OUR SAY: Science on climate is like a cancer
GOOD news climate sceptics. High up on NASA's specifically designed piece of climate propaganda, they cite a study that contains what many people on Facebook forums have known for years.
Shwed and Bearman's peer- reviewed and accepted review of 9432 papers on global warming contains this gem when talking about whether anthropomorphic global warming exists: "... this method does not produce a numerical consensus value."
HAH! Take that you leftie alarmists. It's right there, on the NASA site. There is NO numerical consensus that it exists.
Let's read the next sentence. I'm sure it'll double down on those commie greenies.
"(However) The numerical consensus independently demonstrates the same level of scientific consensus on (human-induced global warming) as exists for the fact that smoking causes cancer."
Wait, what? There's no numerical consensus that smoking causes cancer? But, of course it does. We've seen the physical evidence for years and years. How could this be possible?
Of course, the scientific paper is a fervent believer in climate science, with the magical number of 97 per cent throughout.
The problem? Climate science is done by people a lot more knowledgeable than Uncle Bob at the pub or former PM Tony Abbott whose political knowledge far outweighs his scientific credentials.
But those two know to pick and choose the words they want people to hear, and spout them as if fact, safe in the knowledge that most won't read the next sentence.
Get out and support the kids at the climate strike. You might just save their lives in the future.