Obama recycles the 97% of scientists believe in man-made CO2 forced global warming crap again...

Obama first tweeted this claim on May 16, 2013 and used it again in today's ,speech.

Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous. Read more: http://t.co/4lEEBYtVqf
— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) May 16, 2013

The study that this number originates from, Cook et al. (2013), is fatally flawed from a sampling point of view. Also, many scientists claim their papers were misrepresented.

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

“Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW, and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC.” – Dr. Morner

“I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct. Rating our serious auditing paper from just a reading of the abstract or words contained in the title of the paper is surely a bad mistake.” – Dr. Soon

“No, if Cook et al’s paper classifies my paper, ‘A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change’ as “explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize,” nothing could be further from either my intent or the contents of my paper.” – Dr. Carlin

More here: http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html#Update2

 I have some 97%'s for Obama to consider: 

97% of the children believe in Santa

97% of paranoid believe they are being followed

97% of the homeopaths believe in homeopathy

97% of the astrologists believe in astrology

97% of the KKK think lynch-mobs are a good thing

97% of the intelligent design gang are absolutely convinced that God made it all

97% of all the interviewed Zen Buddhists were convinced it is possible to clap with one hand

 97% of Playboy models believe in taking all their clothes off

97% of the paganism movement think sandals are fashionable

97% of the politicians think they are doing some great things

97% of people will believe hogwash if someone famous claims scientists believe it.

Busted: OFA Caught Promoting “Hoax” Video Against Congress Members

Shameful...

Via Fox News:

A recent video from a President Obama-aligned group is under fire from fact-checkers for claiming hundreds of House members voted to call climate change a “hoax” — namely, because they didn’t.

The video from Organizing for Action cleverly splices together quotes from Republican climate change skeptics while building up to the factoid about the vote, which was on an amendment to a broader bill in 2011.

The video then includes the following text: “Number of House members who voted in 2011 that climate change was a ‘hoax’: 240.”

The amendment, though, did not include the word hoax, and the circumstances of the vote were far more complicated than the video portrayed. FactCheck.org and The Washington Post have both called out the claim as inaccurate, with the Post giving it four “Pinocchios,” which is the worst score for the truthfulness the paper gives out.

Keep on reading…

University of East Anglia Threw Away Global Warming Raw Temperature Data

After the leaked email scandal, the University of East Anglia has been forced to admit they threw away the raw temperature data they used to make their predictions of anthropogenic global warming. They claim they only kept the 'adjusted' data. That is one sure-fire way to prevent skeptics from checking your calculations. Based on what programmers have learned from examining the leaked code the University of East Anglia used to calculate the 'Hockey Stick Graph,' their calculations definitely need rechecking.

TIMESONLINE reported:

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

Leaked Emails Prove Major Climatology Computer Model Is Garbage

The Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in eastern England is a big player in the AGW scientific community. Their mathematical models were incorporated into the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007 report. Leaked emails prove their programmer "Harry" determined much of their database was garbage.

I am seriously worried that our flagship gridded data product is produced by Delaunay triangulation - apparently linear as well. As far as I can see, this renders the station counts totally meaningless. It also means that we cannot say exactly how the gridded data is arrived at from a statistical perspective - since we're using an off-the-shelf product that isn't documented sufficiently to say that. Why this wasn't coded up in Fortran I don't know - time pressures perhaps? Was too much effort expended on homogenisation, that there wasn't enough time to write a gridding procedure? Of course, it's too late for me to fix it too. Meh.

I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that's the case? Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight... So, we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage...

The computer program used for modeling at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia was also leaked. Several programmers have looked at it and they are shocked.

As the leaked messages, and especially the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file, found their way around technical circles, two things happened: first, programmers unaffiliated with East Anglia started taking a close look at the quality of the CRU's code, and second, they began to feel sympathetic for anyone who had to spend three years (including working weekends) trying to make sense of code that appeared to be undocumented and buggy, while representing the core of CRU's climate model.

One programmer highlighted the error of relying on computer code that, if it generates an error message, continues as if nothing untoward ever occurred. Another debugged the code by pointing out why the output of a calculation that should always generate a positive number was incorrectly generating a negative one. A third concluded: "I feel for this guy. He's obviously spent years trying to get data from undocumented and completely messy sources."...

No wonder they were deleting emails and conspiring to thwart FOIA requests.

Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) calls anthropogenic global warming a hoax

Democrats narrowly passed historic climate and energy legislation Friday evening. The Wall Street Journal called this legislation the biggest tax increase in history.Before they voted, Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) called anthropogenic global warming a hoax on the House floor. Finally, people are becoming brave enough to speak out against the biggest hoax ever perpetrated.

From the video:

BROUN: Scientists all over this world say that the idea of human induced global climate change is one of the greatest hoaxes perpetrated out of the scientific community. It is a hoax. There is no scientific consensus. … And who’s going to be hurt most [by ACES] the poor, the people on limited income…the people who can least afford to have their energy taxes raised by MIT says $3100 per family. … This bill must be defeated. We need to be good stewards of our environment, but this is not it, it’s a hoax!