Congress Should Investigate the Claim of Scientific Consensus

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

The claim of “consensus” is one of the pillars of sand that is supporting the climate change political movement. The problem is, the way this conclusion was reached, it isn’t defensible. Searching published articles for certain words doesn’t prove a “consensus.” No one went or record supporting the claims of “consensus,” it all came from research of articles.

The story of how Maurice Strong and the Club of Rome set up the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to direct political and scientific focus on CO2 to ‘prove’ it was causing global warming is well documented…Consensus was a central theme to the political promotion of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) from the start. Initially, it was the 6000+ representatives of the IPCC. Later, it became the manufactured percentages of 95 of Naomi Oreskes and 97 for John Cooke. However, there was another form of manufactured consensus that continues to influence public and political opinion…consensus of authority in the climate deception are the Nobel Prize, jointly awarded to Al Gore and the IPCC and the openly declared support of scientific societies for the IPCC Reports.

For there to be any real scientific “consensus” one would need models that accurately define the factors impacting global temperature. The model the IPCC has chosen claims CO2 is the most significant factors, yet all their models fail to demonstrate the validity of that theory. No real scientist would ever go on record defending the results of the IPCC Models. The models do more to discredit the theory than to validate it.


Because the failure is so spectacular, it is doubtful that any real scientist would testify before congress as to the claims that man is responsible for 100% of the warming over the past century. The evidence simply doesn’t exist to support that claim…and Michael Mann knows it.


Congress should investigate this claim of “consensus,” and demand that Mann,  Oreskes, and Cooke produce a list of scientists that support their claims. It is one thing to anonymously support a position on a survey, it is a whole other thing to testify in front of congress and risk your reputation. Congress should call the consensus bluff and tell these “scientists” to put up or shut-up. My bet is they will shut-up. Congress needs to stop investigating the science, and start exposing the lies.

Please like, share, subscribe and comment.


7 thoughts on “Congress Should Investigate the Claim of Scientific Consensus”

  1. Having to shout the fake 97% figure just shows the paucity of their argument as a piece of science. Science does not require a consensus, it requires observations that can be validated and verified by others.


  2. Of course you are citing the worst kind of historical figures who used political/social game playing mixed with brute thuggery to get into power but of course that could not happen today, could it?
    “A total of seven shots were fired into our National Space Science and Technology Center (NSSTC) building here at UAH over the weekend. All bullets hit the 4th floor, which is where John Christy’s office is” situated.


  3. And the good news

    28 Apr: Reuters: Exclusive: Trump says U.S. wants fair treatment in climate pact
    By Stephen J. Adler, Steve Holland and Jeff Mason
    (Writing by David Brunnstrom; Editing by Howard Goller)
    President Donald Trump complained on Thursday that the United States was being unfairly treated in the Paris Climate Agreement and told Reuters he would announce a decision in about two weeks on whether Washington would remain in the accord…

    Trump, who will mark the 100th day of his presidency on Saturday, told Reuters in an interview he would announce his decision “in about two weeks,” but complained that China, India, Russia and other countries were paying too little to help poorer countries battle climate change under the agreement’s Green Climate Fund.
    “It’s not a fair situation because they are paying virtually nothing and we are paying massive amounts of money,” he said.
    Asked for a hint of what his decision might be, he said: “I can say this, we want to be treated fairly.”…


    28 Apr: Fox News: Jade Scipioni: Congress Members Urge Trump to Re-Work Paris Agreement
    “As you know, President Obama pledged a 26 to 28% reduction in U.S. greenhouse gas emission by 2025, compared to a 2005 baseline,” the Congress members wrote in a letter addressed to Trump.
    “This target would cause irreparable harm to our economy, particularly our manufacturing and energy sectors, and should be rejected.”…
    They say the U.S. should instead present a new pledge that doesn’t harm our economy but instead showcases plans to drive technological innovation to help ensure a future for fossil fuels within the context of the global climate agenda. Additionally, they advise Trump to not make any additional transfers to the Green Climate Fund…

    Representatives Kevin Cramer (R-ND), Mike Kelly (R-PA), Virginia Foxx (R-NC), Larry Bucshon (R-IN), Markwayne Mullin (R-OK), Billy Long (R-MO), Chris Collins (R-NY), Gregg Harper (R-MS), and Earl L. “Buddy” Carter (R-GA) all signed the letter.


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s