I watched the PBS propaganda and Tom Harris captures the issues quite well. They kept referencing the bogus 97%. It appears that PBS does not understand science is not about consensus, that is a political term.

Watts Up With That?

Guest post by Tom Harris

Besides the obvious bias we have come to expect from most main stream media coverage of climate change, “Climate of Doubt“, aired Tuesday night on PBS’s Frontline, committed one serious mistake that can not be left unaddressed.

Frontline repeatedly implied that there is an overwhelming consensus among climate scientists that our CO2 emissions are driving us to a global climate catastrophe. They cited 97% as the fraction of the climate science community who agreed with climate alarmism.

That number is easily dismissed. It comes from a 2009 online survey of 10,257 earth scientists, conducted by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Strangely, the researchers chose to eliminate almost all the scientists from the survey and so ended up with only 77 people, 75 of whom, or 97%, thought humans contributed to climate change.

View original post 966 more words

Advertisements

About Russ Steele
Freelance writer and climate change blogger. Russ spent twenty years in the Air Force as a navigator specializing in electronics warfare and digital systems. After his service he was employed for sixteen years as concept developer for TRW, an aerospace and automotive company, and then was CEO of a non-profit Internet provider for 18 months. Russ's articles have appeared in Comstock's Business, Capitol Journal, Trailer Life, Monitoring Times, and Idaho Magazine.

2 Responses to

  1. One other term that keep coming up was the Tea Party and the role they played in insuring that any politician, Republican or Democrat, that supported Al Gore’s views on climate change was challenged and many lost in the primaries, including one serving Congressman. The word got out, supporting the AGW cult had become the third rail of politics.

  2. His purpleness has some comments on climate deniers drawing squiggly lines. Those lines are of no value according his purpleness, but the squiggly pattern matching of specially selected data by the AGW cult are valid. Why is that?

    They are both squiggly lines, but AGW cult lines are drawn based on computer models and the deniers lines are base on historical data. There is a big difference. One is historical sensor collected facts the other is a computer fantasy. The purple man believes in fantasies.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: