from North America. 6.2 per cent came from Canada.
>> >>>
>> >>> So the United States is overrepresented even within that North American sample.
>> >>>
>> >>> 9% of US respondents came from California.
>> >>>
>> >>> California is overrepresented within the US sample.
>> >>>
>> >>> In addition California has over twice as large a share of the sample as Europe, Asia, Australia, the Pacific, Latin America and Africa combined.
>> >>>
>> >>> Of the 10% non-US respondents, Canada has 62 per cent.
>> >>>
>> >>> What sort of a distorted sample is this?
>> >>>
>> >>> ***
>> >>>
>> >>> Before you conclude that North American scientists, even when carefully preselected for assumed complaisance, are uniquely and particularly stupid, let's examine the questions Zimmerman asked them.
>> >>>
>> >>> Zimmerman carefully crafted two questions to which most earth scientists would answer "yes", including most prominent climate change skeptics.
>> >>>
>> >>> It's a fit-up job. See for yourself:
>> >>>
>> >>> Zimmerman's first question was, "When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?"
>> >>>
>> >>> As a disgusted reader of her thesis said, rating it one star out of five, said "Q1 is worthless for distinguishing climate alarmists from climate skeptics. 'Pre-1800s' was the middle of the Little Ice Age, and it is obviously warmer now than it was then. But nearly all of the human contribution to atmospheric GHG levels has occurred since the 1940s, so this question has nothing to do with anthropogenic climate change. Even most prominent climate change skeptics would answer 'risen' to this question."
>> >>>
>> >>> Oops. Let's see whether Zimmerman's other question holds any more water: "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"
>> >>>
>> >>> Oh dear. Another, loaded question of the "Have you stopped beating your wife yet" school of statistics. The same disgusted reader of Zimmerman's theses tells us why this question is misleading: "Q2 is just as bad. Since aerosols from smoke clearly cause cooling (a fact which was one of the main causes for the 1970s ice age scare), few people would doubt that human activity can change temperatures, so even most of those who doubt that anthropogenic CO2 and CH4 cause worrisome global warming would have to answer 'yes' to Q2."
>> >>>
>> >>> The reader concludes, as anyone with experience of tendentious statistics would, as I do too: "Zimmerman could have asked [for] a meaningful answer about anthropogenic climate change, but chose not to do so."
>> >>>
>> >>> ***
>> >>>
>> >>> To add insult to injury, she then selected 79 (that's right, seventy-nine) of her sample and declared them "experts", though later she excluded two more. In the event only 75 out of 77 made it through to the final round.
>> >>>
>> >>> 97.4 per cent of 75 "experts" in an extremely biased "sample" were found to agree with "the consensus" because they were asked loaded questions.
>> >>>
>> >>> The 75 respondents -- count 'em, seventy-five --carefully pre-selected for compliance with questions loaded just to make sure, still revolted. Two respondents didn't give the expected answer!
>> >>>
>> >>> This is a very Michael Mann "reconstruction": just as a couple of Californian bristlecones can determine the climate for a millennium, so a half-dozen Californian scientists can determine the consensus of the world.
>> >>>
>> >>> Amazing what you can do with statistics!
>> >>>
>> >>> ***
>> >>>
>> >>> There's more to this revolt that isn't normally reported by the global warmies, probably because they get their facts from Apocalypse TV rather than by reading scientific papers.
>> >>>
>> >>> Zimmerman invited comments from these selected and presumably disciplined respondents.
>> >>>
>> >>> Mann's hockey stick attracted three comments - one blandly positive, the other two damning:
>> >>>
>> >>> 1. "I will note that Mann's "hockey stick curve" has been demonstrated to be incorrect."
>> >>>
>> >>> 2. "The "hockey stick" graph that the IPCC so touted has, it is my understanding, been debunked as junk science. While they've never admitted this to be so, it's my understanding that the graph has disappeared from IPCC publications."
>> >>>
>> >>> So, 67 per cent consensus from The consensus on the consensus that Mann's stick is "incorrect" "junk"?
>> >>>
>> >>> But without the hockey schtick there is no global warming!
>> >>>
>> >>> ***
>> >>>
>> >>> Even more that will not make the global warmie faithful happy, and is thus never mentioned:
>> >>>
>> >>> Zimmerman, despite "shaping" the questions and the statistics to toe the global warmie party line (presumably because otherwise she would not have got her masters), was herself not convinced of global warming by such carefully shoddy numbers. In her own words:
>> >>>
>> >>> "This entire process has been an exercise in re-educating myself about the climate debate and, in the process, I can honestly say that I have heard very convincing arguments from all the different sides, and I think I'm actually more neutral on the issue now than I was before I started this project. There is so much gray area when you begin to mix science and politics, environmental issues and social issues, calculated rational thinking with emotions, etc." -- M Zimmerman.
>> >>>
>> >>> Of course Zimmerman's conclusion and opinion from her study (it's in the appendix to her thesis) is never quoted by the global warmies.
>> >>>
>> >>> All of the smoke of "consensus" was blown by others; Zimmerman, the author of the study they quoted (and didn't read!) knew better.
>> >>>
>> >>> ***
>> >>>
>> >>> There is an amusing analysis of this material in Mark Steyn's "A Disgrace to the Profession", a highly recommended bestseller which quotes scientists all round the world being scathingly dismissive of global warming, the hockey stick and Michael Mann, and which proves conclusively that there isn't now and never was any consensus about manmade global warming.
>> >>>
>> >>> No consensus, period.
>> >>>
>> >>> ***
>> >>>
>> >>> The so-called consensus, of course, is merely more poor quality statistical smoke blown by the global warmies. It is designed to avoid the question of whether scientific consensus shouldn't be called by its proper name: pressure group politics, in this case by scientists who want the rich pickings of grants and the glow of a "moral" justification to indulge their urge for bullying everyone else. The so-called consensus is scientism at its most brutal and offensive, and totally unacceptable.
>> >>>
>> >>> Scientism is the doctrine that scientists are superior beings who shouldn't be questioned by mere mortals. In the case of global warming, the global warmie spear carriers reinforce this objectionable doctrine (and obvious lie) with the additional lie of the "consensus of scientists".
>> >>>
>> >>> The very concept of consensus is unscientific and anti-scientific. Science doesn't take a vote, it iterates experiments. Consensus belongs to politics, not science. It takes just one scientist to be right.
>> >>>
>> >>> The global warmies either lie, or are gullibly taken in by the lies of their high priests. Either way, they have no right to speak of "science", or even of "consensus".
>> >>>
>> >>> One of the warmies' most fundamental claims, that "97% of scientists agree that global warming is dangerous and manmade" is a perfect example of the poor quality of their lies.
>> >>>
>> >>> The socalled "consensus" is just another gross lie by the global warmies.
>> >>>
>> >>> Quad erat demonstrandum.
>> >>>
>> >>> Copyright (c) 2009, 2015, 2021 Andre Jute
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Communist theory once tried to blame poverty and suffering
>> >> on free markets (which they pejoratively labeled
>> >> 'capitalism', ignoring actual facts).
>> >>
>> >> Once the bright-line difference became obvious to all (as
>> >> has been noted, "Communism can only achieve equality of
>> >> poverty") the Party Line changed to blame free markets for
>> >> despoiling the planet which completely disregards the
>> >> abysmal track record of all communist regimes (and our
>> >> relentless improvement).
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> And yet here we are, the Big Lie has triumphed once more. We
>> >> are so doomed.
>> >> Stay tuned because, as Capt Bryan Suits often notes, "You
>> >> can vote your way into communism but you have to shoot your
>> >> way out."
>> >
>> > Well Old Bryan is wrong, at least in the case of Russia who shot their
>> > way into communism and didn't shoot them selves out.
>> >
>> Out? Did I miss some big news this week?
>
>With his usual intellectual superiority, John believes that communism is a thing of the past in Russia.

On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 11:46:02 PM UTC, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:

> Check this out: https://plos.org/announcement/plos-one-publishes-additional-coronavirus-related-papers/
>
> "This study was conducted by Constantinos Siettos from the Universita degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, Italy and colleagues. The authors used the Susceptible-Infected-Recovered-Dead (SIRD) model with data between January 11 and February 10, 2020 and estimated key epidemiological parameters up until February 29. With these parameters, they forecasted that between 80,000 and 160,000 people would be infected by February 29 – in fact, around 84,000 are known to have become infected in this time period.
>
> Dr Siettos notes, “This is the first study based on a mathematical modelling approach that has provided relatively accurate three- week-ahead forecasts. Importantly, to the best of our knowledge this is the first study based on a mathematical modelling approach suggesting that the actual number of the infections in the total population is of the order of twenty times more than those reported, and that the mortality rate in the total population is about ~0.15% i.e. significantly less than reported 2-3%.Our findings imply that for the case of Hubei (with a 60m population), around 2%-3% of the total population in Hubei has been actually infected by coronavirus..”
>
> The meaning of this is that I have been absolutely correct all along and covid-19 is essentially harmless. A 0.15% increase in the deaths of severely ill elderly people is so low it is difficult to measure.
>
If that study can be replicated elsewhere a couple of times, it would be incontrovertible. Meanwhile, "A 0.15% increase in the deaths of severely ill elderly people", no matter how large your sample, is a blip in the numbers, not a significant increase, statistically of negative value though it is of course indicative of a disproven hypothesis (that ChiCom-19 is a great killer and should show in excess deaths). In fact it very likely goes a long way to proving another hypothesis, that people died *with* ChiCom-19, rather than *of* ChiCom-19, and were wrongfully counted by the government as victims of ChiCom-19.
>
A little common-sense and a whole truckload less hubris (1) would go a very long way here.
>
Andre Jute
(1) Humility is too much to hope for.

On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 15:46:00 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 3:39:27 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
>> On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 6:37:02 PM UTC, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 5:11:13 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>> > > On 12/13/2021 6:48 PM, John B. wrote:
>> > > > On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 14:09:14 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >> On 12/13/2021 12:11 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
>> > > >>> ORIGIN OF THE 97% LIE OF GLOBAL WARMING
>> > > >>> Andre Jute explains where this misrepresentation originated
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> That "the science is settled, and 97% of scientists believe in manmade global warming" is an article of faith of the thicker global warmies and the more doctrinaire pols, and greedy manipulators like Fat Al Gore who has made his billion from the global warming scare.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> 99.999999% of those who make this foolish statement cannot name the statistical study their claim is based on, and of the few who can name Margaret Zimmerman as the author of the study, 99 out of every 100 have never read it, or they would know it is as crooked as the rest of the statistics behind Michael Mann's hockey stick, on which the whole global warming church wobbles like an upside down pyramid of jelly.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> ***
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> This is it, the founding scroll of the "97% consensus":
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> MSc thesis, University of Illinois, 2008:
>> > > >>> M Zimmerman, The consensus of the consensus
>> > > >>> http://www.lulu.com/shop/m-r-k-zimmerman/the-consensus-on-the-consensus/ebook/product-17391505.html
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> Zimmerman's "survey" was a two-question, online questionnaire sent to 10,257 earth scientists, of whom 3,146 responded.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> Of the 3146 scientists, 96.2 per cent came from North America. 6.2 per cent came from Canada.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> So the United States is overrepresented even within that North American sample.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> 9% of US respondents came from California.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> California is overrepresented within the US sample.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> In addition California has over twice as large a share of the sample as Europe, Asia, Australia, the Pacific, Latin America and Africa combined.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> Of the 10% non-US respondents, Canada has 62 per cent.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> What sort of a distorted sample is this?
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> ***
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> Before you conclude that North American scientists, even when carefully preselected for assumed complaisance, are uniquely and particularly stupid, let's examine the questions Zimmerman asked them.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> Zimmerman carefully crafted two questions to which most earth scientists would answer "yes", including most prominent climate change skeptics.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> It's a fit-up job. See for yourself:
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> Zimmerman's first question was, "When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?"
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> As a disgusted reader of her thesis said, rating it one star out of five, said "Q1 is worthless for distinguishing climate alarmists from climate skeptics. 'Pre-1800s' was the middle of the Little Ice Age, and it is obviously warmer now than it was then. But nearly all of the human contribution to atmospheric GHG levels has occurred since the 1940s, so this question has nothing to do with anthropogenic climate change. Even most prominent climate change skeptics would answer 'risen' to this question."
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> Oops. Let's see whether Zimmerman's other question holds any more water: "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> Oh dear. Another, loaded question of the "Have you stopped beating your wife yet" school of statistics. The same disgusted reader of Zimmerman's theses tells us why this question is misleading: "Q2 is just as bad. Since aerosols from smoke clearly cause cooling (a fact which was one of the main causes for the 1970s ice age scare), few people would doubt that human activity can change temperatures, so even most of those who doubt that anthropogenic CO2 and CH4 cause worrisome global warming would have to answer 'yes' to Q2."
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> The reader concludes, as anyone with experience of tendentious statistics would, as I do too: "Zimmerman could have asked [for] a meaningful answer about anthropogenic climate change, but chose not to do so."
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> ***
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> To add insult to injury, she then selected 79 (that's right, seventy-nine) of her sample and declared them "experts", though later she excluded two more. In the event only 75 out of 77 made it through to the final round.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> 97.4 per cent of 75 "experts" in an extremely biased "sample" were found to agree with "the consensus" because they were asked loaded questions.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> The 75 respondents -- count 'em, seventy-five --carefully pre-selected for compliance with questions loaded just to make sure, still revolted. Two respondents didn't give the expected answer!
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> This is a very Michael Mann "reconstruction": just as a couple of Californian bristlecones can determine the climate for a millennium, so a half-dozen Californian scientists can determine the consensus of the world.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> Amazing what you can do with statistics!
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> ***
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> There's more to this revolt that isn't normally reported by the global warmies, probably because they get their facts from Apocalypse TV rather than by reading scientific papers.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> Zimmerman invited comments from these selected and presumably disciplined respondents.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> Mann's hockey stick attracted three comments - one blandly positive, the other two damning:
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> 1. "I will note that Mann's "hockey stick curve" has been demonstrated to be incorrect."
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> 2. "The "hockey stick" graph that the IPCC so touted has, it is my understanding, been debunked as junk science. While they've never admitted this to be so, it's my understanding that the graph has disappeared from IPCC publications."
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> So, 67 per cent consensus from The consensus on the consensus that Mann's stick is "incorrect" "junk"?
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> But without the hockey schtick there is no global warming!
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> ***
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> Even more that will not make the global warmie faithful happy, and is thus never mentioned:
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> Zimmerman, despite "shaping" the questions and the statistics to toe the global warmie party line (presumably because otherwise she would not have got her masters), was herself not convinced of global warming by such carefully shoddy numbers. In her own words:
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> "This entire process has been an exercise in re-educating myself about the climate debate and, in the process, I can honestly say that I have heard very convincing arguments from all the different sides, and I think I'm actually more neutral on the issue now than I was before I started this project. There is so much gray area when you begin to mix science and politics, environmental issues and social issues, calculated rational thinking with emotions, etc." -- M Zimmerman.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> Of course Zimmerman's conclusion and opinion from her study (it's in the appendix to her thesis) is never quoted by the global warmies.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> All of the smoke of "consensus" was blown by others; Zimmerman, the author of the study they quoted (and didn't read!) knew better.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> ***
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> There is an amusing analysis of this material in Mark Steyn's "A Disgrace to the Profession", a highly recommended bestseller which quotes scientists all round the world being scathingly dismissive of global warming, the hockey stick and Michael Mann, and which proves conclusively that there isn't now and never was any consensus about manmade global warming.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> No consensus, period.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> ***
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> The so-called consensus, of course, is merely more poor quality statistical smoke blown by the global warmies. It is designed to avoid the question of whether scientific consensus shouldn't be called by its proper name: pressure group politics, in this case by scientists who want the rich pickings of grants and the glow of a "moral" justification to indulge their urge for bullying everyone else. The so-called consensus is scientism at its most brutal and offensive, and totally unacceptable.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> Scientism is the doctrine that scientists are superior beings who shouldn't be questioned by mere mortals. In the case of global warming, the global warmie spear carriers reinforce this objectionable doctrine (and obvious lie) with the additional lie of the "consensus of scientists".
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> The very concept of consensus is unscientific and anti-scientific. Science doesn't take a vote, it iterates experiments. Consensus belongs to politics, not science. It takes just one scientist to be right.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> The global warmies either lie, or are gullibly taken in by the lies of their high priests. Either way, they have no right to speak of "science", or even of "consensus".
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> One of the warmies' most fundamental claims, that "97% of scientists agree that global warming is dangerous and manmade" is a perfect example of the poor quality of their lies.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> The socalled "consensus" is just another gross lie by the global warmies.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> Quad erat demonstrandum.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> Copyright (c) 2009, 2015, 2021 Andre Jute
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Communist theory once tried to blame poverty and suffering
>> > > >> on free markets (which they pejoratively labeled
>> > > >> 'capitalism', ignoring actual facts).
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Once the bright-line difference became obvious to all (as
>> > > >> has been noted, "Communism can only achieve equality of
>> > > >> poverty") the Party Line changed to blame free markets for
>> > > >> despoiling the planet which completely disregards the
>> > > >> abysmal track record of all communist regimes (and our
>> > > >> relentless improvement).
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> And yet here we are, the Big Lie has triumphed once more. We
>> > > >> are so doomed.
>> > > >> Stay tuned because, as Capt Bryan Suits often notes, "You
>> > > >> can vote your way into communism but you have to shoot your
>> > > >> way out."
>> > > >
>> > > > Well Old Bryan is wrong, at least in the case of Russia who shot their
>> > > > way into communism and didn't shoot them selves out.
>> > > >
>> > > Out? Did I miss some big news this week?
>> > With his usual intellectual superiority, John believes that communism is a thing of the past in Russia.
>> >
>> I'm not so sure that we wouldn't wish all our enemies to be hardcore classical communists, because that is a recipe for a despondent populace and and defense force, and incompetence in production, allocations and distribution of necessities for both general populace and the armed forces. The superstructure of the nomenklatura is very expensive, at least as expensive as Washington whether Democrats or Republicans are in power.
>> >
>> The problem with Russia, even when much smaller than the Soviets, and with declining population is it is a very effective dictatorship with a lot of the deadwood stripped away.
>> >
>> The problem with China is they have a large social class that Messrs Nixon and Kissinger, and American colleges, have made into a rich, successful, pretty competent middle class -- without in the process overthrowing communism as Nixon and Kissinger hoped, and a lot of economists, including me, forecast. Effectively China has been turned in a dictatorship with frightening organizational and productive capabilities, basically like the Soviets but with a Barvard Business School mentality. We will have to pray hard that China's geriatric problem and falling birth rate and deep, deep poverty beyond the great industrial centers, overcomes them before they can launch a war of conquest to keep the result of several decades of one-child policy, the surplus of men without women occupied.
>> >
>> I'd much rather fight incompetent commies than competent, western-trained commies.
>
>Check this out: https://plos.org/announcement/plos-one-publishes-additional-coronavirus-related-papers/
>
>"This study was conducted by Constantinos Siettos from the Universita degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, Italy and colleagues. The authors used the Susceptible-Infected-Recovered-Dead (SIRD) model with data between January 11 and February 10, 2020 and estimated key epidemiological parameters up until February 29. With these parameters, they forecasted that between 80,000 and 160,000 people would be infected by February 29 – in fact, around 84,000 are known to have become infected in this time period.
>
>Dr Siettos notes, “This is the first study based on a mathematical modelling approach that has provided relatively accurate three- week-ahead forecasts. Importantly, to the best of our knowledge this is the first study based on a mathematical modelling approach suggesting that the actual number of the infections in the total population is of the order of twenty times more than those reported, and that the mortality rate in the total population is about ~0.15% i.e. significantly less than reported 2-3%.Our findings imply that for the case of Hubei (with a 60m population), around 2%-3% of the total population in Hubei has been actually infected by coronavirus.”
>
>The meaning of this is that I have been absolutely correct all along and covid-19 is essentially harmless. A 0.15% increase in the deaths of severely ill elderly people is so low it is difficult to measure.

On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 2:02:14 AM UTC, John B. wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 15:46:00 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 3:39:27 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 6:37:02 PM UTC, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 5:11:13 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> >> > > On 12/13/2021 6:48 PM, John B. wrote:
> >> > > > On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 14:09:14 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >> On 12/13/2021 12:11 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
> >> > > >>> ORIGIN OF THE 97% LIE OF GLOBAL WARMING
> >> > > >>> Andre Jute explains where this misrepresentation originated
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> That "the science is settled, and 97% of scientists believe in manmade global warming" is an article of faith of the thicker global warmies and the more doctrinaire pols, and greedy manipulators like Fat Al Gore who has made his billion from the global warming scare.
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> 99.999999% of those who make this foolish statement cannot name the statistical study their claim is based on, and of the few who can name Margaret Zimmerman as the author of the study, 99 out of every 100 have never read it, or they would know it is as crooked as the rest of the statistics behind Michael Mann's hockey stick, on which the whole global warming church wobbles like an upside down pyramid of jelly.
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> ***
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> This is it, the founding scroll of the "97% consensus":
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> MSc thesis, University of Illinois, 2008:
> >> > > >>> M Zimmerman, The consensus of the consensus
> >> > > >>> http://www.lulu.com/shop/m-r-k-zimmerman/the-consensus-on-the-consensus/ebook/product-17391505.html
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> Zimmerman's "survey" was a two-question, online questionnaire sent to 10,257 earth scientists, of whom 3,146 responded.
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> Of the 3146 scientists, 96.2 per cent came from North America. 6.2 per cent came from Canada.
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> So the United States is overrepresented even within that North American sample.
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> 9% of US respondents came from California.
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> California is overrepresented within the US sample.
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> In addition California has over twice as large a share of the sample as Europe, Asia, Australia, the Pacific, Latin America and Africa combined.
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> Of the 10% non-US respondents, Canada has 62 per cent.
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> What sort of a distorted sample is this?
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> ***
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> Before you conclude that North American scientists, even when carefully preselected for assumed complaisance, are uniquely and particularly stupid, let's examine the questions Zimmerman asked them.
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> Zimmerman carefully crafted two questions to which most earth scientists would answer "yes", including most prominent climate change skeptics.
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> It's a fit-up job. See for yourself:
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> Zimmerman's first question was, "When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?"
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> As a disgusted reader of her thesis said, rating it one star out of five, said "Q1 is worthless for distinguishing climate alarmists from climate skeptics. 'Pre-1800s' was the middle of the Little Ice Age, and it is obviously warmer now than it was then. But nearly all of the human contribution to atmospheric GHG levels has occurred since the 1940s, so this question has nothing to do with anthropogenic climate change. Even most prominent climate change skeptics would answer 'risen' to this question."
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> Oops. Let's see whether Zimmerman's other question holds any more water: "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> Oh dear. Another, loaded question of the "Have you stopped beating your wife yet" school of statistics. The same disgusted reader of Zimmerman's theses tells us why this question is misleading: "Q2 is just as bad.. Since aerosols from smoke clearly cause cooling (a fact which was one of the main causes for the 1970s ice age scare), few people would doubt that human activity can change temperatures, so even most of those who doubt that anthropogenic CO2 and CH4 cause worrisome global warming would have to answer 'yes' to Q2."
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> The reader concludes, as anyone with experience of tendentious statistics would, as I do too: "Zimmerman could have asked [for] a meaningful answer about anthropogenic climate change, but chose not to do so."
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> ***
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> To add insult to injury, she then selected 79 (that's right, seventy-nine) of her sample and declared them "experts", though later she excluded two more. In the event only 75 out of 77 made it through to the final round.
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> 97.4 per cent of 75 "experts" in an extremely biased "sample" were found to agree with "the consensus" because they were asked loaded questions.
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> The 75 respondents -- count 'em, seventy-five --carefully pre-selected for compliance with questions loaded just to make sure, still revolted. Two respondents didn't give the expected answer!
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> This is a very Michael Mann "reconstruction": just as a couple of Californian bristlecones can determine the climate for a millennium, so a half-dozen Californian scientists can determine the consensus of the world.
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> Amazing what you can do with statistics!
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> ***
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> There's more to this revolt that isn't normally reported by the global warmies, probably because they get their facts from Apocalypse TV rather than by reading scientific papers.
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> Zimmerman invited comments from these selected and presumably disciplined respondents.
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> Mann's hockey stick attracted three comments - one blandly positive, the other two damning:
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> 1. "I will note that Mann's "hockey stick curve" has been demonstrated to be incorrect."
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> 2. "The "hockey stick" graph that the IPCC so touted has, it is my understanding, been debunked as junk science. While they've never admitted this to be so, it's my understanding that the graph has disappeared from IPCC publications."
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> So, 67 per cent consensus from The consensus on the consensus that Mann's stick is "incorrect" "junk"?
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> But without the hockey schtick there is no global warming!
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> ***
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> Even more that will not make the global warmie faithful happy, and is thus never mentioned:
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> Zimmerman, despite "shaping" the questions and the statistics to toe the global warmie party line (presumably because otherwise she would not have got her masters), was herself not convinced of global warming by such carefully shoddy numbers. In her own words:
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> "This entire process has been an exercise in re-educating myself about the climate debate and, in the process, I can honestly say that I have heard very convincing arguments from all the different sides, and I think I'm actually more neutral on the issue now than I was before I started this project. There is so much gray area when you begin to mix science and politics, environmental issues and social issues, calculated rational thinking with emotions, etc." -- M Zimmerman.
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> Of course Zimmerman's conclusion and opinion from her study (it's in the appendix to her thesis) is never quoted by the global warmies.
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> All of the smoke of "consensus" was blown by others; Zimmerman, the author of the study they quoted (and didn't read!) knew better.
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> ***
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> There is an amusing analysis of this material in Mark Steyn's "A Disgrace to the Profession", a highly recommended bestseller which quotes scientists all round the world being scathingly dismissive of global warming, the hockey stick and Michael Mann, and which proves conclusively that there isn't now and never was any consensus about manmade global warming.
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> No consensus, period.
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> ***
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> The so-called consensus, of course, is merely more poor quality statistical smoke blown by the global warmies. It is designed to avoid the question of whether scientific consensus shouldn't be called by its proper name: pressure group politics, in this case by scientists who want the rich pickings of grants and the glow of a "moral" justification to indulge their urge for bullying everyone else. The so-called consensus is scientism at its most brutal and offensive, and totally unacceptable.
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> Scientism is the doctrine that scientists are superior beings who shouldn't be questioned by mere mortals. In the case of global warming, the global warmie spear carriers reinforce this objectionable doctrine (and obvious lie) with the additional lie of the "consensus of scientists".
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> The very concept of consensus is unscientific and anti-scientific. Science doesn't take a vote, it iterates experiments. Consensus belongs to politics, not science. It takes just one scientist to be right.
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> The global warmies either lie, or are gullibly taken in by the lies of their high priests. Either way, they have no right to speak of "science", or even of "consensus".
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> One of the warmies' most fundamental claims, that "97% of scientists agree that global warming is dangerous and manmade" is a perfect example of the poor quality of their lies.
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> The socalled "consensus" is just another gross lie by the global warmies.
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> Quad erat demonstrandum.
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> Copyright (c) 2009, 2015, 2021 Andre Jute
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Communist theory once tried to blame poverty and suffering
> >> > > >> on free markets (which they pejoratively labeled
> >> > > >> 'capitalism', ignoring actual facts).
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Once the bright-line difference became obvious to all (as
> >> > > >> has been noted, "Communism can only achieve equality of
> >> > > >> poverty") the Party Line changed to blame free markets for
> >> > > >> despoiling the planet which completely disregards the
> >> > > >> abysmal track record of all communist regimes (and our
> >> > > >> relentless improvement).
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> And yet here we are, the Big Lie has triumphed once more. We
> >> > > >> are so doomed.
> >> > > >> Stay tuned because, as Capt Bryan Suits often notes, "You
> >> > > >> can vote your way into communism but you have to shoot your
> >> > > >> way out."
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Well Old Bryan is wrong, at least in the case of Russia who shot their
> >> > > > way into communism and didn't shoot them selves out.
> >> > > >
> >> > > Out? Did I miss some big news this week?
> >> > With his usual intellectual superiority, John believes that communism is a thing of the past in Russia.
> >> >
> >> I'm not so sure that we wouldn't wish all our enemies to be hardcore classical communists, because that is a recipe for a despondent populace and and defense force, and incompetence in production, allocations and distribution of necessities for both general populace and the armed forces. The superstructure of the nomenklatura is very expensive, at least as expensive as Washington whether Democrats or Republicans are in power.
> >> >
> >> The problem with Russia, even when much smaller than the Soviets, and with declining population is it is a very effective dictatorship with a lot of the deadwood stripped away.
> >> >
> >> The problem with China is they have a large social class that Messrs Nixon and Kissinger, and American colleges, have made into a rich, successful, pretty competent middle class -- without in the process overthrowing communism as Nixon and Kissinger hoped, and a lot of economists, including me, forecast. Effectively China has been turned in a dictatorship with frightening organizational and productive capabilities, basically like the Soviets but with a Barvard Business School mentality. We will have to pray hard that China's geriatric problem and falling birth rate and deep, deep poverty beyond the great industrial centers, overcomes them before they can launch a war of conquest to keep the result of several decades of one-child policy, the surplus of men without women occupied.
> >> >
> >> I'd much rather fight incompetent commies than competent, western-trained commies.
> >
> >Check this out: https://plos.org/announcement/plos-one-publishes-additional-coronavirus-related-papers/
> >
> >"This study was conducted by Constantinos Siettos from the Universita degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, Italy and colleagues. The authors used the Susceptible-Infected-Recovered-Dead (SIRD) model with data between January 11 and February 10, 2020 and estimated key epidemiological parameters up until February 29. With these parameters, they forecasted that between 80,000 and 160,000 people would be infected by February 29 – in fact, around 84,000 are known to have become infected in this time period.
> >
> >Dr Siettos notes, “This is the first study based on a mathematical modelling approach that has provided relatively accurate three- week-ahead forecasts. Importantly, to the best of our knowledge this is the first study based on a mathematical modelling approach suggesting that the actual number of the infections in the total population is of the order of twenty times more than those reported, and that the mortality rate in the total population is about ~0.15% i.e. significantly less than reported 2-3%.Our findings imply that for the case of Hubei (with a 60m population), around 2%-3% of the total population in Hubei has been actually infected by coronavirus.”
> >
> >The meaning of this is that I have been absolutely correct all along and covid-19 is essentially harmless. A 0.15% increase in the deaths of severely ill elderly people is so low it is difficult to measure.
> Err... TOMMY, the study used Hubei, China "as an example to see the
> epidemic in Italy" I don't know what was done in Italy but it is
> reported that in Hubei Provence:
>
> "In mid-January, Chinese authorities introduced unprecedented measures
> to contain the virus, stopping movement in and out of Wuhan, the
> center of the epidemic, and 15 other cities in Hubei province — home
> to more than 60 million people. Flights and trains were suspended, and
> roads were blocked.
> Soon after, people in many Chinese cities were told to stay at home
> and venture out only to get food or medical help. Some 760 million
> people, roughly half the country’s population, were confined to their
> homes"
>
> "it’s now two months since the lockdowns began — some of which are
> still in place — and the number of new cases there is around a couple
> of dozen per day, down from thousands per day at the peak. “These
> extreme limitations on population movement have been quite
> successful,” says Michael Osterholm, an infectious-disease scientist
> at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis."
> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.
>
No wonder people call you Slow Johnny, shorts. There are no unintimidated nations or institutions anywhere in the world who trust the Chinese count of their dead 00 but Slow Johnny finds them totally trustworthy. You must be going senile.
>

On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 4:42:24 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 10:37:00 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 5:11:13 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> >> On 12/13/2021 6:48 PM, John B. wrote:
> >> > On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 14:09:14 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 12/13/2021 12:11 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
> >> >>> ORIGIN OF THE 97% LIE OF GLOBAL WARMING
> >> >>> Andre Jute explains where this misrepresentation originated
> >> >>>
> >> >>> That "the science is settled, and 97% of scientists believe in manmade global warming" is an article of faith of the thicker global warmies and the more doctrinaire pols, and greedy manipulators like Fat Al Gore who has made his billion from the global warming scare.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> 99.999999% of those who make this foolish statement cannot name the statistical study their claim is based on, and of the few who can name Margaret Zimmerman as the author of the study, 99 out of every 100 have never read it, or they would know it is as crooked as the rest of the statistics behind Michael Mann's hockey stick, on which the whole global warming church wobbles like an upside down pyramid of jelly.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> ***
> >> >>>
> >> >>> This is it, the founding scroll of the "97% consensus":
> >> >>>
> >> >>> MSc thesis, University of Illinois, 2008:
> >> >>> M Zimmerman, The consensus of the consensus
> >> >>> http://www.lulu.com/shop/m-r-k-zimmerman/the-consensus-on-the-consensus/ebook/product-17391505.html
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Zimmerman's "survey" was a two-question, online questionnaire sent to 10,257 earth scientists, of whom 3,146 responded.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Of the 3146 scientists, 96.2 per cent came from North America. 6.2 per cent came from Canada.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> So the United States is overrepresented even within that North American sample.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> 9% of US respondents came from California.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> California is overrepresented within the US sample.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> In addition California has over twice as large a share of the sample as Europe, Asia, Australia, the Pacific, Latin America and Africa combined.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Of the 10% non-US respondents, Canada has 62 per cent.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> What sort of a distorted sample is this?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> ***
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Before you conclude that North American scientists, even when carefully preselected for assumed complaisance, are uniquely and particularly stupid, let's examine the questions Zimmerman asked them.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Zimmerman carefully crafted two questions to which most earth scientists would answer "yes", including most prominent climate change skeptics..
> >> >>>
> >> >>> It's a fit-up job. See for yourself:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Zimmerman's first question was, "When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?"
> >> >>>
> >> >>> As a disgusted reader of her thesis said, rating it one star out of five, said "Q1 is worthless for distinguishing climate alarmists from climate skeptics. 'Pre-1800s' was the middle of the Little Ice Age, and it is obviously warmer now than it was then. But nearly all of the human contribution to atmospheric GHG levels has occurred since the 1940s, so this question has nothing to do with anthropogenic climate change. Even most prominent climate change skeptics would answer 'risen' to this question."
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Oops. Let's see whether Zimmerman's other question holds any more water: "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Oh dear. Another, loaded question of the "Have you stopped beating your wife yet" school of statistics. The same disgusted reader of Zimmerman's theses tells us why this question is misleading: "Q2 is just as bad. Since aerosols from smoke clearly cause cooling (a fact which was one of the main causes for the 1970s ice age scare), few people would doubt that human activity can change temperatures, so even most of those who doubt that anthropogenic CO2 and CH4 cause worrisome global warming would have to answer 'yes' to Q2."
> >> >>>
> >> >>> The reader concludes, as anyone with experience of tendentious statistics would, as I do too: "Zimmerman could have asked [for] a meaningful answer about anthropogenic climate change, but chose not to do so."
> >> >>>
> >> >>> ***
> >> >>>
> >> >>> To add insult to injury, she then selected 79 (that's right, seventy-nine) of her sample and declared them "experts", though later she excluded two more. In the event only 75 out of 77 made it through to the final round.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> 97.4 per cent of 75 "experts" in an extremely biased "sample" were found to agree with "the consensus" because they were asked loaded questions.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> The 75 respondents -- count 'em, seventy-five --carefully pre-selected for compliance with questions loaded just to make sure, still revolted.. Two respondents didn't give the expected answer!
> >> >>>
> >> >>> This is a very Michael Mann "reconstruction": just as a couple of Californian bristlecones can determine the climate for a millennium, so a half-dozen Californian scientists can determine the consensus of the world.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Amazing what you can do with statistics!
> >> >>>
> >> >>> ***
> >> >>>
> >> >>> There's more to this revolt that isn't normally reported by the global warmies, probably because they get their facts from Apocalypse TV rather than by reading scientific papers.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Zimmerman invited comments from these selected and presumably disciplined respondents.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Mann's hockey stick attracted three comments - one blandly positive, the other two damning:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> 1. "I will note that Mann's "hockey stick curve" has been demonstrated to be incorrect."
> >> >>>
> >> >>> 2. "The "hockey stick" graph that the IPCC so touted has, it is my understanding, been debunked as junk science. While they've never admitted this to be so, it's my understanding that the graph has disappeared from IPCC publications."
> >> >>>
> >> >>> So, 67 per cent consensus from The consensus on the consensus that Mann's stick is "incorrect" "junk"?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> But without the hockey schtick there is no global warming!
> >> >>>
> >> >>> ***
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Even more that will not make the global warmie faithful happy, and is thus never mentioned:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Zimmerman, despite "shaping" the questions and the statistics to toe the global warmie party line (presumably because otherwise she would not have got her masters), was herself not convinced of global warming by such carefully shoddy numbers. In her own words:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> "This entire process has been an exercise in re-educating myself about the climate debate and, in the process, I can honestly say that I have heard very convincing arguments from all the different sides, and I think I'm actually more neutral on the issue now than I was before I started this project. There is so much gray area when you begin to mix science and politics, environmental issues and social issues, calculated rational thinking with emotions, etc." -- M Zimmerman.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Of course Zimmerman's conclusion and opinion from her study (it's in the appendix to her thesis) is never quoted by the global warmies.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> All of the smoke of "consensus" was blown by others; Zimmerman, the author of the study they quoted (and didn't read!) knew better.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> ***
> >> >>>
> >> >>> There is an amusing analysis of this material in Mark Steyn's "A Disgrace to the Profession", a highly recommended bestseller which quotes scientists all round the world being scathingly dismissive of global warming, the hockey stick and Michael Mann, and which proves conclusively that there isn't now and never was any consensus about manmade global warming.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> No consensus, period.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> ***
> >> >>>
> >> >>> The so-called consensus, of course, is merely more poor quality statistical smoke blown by the global warmies. It is designed to avoid the question of whether scientific consensus shouldn't be called by its proper name: pressure group politics, in this case by scientists who want the rich pickings of grants and the glow of a "moral" justification to indulge their urge for bullying everyone else. The so-called consensus is scientism at its most brutal and offensive, and totally unacceptable.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Scientism is the doctrine that scientists are superior beings who shouldn't be questioned by mere mortals. In the case of global warming, the global warmie spear carriers reinforce this objectionable doctrine (and obvious lie) with the additional lie of the "consensus of scientists".
> >> >>>
> >> >>> The very concept of consensus is unscientific and anti-scientific. Science doesn't take a vote, it iterates experiments. Consensus belongs to politics, not science. It takes just one scientist to be right.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> The global warmies either lie, or are gullibly taken in by the lies of their high priests. Either way, they have no right to speak of "science", or even of "consensus".
> >> >>>
> >> >>> One of the warmies' most fundamental claims, that "97% of scientists agree that global warming is dangerous and manmade" is a perfect example of the poor quality of their lies.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> The socalled "consensus" is just another gross lie by the global warmies.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Quad erat demonstrandum.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Copyright (c) 2009, 2015, 2021 Andre Jute
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >> Communist theory once tried to blame poverty and suffering
> >> >> on free markets (which they pejoratively labeled
> >> >> 'capitalism', ignoring actual facts).
> >> >>
> >> >> Once the bright-line difference became obvious to all (as
> >> >> has been noted, "Communism can only achieve equality of
> >> >> poverty") the Party Line changed to blame free markets for
> >> >> despoiling the planet which completely disregards the
> >> >> abysmal track record of all communist regimes (and our
> >> >> relentless improvement).
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> And yet here we are, the Big Lie has triumphed once more. We
> >> >> are so doomed.
> >> >> Stay tuned because, as Capt Bryan Suits often notes, "You
> >> >> can vote your way into communism but you have to shoot your
> >> >> way out."
> >> >
> >> > Well Old Bryan is wrong, at least in the case of Russia who shot their
> >> > way into communism and didn't shoot them selves out.
> >> >
> >> Out? Did I miss some big news this week?
> >
> >With his usual intellectual superiority, John believes that communism is a thing of the past in Russia.
> Given your proven inability to understand what you read I wonder
> whether you actually know what communism is? Certainly I have asked
> you several times and to date you seem unable to answer.
>
> So tell us Tommy, What is Communism?

On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 4:43:06 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 11:46:02 PM UTC, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Check this out: https://plos.org/announcement/plos-one-publishes-additional-coronavirus-related-papers/
> >
> > "This study was conducted by Constantinos Siettos from the Universita degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, Italy and colleagues. The authors used the Susceptible-Infected-Recovered-Dead (SIRD) model with data between January 11 and February 10, 2020 and estimated key epidemiological parameters up until February 29. With these parameters, they forecasted that between 80,000 and 160,000 people would be infected by February 29 – in fact, around 84,000 are known to have become infected in this time period.
> >
> > Dr Siettos notes, “This is the first study based on a mathematical modelling approach that has provided relatively accurate three- week-ahead forecasts. Importantly, to the best of our knowledge this is the first study based on a mathematical modelling approach suggesting that the actual number of the infections in the total population is of the order of twenty times more than those reported, and that the mortality rate in the total population is about ~0.15% i.e. significantly less than reported 2-3%.Our findings imply that for the case of Hubei (with a 60m population), around 2%-3% of the total population in Hubei has been actually infected by coronavirus.”
> >
> > The meaning of this is that I have been absolutely correct all along and covid-19 is essentially harmless. A 0.15% increase in the deaths of severely ill elderly people is so low it is difficult to measure.
> >
> If that study can be replicated elsewhere a couple of times, it would be incontrovertible. Meanwhile, "A 0.15% increase in the deaths of severely ill elderly people", no matter how large your sample, is a blip in the numbers, not a significant increase, statistically of negative value though it is of course indicative of a disproven hypothesis (that ChiCom-19 is a great killer and should show in excess deaths). In fact it very likely goes a long way to proving another hypothesis, that people died *with* ChiCom-19, rather than *of* ChiCom-19, and were wrongfully counted by the government as victims of ChiCom-19.
> >
> A little common-sense and a whole truckload less hubris (1) would go a very long way here.
> >
> Andre Jute
> (1) Humility is too much to hope for.

While we have that counterfeit scientist Fauci on one side on the other we have the real workers in the CDC actually attempting to discover what is going on. Using PCR as I said before CANNOT be used as a test to identify a corona virus. BUT if you have had covid-19 there are blood markers that can be detected with other means,. IF this had been done earlier, they could have discovered that as I had said two years ago that HALF of the population was having asymptomatic or extremely mild cases often tossed off as allergies or mild colds.

The problem with people like Slow Johnny is that he knows absolutely nothing and relies entirely on Google for his low IQ responses. If Fauci hasn't said it, Google won't print it. So Slow Johnny is perfectly happy to spread misinformation because he simply doesn't know any better.

On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 3:57:32 PM UTC, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 4:42:24 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
> > On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 10:37:00 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
> > <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 5:11:13 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> > >> On 12/13/2021 6:48 PM, John B. wrote:
> > >> > On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 14:09:14 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> On 12/13/2021 12:11 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
> > >> >>> ORIGIN OF THE 97% LIE OF GLOBAL WARMING
> > >> >>> Andre Jute explains where this misrepresentation originated
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> That "the science is settled, and 97% of scientists believe in manmade global warming" is an article of faith of the thicker global warmies and the more doctrinaire pols, and greedy manipulators like Fat Al Gore who has made his billion from the global warming scare.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> 99.999999% of those who make this foolish statement cannot name the statistical study their claim is based on, and of the few who can name Margaret Zimmerman as the author of the study, 99 out of every 100 have never read it, or they would know it is as crooked as the rest of the statistics behind Michael Mann's hockey stick, on which the whole global warming church wobbles like an upside down pyramid of jelly.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> ***
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> This is it, the founding scroll of the "97% consensus":
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> MSc thesis, University of Illinois, 2008:
> > >> >>> M Zimmerman, The consensus of the consensus
> > >> >>> http://www.lulu.com/shop/m-r-k-zimmerman/the-consensus-on-the-consensus/ebook/product-17391505.html
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Zimmerman's "survey" was a two-question, online questionnaire sent to 10,257 earth scientists, of whom 3,146 responded.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Of the 3146 scientists, 96.2 per cent came from North America. 6..2 per cent came from Canada.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> So the United States is overrepresented even within that North American sample.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> 9% of US respondents came from California.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> California is overrepresented within the US sample.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> In addition California has over twice as large a share of the sample as Europe, Asia, Australia, the Pacific, Latin America and Africa combined.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Of the 10% non-US respondents, Canada has 62 per cent.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> What sort of a distorted sample is this?
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> ***
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Before you conclude that North American scientists, even when carefully preselected for assumed complaisance, are uniquely and particularly stupid, let's examine the questions Zimmerman asked them.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Zimmerman carefully crafted two questions to which most earth scientists would answer "yes", including most prominent climate change skeptics.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> It's a fit-up job. See for yourself:
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Zimmerman's first question was, "When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?"
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> As a disgusted reader of her thesis said, rating it one star out of five, said "Q1 is worthless for distinguishing climate alarmists from climate skeptics. 'Pre-1800s' was the middle of the Little Ice Age, and it is obviously warmer now than it was then. But nearly all of the human contribution to atmospheric GHG levels has occurred since the 1940s, so this question has nothing to do with anthropogenic climate change. Even most prominent climate change skeptics would answer 'risen' to this question."
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Oops. Let's see whether Zimmerman's other question holds any more water: "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Oh dear. Another, loaded question of the "Have you stopped beating your wife yet" school of statistics. The same disgusted reader of Zimmerman's theses tells us why this question is misleading: "Q2 is just as bad. Since aerosols from smoke clearly cause cooling (a fact which was one of the main causes for the 1970s ice age scare), few people would doubt that human activity can change temperatures, so even most of those who doubt that anthropogenic CO2 and CH4 cause worrisome global warming would have to answer 'yes' to Q2."
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> The reader concludes, as anyone with experience of tendentious statistics would, as I do too: "Zimmerman could have asked [for] a meaningful answer about anthropogenic climate change, but chose not to do so."
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> ***
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> To add insult to injury, she then selected 79 (that's right, seventy-nine) of her sample and declared them "experts", though later she excluded two more. In the event only 75 out of 77 made it through to the final round.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> 97.4 per cent of 75 "experts" in an extremely biased "sample" were found to agree with "the consensus" because they were asked loaded questions.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> The 75 respondents -- count 'em, seventy-five --carefully pre-selected for compliance with questions loaded just to make sure, still revolted. Two respondents didn't give the expected answer!
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> This is a very Michael Mann "reconstruction": just as a couple of Californian bristlecones can determine the climate for a millennium, so a half-dozen Californian scientists can determine the consensus of the world..
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Amazing what you can do with statistics!
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> ***
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> There's more to this revolt that isn't normally reported by the global warmies, probably because they get their facts from Apocalypse TV rather than by reading scientific papers.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Zimmerman invited comments from these selected and presumably disciplined respondents.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Mann's hockey stick attracted three comments - one blandly positive, the other two damning:
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> 1. "I will note that Mann's "hockey stick curve" has been demonstrated to be incorrect."
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> 2. "The "hockey stick" graph that the IPCC so touted has, it is my understanding, been debunked as junk science. While they've never admitted this to be so, it's my understanding that the graph has disappeared from IPCC publications."
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> So, 67 per cent consensus from The consensus on the consensus that Mann's stick is "incorrect" "junk"?
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> But without the hockey schtick there is no global warming!
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> ***
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Even more that will not make the global warmie faithful happy, and is thus never mentioned:
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Zimmerman, despite "shaping" the questions and the statistics to toe the global warmie party line (presumably because otherwise she would not have got her masters), was herself not convinced of global warming by such carefully shoddy numbers. In her own words:
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> "This entire process has been an exercise in re-educating myself about the climate debate and, in the process, I can honestly say that I have heard very convincing arguments from all the different sides, and I think I'm actually more neutral on the issue now than I was before I started this project. There is so much gray area when you begin to mix science and politics, environmental issues and social issues, calculated rational thinking with emotions, etc." -- M Zimmerman.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Of course Zimmerman's conclusion and opinion from her study (it's in the appendix to her thesis) is never quoted by the global warmies.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> All of the smoke of "consensus" was blown by others; Zimmerman, the author of the study they quoted (and didn't read!) knew better.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> ***
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> There is an amusing analysis of this material in Mark Steyn's "A Disgrace to the Profession", a highly recommended bestseller which quotes scientists all round the world being scathingly dismissive of global warming, the hockey stick and Michael Mann, and which proves conclusively that there isn't now and never was any consensus about manmade global warming.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> No consensus, period.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> ***
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> The so-called consensus, of course, is merely more poor quality statistical smoke blown by the global warmies. It is designed to avoid the question of whether scientific consensus shouldn't be called by its proper name: pressure group politics, in this case by scientists who want the rich pickings of grants and the glow of a "moral" justification to indulge their urge for bullying everyone else. The so-called consensus is scientism at its most brutal and offensive, and totally unacceptable.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Scientism is the doctrine that scientists are superior beings who shouldn't be questioned by mere mortals. In the case of global warming, the global warmie spear carriers reinforce this objectionable doctrine (and obvious lie) with the additional lie of the "consensus of scientists".
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> The very concept of consensus is unscientific and anti-scientific. Science doesn't take a vote, it iterates experiments. Consensus belongs to politics, not science. It takes just one scientist to be right.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> The global warmies either lie, or are gullibly taken in by the lies of their high priests. Either way, they have no right to speak of "science", or even of "consensus".
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> One of the warmies' most fundamental claims, that "97% of scientists agree that global warming is dangerous and manmade" is a perfect example of the poor quality of their lies.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> The socalled "consensus" is just another gross lie by the global warmies.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Quad erat demonstrandum.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Copyright (c) 2009, 2015, 2021 Andre Jute
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Communist theory once tried to blame poverty and suffering
> > >> >> on free markets (which they pejoratively labeled
> > >> >> 'capitalism', ignoring actual facts).
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Once the bright-line difference became obvious to all (as
> > >> >> has been noted, "Communism can only achieve equality of
> > >> >> poverty") the Party Line changed to blame free markets for
> > >> >> despoiling the planet which completely disregards the
> > >> >> abysmal track record of all communist regimes (and our
> > >> >> relentless improvement).
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> And yet here we are, the Big Lie has triumphed once more. We
> > >> >> are so doomed.
> > >> >> Stay tuned because, as Capt Bryan Suits often notes, "You
> > >> >> can vote your way into communism but you have to shoot your
> > >> >> way out."
> > >> >
> > >> > Well Old Bryan is wrong, at least in the case of Russia who shot their
> > >> > way into communism and didn't shoot them selves out.
> > >> >
> > >> Out? Did I miss some big news this week?
> > >
> > >With his usual intellectual superiority, John believes that communism is a thing of the past in Russia.
> > Given your proven inability to understand what you read I wonder
> > whether you actually know what communism is? Certainly I have asked
> > you several times and to date you seem unable to answer.
> >
> > So tell us Tommy, What is Communism?
> You have been told several times but you being demented means that you cannot remember anything - the definition of communism LIKE Socialism is the government ownership of the means of production. Maybe you should note it down so that you needn't ask any more.
>
Just for laughs, actual conservatives (not the compromisers in Congress) and real marxist communists (as distinct from Bolsheviks and all other socialists), just want the government to get the hell out of peoples businesses and lives. Marx didn't say how it would happen but he expected government just to fall away once perfect communism had been achieved. I once heard Tony Benn, a leading British left-winger, make this point at dinner, and point to cooperatives as a possible enabling mechanism, but there was no opportunity to discuss it with him, which was a pity as I know something of coops, including the Israeli ones, both capitalist and socialist flavors, that work brilliantly, unlike the British ones Benn was involved with. In practice, of course, you're right, communism means the government owns everything, and even if they allow a little private enterprise, they always reserve the right to take it away again, as the peasants permitted to own a cow in Russian discovered when the Politburo one day just took them away and let them die for lack of food, as Jack Ma, richest man in China, founder of Alibaba and Aliexpress discovered one sudden day when he was given the choice by the government of retiring or being jailed, perhaps executed. Central planning is another key characteristic of Communist government, and a key generator of inefficiencies, and incredible waste is almost inevitable..
>
Andre Jute
Sad. -- President Donald Trump

On 12/15/2021 6:17 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 3:57:32 PM UTC, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 4:42:24 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
>>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 10:37:00 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
>>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 5:11:13 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> On 12/13/2021 6:48 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 14:09:14 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 12/13/2021 12:11 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
>>>>>>>> ORIGIN OF THE 97% LIE OF GLOBAL WARMING
>>>>>>>> Andre Jute explains where this misrepresentation originated
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That "the science is settled, and 97% of scientists believe in manmade global warming" is an article of faith of the thicker global warmies and the more doctrinaire pols, and greedy manipulators like Fat Al Gore who has made his billion from the global warming scare.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 99.999999% of those who make this foolish statement cannot name the statistical study their claim is based on, and of the few who can name Margaret Zimmerman as the author of the study, 99 out of every 100 have never read it, or they would know it is as crooked as the rest of the statistics behind Michael Mann's hockey stick, on which the whole global warming church wobbles like an upside down pyramid of jelly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ***
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is it, the founding scroll of the "97% consensus":
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> MSc thesis, University of Illinois, 2008:
>>>>>>>> M Zimmerman, The consensus of the consensus
>>>>>>>> http://www.lulu.com/shop/m-r-k-zimmerman/the-consensus-on-the-consensus/ebook/product-17391505.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Zimmerman's "survey" was a two-question, online questionnaire sent to 10,257 earth scientists, of whom 3,146 responded.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of the 3146 scientists, 96.2 per cent came from North America. 6.2 per cent came from Canada.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So the United States is overrepresented even within that North American sample.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 9% of US respondents came from California.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> California is overrepresented within the US sample.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In addition California has over twice as large a share of the sample as Europe, Asia, Australia, the Pacific, Latin America and Africa combined.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of the 10% non-US respondents, Canada has 62 per cent.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What sort of a distorted sample is this?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ***
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Before you conclude that North American scientists, even when carefully preselected for assumed complaisance, are uniquely and particularly stupid, let's examine the questions Zimmerman asked them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Zimmerman carefully crafted two questions to which most earth scientists would answer "yes", including most prominent climate change skeptics.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's a fit-up job. See for yourself:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Zimmerman's first question was, "When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As a disgusted reader of her thesis said, rating it one star out of five, said "Q1 is worthless for distinguishing climate alarmists from climate skeptics. 'Pre-1800s' was the middle of the Little Ice Age, and it is obviously warmer now than it was then. But nearly all of the human contribution to atmospheric GHG levels has occurred since the 1940s, so this question has nothing to do with anthropogenic climate change. Even most prominent climate change skeptics would answer 'risen' to this question."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oops. Let's see whether Zimmerman's other question holds any more water: "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oh dear. Another, loaded question of the "Have you stopped beating your wife yet" school of statistics. The same disgusted reader of Zimmerman's theses tells us why this question is misleading: "Q2 is just as bad. Since aerosols from smoke clearly cause cooling (a fact which was one of the main causes for the 1970s ice age scare), few people would doubt that human activity can change temperatures, so even most of those who doubt that anthropogenic CO2 and CH4 cause worrisome global warming would have to answer 'yes' to Q2."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The reader concludes, as anyone with experience of tendentious statistics would, as I do too: "Zimmerman could have asked [for] a meaningful answer about anthropogenic climate change, but chose not to do so."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ***
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To add insult to injury, she then selected 79 (that's right, seventy-nine) of her sample and declared them "experts", though later she excluded two more. In the event only 75 out of 77 made it through to the final round.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 97.4 per cent of 75 "experts" in an extremely biased "sample" were found to agree with "the consensus" because they were asked loaded questions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The 75 respondents -- count 'em, seventy-five --carefully pre-selected for compliance with questions loaded just to make sure, still revolted. Two respondents didn't give the expected answer!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is a very Michael Mann "reconstruction": just as a couple of Californian bristlecones can determine the climate for a millennium, so a half-dozen Californian scientists can determine the consensus of the world.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Amazing what you can do with statistics!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ***
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There's more to this revolt that isn't normally reported by the global warmies, probably because they get their facts from Apocalypse TV rather than by reading scientific papers.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Zimmerman invited comments from these selected and presumably disciplined respondents.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mann's hockey stick attracted three comments - one blandly positive, the other two damning:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. "I will note that Mann's "hockey stick curve" has been demonstrated to be incorrect."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2. "The "hockey stick" graph that the IPCC so touted has, it is my understanding, been debunked as junk science. While they've never admitted this to be so, it's my understanding that the graph has disappeared from IPCC publications."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, 67 per cent consensus from The consensus on the consensus that Mann's stick is "incorrect" "junk"?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But without the hockey schtick there is no global warming!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ***
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Even more that will not make the global warmie faithful happy, and is thus never mentioned:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Zimmerman, despite "shaping" the questions and the statistics to toe the global warmie party line (presumably because otherwise she would not have got her masters), was herself not convinced of global warming by such carefully shoddy numbers. In her own words:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "This entire process has been an exercise in re-educating myself about the climate debate and, in the process, I can honestly say that I have heard very convincing arguments from all the different sides, and I think I'm actually more neutral on the issue now than I was before I started this project. There is so much gray area when you begin to mix science and politics, environmental issues and social issues, calculated rational thinking with emotions, etc." -- M Zimmerman.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course Zimmerman's conclusion and opinion from her study (it's in the appendix to her thesis) is never quoted by the global warmies.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All of the smoke of "consensus" was blown by others; Zimmerman, the author of the study they quoted (and didn't read!) knew better.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ***
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is an amusing analysis of this material in Mark Steyn's "A Disgrace to the Profession", a highly recommended bestseller which quotes scientists all round the world being scathingly dismissive of global warming, the hockey stick and Michael Mann, and which proves conclusively that there isn't now and never was any consensus about manmade global warming.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No consensus, period.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ***
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The so-called consensus, of course, is merely more poor quality statistical smoke blown by the global warmies. It is designed to avoid the question of whether scientific consensus shouldn't be called by its proper name: pressure group politics, in this case by scientists who want the rich pickings of grants and the glow of a "moral" justification to indulge their urge for bullying everyone else. The so-called consensus is scientism at its most brutal and offensive, and totally unacceptable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Scientism is the doctrine that scientists are superior beings who shouldn't be questioned by mere mortals. In the case of global warming, the global warmie spear carriers reinforce this objectionable doctrine (and obvious lie) with the additional lie of the "consensus of scientists".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The very concept of consensus is unscientific and anti-scientific. Science doesn't take a vote, it iterates experiments. Consensus belongs to politics, not science. It takes just one scientist to be right.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The global warmies either lie, or are gullibly taken in by the lies of their high priests. Either way, they have no right to speak of "science", or even of "consensus".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One of the warmies' most fundamental claims, that "97% of scientists agree that global warming is dangerous and manmade" is a perfect example of the poor quality of their lies.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The socalled "consensus" is just another gross lie by the global warmies.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Quad erat demonstrandum.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Copyright (c) 2009, 2015, 2021 Andre Jute
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Communist theory once tried to blame poverty and suffering
>>>>>>> on free markets (which they pejoratively labeled
>>>>>>> 'capitalism', ignoring actual facts).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Once the bright-line difference became obvious to all (as
>>>>>>> has been noted, "Communism can only achieve equality of
>>>>>>> poverty") the Party Line changed to blame free markets for
>>>>>>> despoiling the planet which completely disregards the
>>>>>>> abysmal track record of all communist regimes (and our
>>>>>>> relentless improvement).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And yet here we are, the Big Lie has triumphed once more. We
>>>>>>> are so doomed.
>>>>>>> Stay tuned because, as Capt Bryan Suits often notes, "You
>>>>>>> can vote your way into communism but you have to shoot your
>>>>>>> way out."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well Old Bryan is wrong, at least in the case of Russia who shot their
>>>>>> way into communism and didn't shoot them selves out.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Out? Did I miss some big news this week?
>>>>
>>>> With his usual intellectual superiority, John believes that communism is a thing of the past in Russia.
>>> Given your proven inability to understand what you read I wonder
>>> whether you actually know what communism is? Certainly I have asked
>>> you several times and to date you seem unable to answer.
>>>
>>> So tell us Tommy, What is Communism?
>> You have been told several times but you being demented means that you cannot remember anything - the definition of communism LIKE Socialism is the government ownership of the means of production. Maybe you should note it down so that you needn't ask any more.
>>
> Just for laughs, actual conservatives (not the compromisers in Congress) and real marxist communists (as distinct from Bolsheviks and all other socialists), just want the government to get the hell out of peoples businesses and lives. Marx didn't say how it would happen but he expected government just to fall away once perfect communism had been achieved. I once heard Tony Benn, a leading British left-winger, make this point at dinner, and point to cooperatives as a possible enabling mechanism, but there was no opportunity to discuss it with him, which was a pity as I know something of coops, including the Israeli ones, both capitalist and socialist flavors, that work brilliantly, unlike the British ones Benn was involved with. In practice, of course, you're right, communism means the government owns everything, and even if they allow a little private enterprise, they always reserve the right to take it away again, as the peasants permitted to own a cow in Russian discovered when
the Politburo one day just took them away and let them die for lack of food, as Jack Ma, richest man in China, founder of Alibaba and Aliexpress discovered one sudden day when he was given the choice by the government of retiring or being jailed, perhaps executed. Central planning is another key characteristic of Communist government, and a key generator of inefficiencies, and incredible waste is almost inevitable..
>>
> Andre Jute
> Sad. -- President Donald Trump
>

On 12/13/2021 4:48 PM, John B. wrote:

Andre can begin his education here:
<https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/sep/02/rick-santorum/santorum-un-climate-head-debunked-widely-cited-97-/>.

I don't see anything there except more errors made by the so-called fact-checkers. For instance, Pachouli was never a climate scientist of any kind, he was a railway engineer -- and he's a convicted felon for sexual harassment of staff. Margaret Zimmerman's highly selected sample was only 75, not the 77 these slackarse so-called fact-checkers claim.

In fact, these dumb "fact-checkers" merely confirmed that my opening article in this thread is not only correct, it is spot-on: the root of the 97 percent lie is Margaret Zimmermann's deplorably dishonest master's thesis. I could go on and analyze Cook's lies as well, but why bother, he was only trying to shore up Zimmermann.

Before you try to throw such el mucho dumbo "fact-checkers" against my head, Scharfie, you should really check their accuracy. I trust you won't make the same foolish local politician's mistake again.

Andre Jute
Even the "fact-checkers" are now infected with dishonest political bias -- in short, they lie, just like Scharfie does.

On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 1:31:33 AM UTC, sms wrote:
> On 12/13/2021 4:48 PM, John B. wrote:
>
> Andre can begin his education here:
> <https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/sep/02/rick-santorum/santorum-un-climate-head-debunked-widely-cited-97-/>.

On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 6:43:49 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
> I don't see anything there except more errors made by the so-called fact-checkers. For instance, Pachouli was never a climate scientist of any kind, he was a railway engineer -- and he's a convicted felon for sexual harassment of staff. Margaret Zimmerman's highly selected sample was only 75, not the 77 these slackarse so-called fact-checkers claim.
>
> In fact, these dumb "fact-checkers" merely confirmed that my opening article in this thread is not only correct, it is spot-on: the root of the 97 percent lie is Margaret Zimmermann's deplorably dishonest master's thesis. I could go on and analyze Cook's lies as well, but why bother, he was only trying to shore up Zimmermann.
>
> Before you try to throw such el mucho dumbo "fact-checkers" against my head, Scharfie, you should really check their accuracy. I trust you won't make the same foolish local politician's mistake again.
>
> Andre Jute
> Even the "fact-checkers" are now infected with dishonest political bias -- in short, they lie, just like Scharfie does.
> On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 1:31:33 AM UTC, sms wrote:
> > On 12/13/2021 4:48 PM, John B. wrote:
> >
> > Andre can begin his education here:
> > <https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/sep/02/rick-santorum/santorum-un-climate-head-debunked-widely-cited-97-/>.
Scharf is another know nothing political hack that couldn't find his ass with both hands tied behind him. What you do with liars like him is kick his teeth in.

On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 3:14:11 PM UTC, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 6:43:49 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
> > I don't see anything there except more errors made by the so-called fact-checkers. For instance, Pachouli was never a climate scientist of any kind, he was a railway engineer -- and he's a convicted felon for sexual harassment of staff. Margaret Zimmerman's highly selected sample was only 75, not the 77 these slackarse so-called fact-checkers claim.
> >
> > In fact, these dumb "fact-checkers" merely confirmed that my opening article in this thread is not only correct, it is spot-on: the root of the 97 percent lie is Margaret Zimmermann's deplorably dishonest master's thesis. I could go on and analyze Cook's lies as well, but why bother, he was only trying to shore up Zimmermann.
> >
> > Before you try to throw such el mucho dumbo "fact-checkers" against my head, Scharfie, you should really check their accuracy. I trust you won't make the same foolish local politician's mistake again.
> >
> > Andre Jute
> > Even the "fact-checkers" are now infected with dishonest political bias -- in short, they lie, just like Scharfie does.
> > On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 1:31:33 AM UTC, sms wrote:
> > > On 12/13/2021 4:48 PM, John B. wrote:
> > >
> > > Andre can begin his education here:
> > > <https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/sep/02/rick-santorum/santorum-un-climate-head-debunked-widely-cited-97-/>.
> Scharf is another know nothing political hack that couldn't find his ass with both hands tied behind him. What you do with liars like him is kick his teeth in.
>
Scharfie's like a hyena pup, one moment quivering with desire to be liked, pissing himself to be stroked, the next trying to bite off your hand at the elbow. Scharfie's a prime example of a born thug whom an expensive education failed to civilize more than superficially. But, in the brazenness and shamelessness of his thuggery, I find him amusing. He's a real-life Sammy Glick from Budd Schulberg's key American novel, WHAT MAKES SAMMY RUN. --- AJ