Sunday, May 24, 2015

Obama's Middle East Policy (Based on Lies) in Flames !

SECRET documents obtained via freedom of information requests reveal the US military predicted the rise of IS well before the group began making headlines around the world.
Over a 100 pages of classified reports from the Department of Defence and the State Department obtained by conservative watchdog Judicial Watch paint a starkly different picture to what the Obama administration had previously portrayed to the public.
Among the documents is an August 2012 report containing military intel which predicted the rise of the Islamic State in the wake of regime change in Syria.

“This creates the ideal atmosphere for AQI (al-Qaeda in Iraq) to return to its old pockets in Mosul and Ramadi,” the document states.

ISI (Islamic State of Iraq) could also declare an Islamic state through its union with other terrorist organisations in Iraq and Syria, which will create grave danger in regards to unifying Iraq and the protection of its territory.

The intelligence is largely at odds with comments made by President Obama in a 60 Minutes interview in September last year…
“I think they (US intelligence operatives) had underestimated what had been going on in Syria,” he said while also suggesting his administration over-estimated the strength of Iraqi government forces.

More leaks suggesting the same disastrous MO with Benghazi - Obama refusing to tell the truth about terrorists, presumably to avoid having to do something about them:
Judicial Watch announced today that it obtained more than 100 pages of previously classified “Secret” documents from the Department of Defense (DOD)and the Department of State revealing that DOD almost immediately reported that the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was committed by the al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood-linked ''Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman'' (BCOAR), and had been planned at least 10 days in advance
The White House instead pretended the deadly attack on the consulate was just a demonstration against an anti-Islam YouTube clip that had got out of hand.

These documents are jaw-dropping. No wonder it took multiple law suits over two years to release them.  If the American people had known the truth – that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and other top administration officials knew that the Benghazi attack was an al-Qaeda terrorist attack from the get-go – and yet lied and covered this fact up – Mitt Romney might very well be president.

And why would the Obama administration continue to support the Muslim Brotherhood even after it knew it was tied to the Benghazi terrorist attack and to al Qaeda? ''These documents also point to connection between the collapse in Libya and the ISIS war – and confirm that the U.S. knew remarkable details about the transfer of arms from Benghazi to Syrian jihadists,” stated Tom Fitton, (photo left) Judicial Watch president.  “These documents show that the Benghazi cover-up has continued for years and is only unraveling through our independent lawsuits. The Benghazi scandal just got a whole lot worse for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.”       

The Way I See It.....
The “sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq” that Barack Obama and Joe Biden hailed as one of Obama’s “great achievements” in 2014 has regressed into chaos as a result of Obama’s premature withdrawal of American troops. 
But it isn’t just Iraq. Syria is the closest thing to Hell on Earth. Iran is working away on nuclear weapons and delivery systems. Yemen has fallen to Iran’s proxies. Saudi Arabia is looking for nuclear weapons to counter Iran’s. 
ISIS occupies an area the size of Great Britain. Libya, its dictator having been gratuitously overthrown by feckless Western governments that had no plan for what would follow, is a failed state and terrorist playground. Some of the “dire consequences” are blacked out in the report, but the Defence Intelligence Agency presciently warned one such consequence would be the “renewing facilitation of terrorist elements from all over the Arab world entering into Iraqi Arena.”

Sunday, May 17, 2015

Putin's Collection of Scumbags Shows Us the New Anti-West Club !

What a telling collection of leaders helped Vladimir Putin bombastically celebrate VE day with lots of threatening military weapons.  Most Western leaders stayed away in protest at Russia’s attacks on Ukraine, but no end of dictators and authoritarians attended:
President Xi Jinping of China took pride of place next to Vladimir Putin of Russia on Saturday… Once again, the Russia-China axis is the main threat to the West’s vision of peaceful and prosperous international relations.
The line-up of leaders alongside the two men was a walking representation of a new anti-American alliance that has formed bit by bit since the invasion of Iraq demonstrated the frightening ease with which Washington could destroy hostile leaders far away.   Alongside Mr Xi were Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Raúl Castro of Cuba, Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela: standouts against what Mr Putin called a unipolar world, his code phrase for the spread of western-style democracy.

At first sight, things look very different now. When President Xi Jinping of China took his special place next to Vladimir Putin of Russia on Saturday, they looked like any other modern world leaders: pragmatic men-in-suits, full of smiles, temporary possessors of power rather than dictators-for-life.

Back in 1949, when Chairman Mao Tse-tung paid his first visit to Moscow to celebrate Comrade Joseph Stalin's 70th Birthday, it was a paean of old-school Communism. Children in Young Pioneer uniforms paraded through the Bolshoi Opera House telling of their ambition to become tractor drivers. Mao wore a "Mao suit" and Stalin a military uniform. Both men looked grumpy.

 But the two events, six decades apart, have a clear parallel. Once again, the Russia-China axis is the main threat to the West's vision of peaceful and prosperous international relations.

In itself, there isn't much new to this. China has been railing against a "unipolar world" for a decade. Mr Putin and his allies all have their reasons for disliking the West's tendency to set a high store on open elections, a free press and "cooperative" foreign policies. What is stark is that Russia and China are now openly stating their intention to stand together to lead such an alliance.

The history is a patchy one. In 1949, Mao felt snubbed by Stalin, who regarded him as just another leader of a Soviet-backed Communist satellite rather than an equal. Mao's subsequent falling-out with Stalin's successors led to the US-China rapprochement following President Richard Nixon's visit to Beijing in 1972. The new détente helped defeat the Soviet Union in the Cold War.

Twenty years ago, when both Presidents Bill Clinton and Jiang Zemin of China stood alongside Boris Yeltsin at the 1995 Moscow Victory Day parade, the power relations were self-evident.

Moscow Victory Day Parade 1995
A self-confident America knew that Russia was no longer a threat, while China was dependent for its economic growth on American spending power and investment.

Yesterday in Moscow there was no America – something Washington may come to regret – and there was no doubt whose smile was most confident.

Mr Xi finds himself in a diplomatic sweet spot. It is Mr Putin who gets the flak for standing up to NATO in Ukraine, for supporting the Assad regime in Syria, for threatening to sell air defence systems to Iran.

The Way I See It.......China who is the ultimate winner, as America's attention is diverted from Beijing's expansion across the South China Sea.   China is openly developing a naval strategy aimed at challenging American dominance of the western Pacific, including in the waters around Japan and Taiwan.

Unlike Chairman Mao, Mr Xi is happy to be seen to play second fiddle on the podium in Moscow. With China now the rising power, he has no doubt as to where the balance of power will lie between China and Russia in years to come. Shows of Russian strength like yesterday's serve his interests, as much as Mr Putin's.

Friday, May 15, 2015

He Not Only TWEAKS The Graphs, But a FEW NIPPLES Too !

As reported here last year, be prepared for an IPCC barrage of climate misinformation as the pivotal Paris global warming conference draws near. From the ridiculous report that walruses were being forced to mate on rocky foreshores to the Himalayas becoming bereft of snow it’s been a mix of incompetence and outright lies from the IPCC.

And now the UN is threatening to declare Australia’s Great Barrier Reef in danger and that it risks being delisted from its World Heritage status.

All this bullshit from none other than IPCC Chairman, the ''uglier than thou'' Indian railway worker, Rajendra Pachauri (pictured) who has just resigned following allegations of sexual harassment.

Australia is in the UN’s crosshairs because Tony Abbott is seen as a warming "denier" but, instead of telling the UN to get stuffed, Abbott decided to kick in another $100 million to prop up our expensive James Cook University marine biologists who are addicted to floating around our healthy reefs trying to find something wrong.

Jon Brodie, chief research scientist at TropWater, the infamously green  water quality research unit attached to the James Cook University, said, “The money announced is nowhere near enough to do what is required to protect the reef."  We should actually protect the reef from marine post-graduate Lefties, which allows more snouts in the government trough.

Without a perceived reef problem these marine leeches have no jobs, so their role in life is to concoct problems that have never actually existed. “Problems” like water quality and the Crown of Thorns starfish.

The reef has survived run-offs from a thousand waterways for a billion years, it has also withstood cyclical attacks from the Crown of Thorns starfish and the most identifiable of reef fish, the Parrot varieties, that also eat coral turning it into fine sand. Not to mention the regular cyclones that
mercilessly batter the reef.

Crown-of-Thorns Starfish
Without these so-called “threats” our reefs would no longer exist. Old coral is destroyed to make way for new strains in the same way our bush is re-invigorated by fire to allow for new growth.
Green gophers cite possible “extinction of a species” as a weapon in fighting for further increases in their budgets.
The mere suggestion that our reefs could be healthy is monetary sacrilege to a Green gopher!
The truth is that 99 per cent of all species that ever lived in the sea or on land have already become extinct, and have made way for more adaptable, stronger species... I think it's called survival of the fittest, or evolution or something like that.

The UN’s IPCC alarmist fraudsters are beating the same drum... if you can put fear into the hearts of the simple minded who care about things like reefs, there’s a veritable fortune to be made in carbon credits, with the IPCC copping a cool 10 per cent of all carbon taxes levied by compliant Left governments.

The fact is the plant food C02 produced by man has almost no effect on the Earth’s temperature. Both polar caps are increasing and Europe and North America have experienced five years of record low
temperatures. It's undeniable when you see the blizzards on your TV the past few years.

To suggest the contribution of man-made C02 is anything more than piddling when compared to that of the oceans, the Sun and volcanoes, is crazy! But there you go, the IPCC’s warming conference is to be held in Paris in December this year. How crazy is that when Europe will be copping its sixth consecutive year of record freezing temperatures? So who are the Real Deniers ?

The Way I See would be wonderful if the IPCC’s dishonest forecasts were even remotely correct because the reality is that warming produces fertility with massive increases in food production, employment and third-world prosperity.  It’s the cold that kills. When are people going to wake up, speak up and give up supporting this massive hoax?

More than 100 of the world’s leading scientists, theologians, academics and commentators have written an open letter to Pope Francis urging him not to join the climate hysterics in their war on the fossil fuels that power the planet. Their plea is a simple but powerful one: if we cut back on the use of especially coal for electricity, we would directly condemn tens of millions of people to death; and at best, lock hundreds of millions of the poor — of the developed world as much as of the developing world — into endless poverty and misery.

The letter is specifically directed at Pope Francis as unquestionably the world’s most important spiritual and moral leader. It builds its plea to him on theological grounds, commending him “for your care for the earth and God’s children, especially the poor”.

But its argument is based on a hard-nosed rational assessment of the facts. These are broadly two: the facts — actually the failures — of the global warming thesis/hysteria; and the undeniable, utterly irreplaceable global use of coal, gas and oil.

Monday, May 11, 2015

Borg Lomborg vs The Enemies of Reason !

The massive stink over Bjorn Lomborg being given Australian government funding to set up a climate-change centre at the University of Western Australia (UWA) shows that the spirit of McCarthyism lives on. Only now, its targets aren’t Reds, but anti-greens: anyone who dares to criticise either the science — sorry, The Science — or the politics of climate change.

Lomborg is the Danish-born author of the best selling book The Skeptical Environmentalist (2001). He’s the rattler of greens across the globe with his claims that climate change is not the biggest problem facing humanity, and to the extent that it is a problem we should develop our way out of it rather than cutting back on fossil-fuel use and forcing everyone to live ‘sustainable lives’, which is only fancy code for eco-
friendly poverty. 
But even by the standards of denier-denouncing environmentalists, the fury over Lomborg heading Down Under has been intense — and revealing.
The Australia Guardian questions the fitness of Lomborg for university life. Green-leaning writers demand the Oz government ‘pull the plug’ on the Lomborg centre, outraged that it might argue that climate change should be ‘placed well down [the] list of global priorities’. At the UWA itself, academics and students held a meeting ... at which there was ‘riotous applause’ when staff called for UWA to ‘end [its] deal with the climate-change contrarian’.... The UWA Student Guild joined with their professors to demand that UWA refuse to ‘engage controversial climate contrarian Bjorn Lomborg’, on the basis that having him on campus would ‘harm UWA’s world-class reputation’. No, you've done that yourselves already you idiots! (editor's note)
There’s also a palpable religious feel to the denunciations. That student-started petition calling for Lomborg to be kept off campus demands that this be done ‘In the name of science’. Once we had ‘In the name of the Lord’, now we have ‘In the name of science’. It reeks with a kind of religious dogma, coated with stupidity.
The terminology used to denounce those who question climate change, particularly ‘DENIER’, brings to mind dark, intolerant episodes from history when anyone who called into question the truth of the Bible or the authority of the Church was likewise hounded out of universities (think John Wycliffe, expelled from Oxford in 1382 for riling church elders)
University of Western Australia campus 
As the UWA Student Guild said, ‘While Dr Lomborg doesn’t refute climate change itself’, he does have a ‘controversial track record [as a] climate contrarian’. And we can’t have controversy on a campus, can we? This scandal exposes the true intolerance of the eco-lobby, their real censorious urge — which is not merely to ringfence science from ridicule, which is bad enough, but to prevent the expression of contrarian ideas.
For academics whose world view is predicated on the unchallenged orthodoxy of left-wing thought, the arrival of a dissenter, no matter how mild mannered, seems to induce panic.

Despite his track record of book and journal publications, [Lomborg’s] impact as a public intellectual, and his collaboration with Nobel laureates, some Australian academics are claiming he lacks the requisite qualifications to lead a policy centre.

In the absence of policy expertise, the anti-Lomborg camp is clinging to a single measure of academic performance known as the h-index ... [which] measures the number of articles an academic has published in peer-reviewed texts and the number of times they are cited by fellow academics. The reason Lomborg’s academic detractors favour the h-index is likely because it favours them.  Lomborg’s ­appointment should be subjected to “independent peer review”, chime the peers, apparently unaware of the irony.

Peer review, like the derivative h-index, is a process regulated by humanities academics whose
Warmist Professor Thomas Wernberg
­careers are built on toeing the leftist party line. From the time they are postgraduate students, aspiring humanities academics learn the importance of ideological conformity. Academic supervisors routinely advise post-graduates to find journals and peers who share their ideological position to increase their chance of publication success.

Journal editorial boards, like the faculties from which they are drawn, are predominantly left-wing.. Without ideological conformity, humanities students stand little chance of publishing in peer-reviewed journals. The second element of the h-index, academic citations, also are subject to political considerations in the humanities. Academics cite peers with whom they enjoy political accord and the favour is often returned in an informal quid pro quo arrangement. The reverse tactic, ostracism, is reserved for dissenters. Refusing to cite a dissenter such as Lomborg is the fastest way to disappear them permanently from the academic landscape, where publish or perish remains the rule of law.
 One of the Leftist  academic dissenters is a marine biologist in photo on right above.

The Way I See It.....these totalitarians are not in fact attacking Lomborg for criticising the science. They are criticising him for actually citing the science. Lomborg notes that the science tells us there has been a pause in the warming. Lomborg notes the science that reveals the warming pause isn’t what was predicted by warmists.

Lomborg notes the science that shows many disasters once predicted - more cyclones, for instance - have not eventuated. Lomborg notes the science that shows the schemes to cut our emissions involve spending trillions of dollars to make virtually no noticable or meaningful difference to the temperature.

Lomborg respects the science. His critics do not. The anti-Lomborg lobby hates the science and hates those who question not the science but the warming faith. They are enemies of reason and of freedom.

UPDATE:    The University of Western Australia’s has caved-in and decided to reject Bjorn Lomborg’s Australian Consensus Centre. This is disturbing for its validation of a culture of soft censorship where free thought is punished. Where Leftist groupthink is viciously enforced. It is strange, Lomborg should be a poster boy for Leftist academics. He is gay, handsome, articulate and informal, often teaching in a T-shirt.
It’s hard to think of a more anti-intellectual act to promote wilful ignorance about contemporary public policy challenges. Since there was no consensus to seek consensus, it was better to let ignorance flourish than for the merest shard of knowledge to creep in.  It's a disgrace !

A friend of mine recently joked: what’s the opposite of diversity? UWA just proved the answer: university.

Sunday, May 3, 2015

It's Time for Black Ameriica to Blame Black America !

Where are the black fathers in Baltimore? They don‘t exist. I saw black mothers in the streets. I saw black male teens. But no black fathers trying to keep their kids off the streets and away from violence.
Where is Barack Obama? Our nation’s first black president has been silent as blacks tear apart a major America city. He’s quick to weigh in and assign blame every time one black kid gets shot by a white cop. But not a word on the day thousands of blacks rampage and terrorize a city? Not a word ever about black-on-black crime? As of last Tuesday, after most of the damage has been done, Obama finally  issued a statement condemning the violence. A day late, a dollar short and still no interest in “boots on the ground” to calm the crisis.

Where is the black mayor of Baltimore?  Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake clearly ordered police to stand down, make no arrests and stop no crimes while her city was being destroyed, while the businesses she is sworn to protect were being looted and burned. She clearly said days before the riots went ballistic that she wanted to create a “space for those who want to destroy.” Then she blamed the media for merely repeating her words verbatim. She finally got serious and called the rioters ''thugs'' and was roundly criticized for not realizing the word now is racist code for black bastards. She quickly back flipped and labelled them  ''misguided young people.''
Where are the black leaders? Where are Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson? Like Obama, his BFF Sharpton appears to be weighing in a day late and a dollar short too. He’s arranging a meeting of community leaders. Once there he’ll undoubtedly place the majority of the blame on “police violence” against black citizens of Baltimore. But blaming black citizens for the violence and
damage? Asking black citizens who committed crimes to take personal responsibility? It will never happen. I could write Sharpton’s script.

How about the war on poverty? How’s that worked out for black America? The longest and most expensive war in American history has been in place since President Lyndon B. Johnson and inner cities like Baltimore look exactly the same. Same poverty. Same hopelessness. Same anger and violence. Same rioting and blame and excuses. After $22 trillion has been spent – more, by far, than all the wars in the history of America combined, the results are … nothing.
I hear plenty of excuses from black America. I hear they feel powerless. Really? With a black president, the first black attorney general, another black (female) attorney general, a black mayor of Baltimore and a black city council? All that and you still feel powerless?  How has having the first black president helped black America? With black unemployment double that of whites, who is to blame?
I heard ultra-liberal, progressive activist and lesbian lawyer (and so pathetically Politically Correct) CNN analyst Sally Kohn blame white America today. She wished white America would be half as outraged over “police violence” as they are over the riots.
Well I have a message for Sally Kohn: 
I wish black Americans would be half as outraged over black-on-black violence, black-on-black murders, black gangs, black drug dealers, black looting, black burning of black small businesses and black rioting as they are about one white cop killing one black kid.
And one more thought for Sally and liberals like her: 
What has 50 years of black rule, liberal welfare and entitlement policies, excuses and blame towards white people done for black Americans in inner cities like Baltimore and Detroit? Where’s the progress in those cities under 100 percent Democratic politicians and policies?
The sighting of a white Republican on the streets of cities like Detroit and Baltimore is just a rumor. There were no whites or Republicans among local leaders at the podium in Baltimore yesterday. There was 100 per cent black leadership- black mayor, black city council members, black police chief, black community leaders and clergy. Yet urban inner cities like Baltimore and Detroit are in ruins.
It's the same pathetic story found in Africa and its many countries run by black leaders. Admittedly, the white colonial leaders, in their haste to avoid serious bloody revolutions, left their charges with little or no  political training, management skills, and leadership. The black penchant to make very little effort, but be big on gaining power that was well oiled with corruption has left many countries close to being basket-cases.
The Way I See’s time to take personal responsibility. It’s time to move on.
It’s time to fight for jobs, not welfare. It’s time to look within yourselves. It’s time to stop blaming others. It’s time to blame black fathers. It’s time to blame black leaders. It’s time to blame a black president. It’s time to ask what the Democratic Party has ever done for you except ensure you’re helpless, hopeless and dependent on government to survive. It’s time to blame the war on poverty. 

Thursday, April 23, 2015

What In the World ? A Climate Denial Course 101

Queensland University of Queensland, Australia, states that keeping ahead of climate change deniers is exhausting. The problem is that the simple question “What is causing climate change?” has an infinite number of wrong answers and only a few correct ones.

Almost every week deniers cook up some new theory, each more ludicrous than the last: The sun is getting hotter (coming in a future posting). The thermometers are in the wrong places. It’s all part of a natural cycle. Scientists are liars. Something about cosmic rays (ignoring The Chilling Stars). The multiplicity of these facts gives climate change deniers an advantage in debates—they know exactly what scientists are going to say, but scientists have no idea what cockamamie theories to prepare for.

For this reason and others, climate change denial has become its own field of academic study, and the University of Queensland means to cash in on it, separate from the science of climate change itself. And, like any legitimate field of study, climate change denial has its own massive open online course, or MOOC. It'll stop at nothing to help muddy the waters of climate science to graduate more brainwashed souls into their global warming religion.

John Cook, (the same asshole who did the sham study that 97% consensus paper and did a ''Colonial Clink'' on anyone questioning it) is a climate communication fellow at the University of Queensland and the creator of the website pushing warming dogma, Skeptical Science, is coordinating the course. It will feature climatologists, modellers, chemists, computer scientists, meteorologists, and glaciologists—real scientists talking about science, pushing the ''it's settled'' line rather than honestly looking at the facts. Is it a crazy idea to think that these are the REAL deniers !.

The eight-week course will give students a grounding in the science of the greenhouse effect and climate change (which will hopefully be a review), as well as explain why the most common climate denial theories are wrong. The instructors will address the alleged (but real) “pause” in global warming and the role the sun plays in changes to the earth’s temperature.

The teachers will also discuss the psychology of climate denial. Al Gore famously attributed climate science resistance to people’s fear of losing their jobs (is he serious??).  Social scientists now tell us that it’s far more complicated than that. Climate change denialism (actually scepticism) is linked more strongly to political conservatism and dislike of government regulation than to economic vulnerability. This is called “motivated reasoning,” the tendency to accept evidence selectively based on a pre-existing belief. As David Robert Grimes (photo left) pointed out last year in the socialist Guardian, the best quote to describe the situation is Leon Festinger's observation that “a man with a conviction is a hard man to change.''

Motivated reasoning is just one of many explanations for the phenomenon. There is also evidence that climate change denial is a form of tribalism. The psychology of climate deniers is a fascinating topic.

The university touts, ''With a virtual diploma from the upcoming MOOC, you can turn a debate with a climate change denier from an argument over science into a deep exploration of your opponent’s motivations and psyche.'' I guess that’s a lot more interesting than the climate “debate” itself, which is, you know,''settled''.

About this course (in Uni-Speak)

In public discussions, climate change is a highly controversial topic. However, in the scientific community, there is proven consensus that 97% of climate scientists concluding humans are causing global warming has been discredited.
  • Why the gap between the public and scientists?
  • What are the psychological and social drivers of the rejection of the scientific consensus?
  • How has climate denial influenced public perceptions and attitudes towards climate change?
This course examines the science of climate science denial.

We will look at the most common climate myths from “global warming stopped in 1998” (boy are they out of touch) to “global warming is caused by the sun” (ignore a 11/14 paper published in Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics) to “climate impacts are nothing to worry about.”

We’ll find out what lessons are to be learnt from past climate change as well as better understand how climate models predict future climate impacts. You’ll learn both the science of climate change and the techniques used to distort the science, but we won't mention ''Climate-Gate.''

With every myth we debunk, you’ll learn the critical thinking needed to identify the fallacies associated with the myth. Finally, armed with all this knowledge, you’ll learn the psychology of misinformation. This will equip you to effectively respond to climate misinformation and debunk myths. This isn’t just a climate MOOC; it’s a MOOC about how people think about climate change.

  What you'll learn
  • How to recognise the social and psychological drivers of climate science denial
  • How to better understand climate change: the evidence that it is happening, that humans are causing it and the potential impacts
  • How to identify the techniques and fallacies that climate myths employ to distort climate science
  • How to effectively debunk climate misinformation.
Gavin Cawley

Some of the Instructors:

Daniel Bedford
On the University website there is a Rogues Gallery of a ''Bakers Dozen'' of these climate ideologues and many of those with their snouts so far in the government Grant Trough their reputations as impartial scientists seem to be finished.
bio for Ove Hoegh-Guldberg
Our Dud-Predictor
 Ove .H. Guldberg

Sunday, April 19, 2015

97 Per Cent of Climate Scientist's Consensus Actually 0.3% !

Richard Tol, (photo right) a former leader author of the infamous Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, says the famous paper claiming that 97 per cent of scientists back global warming tells us only that the climate community is pushing creditability:
Now almost two years old, John Cook’s 97 per cent consensus paper on anthropogenic global warming has been a runaway success. Downloaded more than 300,000 times, voted the best 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters, frequently cited by peers and politicians from around the world, the paper seems to be the definitive proof that the science of climate change is settled. It isn’t…

Cook and colleagues argue 97 per cent of the relevant academic literature endorses that humans have contributed to observed climate change. This is suspect....  In popular discourse, however, Cook’s finding is often misrepresented. The 97 per cent refers to the number of papers, rather than the number of scientists
(it's important except for the part about 97% being really 0.3% !
The alleged consensus is about any human role in climate change, rather than a dominant role, and it is about ­climate change rather than the dangers it might pose.
Although there are large areas of substantive agreement, climate science is far from settled. Witness the dozens of alternative explanations of the near 18-year pause in warming of the surface atmosphere. The debate on the seriousness of ­climate change or what to do about it ranges even more widely.
The Cook paper is remarkable for its quantity, though. Cook and colleagues studied 12,000 papers, but did not check whether their sample is representative for the scientific literature. It isn’t. Their conclusions are about the papers they happened to look at, rather than about the literature. Attempts to replicate their sample failed: a number of papers that should have been analysed were not, for no apparent reason.
The sample was padded with irrelevant papers. An article about TV coverage on global warming was taken as evidence for global warming. In fact, about three-quarters of the papers counted as endorsements had nothing to say about the subject matter…

Cook’s hand-picked raters disagreed on what a paper was about 33 per cent of the time. In 63 per cent of cases, they disagreed about the message of a paper with the authors of that paper… Cook’s employer argued that releasing rater identities would violate a confidentiality agreement. That agreement does not exist… Time stamps reveal that ... one of Cook’s raters inspected 675 abstracts within 72 hours, a superhuman ­effort…   There's that creditability factor again. Some questioning by a curious scientist, Brendon Shollenburger, caused him to receive a letter threatening a law suit for even thinking of finding unhidden secret data and commenting on it.  This is really starting to smell like another Climate-Gate! 

UPDATE:   Here's some alarming stuff, straight out of a Hollywood script, and reported by the warmist Sydney Morning Herald as indisputable fact:

1)  Gulf Stream water currents in the Atlantic Ocean have slowed to the weakest in as long as 1,000 years, threatening shifts in US and European weather, as well as coastal sea levels including in New York and Boston…
2)  Researchers have for years raised concerns that shifts in the Gulf Stream may change the climate in Europe. ...                                                                                                    3)  Climate models should be updated as they underestimate the effects of the temperature swings and ice melt, Pennsylvania State University’s Michael Mann said in the statement.
But wait! Michael ”HOCKEY STICK'' Mann?  Whoa....there’s a warning right there! (photo of Mr Shonky-Stick at right)

In fact, other climate scientists can't see what Mann and co-author Stefan Rahmstorf are describing:
Climate scientist Martin Visbeck of the GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research in Kiel sees Rahmstorf’s interpretation of the results critically: ‘The study’s focus on the sub-polar part of the Atlantic and the spectral analysis are interesting,’ he says. ''But there are other AMOC assessments that point to a completely other development. The paper does not offer any strong indication of the development of the AMOC during the past fifty years.”

[AMOC is the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, the larger circulation system of which the Gulf Stream is a part.] Meanwhile, Watts Up With That notes that a reader Jaime Jessop asked Mann an inconvenient question on his FaceBook page, quoting a study indicating the change in AMOC is due to “natural variability”. Mann first answered, but then deleted his response. Was this another ''Gottca'' moment, reminiscent of the Hockey Stick fiasco.

As WUWT reported on a peer reviewed paper last year, H. Thomas Rossby (photo left) says: URI oceanographer refutes claims that climate change is slowing pace of Gulf Stream saying in a paper published in Geophysical Research Letters:
''The ADCP measures currents at very high accuracy, and so through the repeat measurements we take year after year, we have a very powerful tool by which to monitor the strength of the current,” said Rossby. “There are variations of the current over time that are natural — and yes, we need to understand these better — but we find absolutely no evidence that suggests that the Gulf Stream is slowing down.”
Of course, Rahmstorf and Mann don’t list Rossby’s study in their references, nor seem to use the “highly accurate” ADCP data. Instead they use a model along with [proxies, reconstructions, and] the highly interpolated GISS data to come to the conclusions they want. So, it isn’t surprising they are chasing phantoms in their study. They claim (in Figure 1 from their paper) that this cold spot south of Greenland is caused by meltwater from Greenland and it is evidence of a slowed circulation…
And then there’s this other problem; Greenland's ice mass seems to be on the increase so far this year and above the 1990-2011 mean:   (see Blue Line below)

The Way I See It......this would have been an amusing how-not-to tale for our students. But Cook’s is one of the most influential papers of recent years. The paper was vigorously defended by the University of Queensland (Cook’s employer) and the editors of Environmental Research Letters, with the Institute of Physics (the publisher) looking on in silence. Incompetence was compounded by cover-up and complacency…
Cook’s team may, perhaps unwittingly (not), have worked towards a given conclusion.  If you want to believe climate researchers are incompetent, biased and secretive, Cook’s paper is an excellent case in point. There's seems to be more wishful thinking and fact fiddling in the warmist community than the Truth. The Truth-is-out-there alright, but on the sceptics side.