US Army Major General (Ret) Paul Vallely and his patriot friends join me for this round table to expose Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Hussein Obama and others for the ongoing coverup of the massacre on September 11, 2012 in Benghazi, Libya.
CO2 Reduction Is a Mass Murder Policy – FULL REPORT:
Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe on Monday teased a bombshell leak on deceased pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
O’Keefe said on Monday that it’s time to “raise the stakes” after his #ExposeCNN series.
“A new insider has come to Project Veritas with secret recordings,” O’Keefe tweeted with a hashtag #EpsteinCoverup
Project Veritas will be releasing the Epstein recordings Tuesday, November 5 at 9 AM ET.
Our last insider helped us #ExposeCNN
But now it’s time to raise the stakes.
A new insider has come to @Project_Veritas
— James O’Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) November 4, 2019
… Back in 2014, David Friedman worked through the original paper that kicked off the “97% consensus” talking point. What the original authors, Cook et al., actually found in their 2013 paper was that 97.1% of the relevant articles agreed that humans contribute to global warming. But notice that that is not at all the same thing as saying that humans are the main contributors to observed global warming (since the Industrial Revolution).
This is a huge distinction. For example, I co-authored a Cato study with climate scientists Pat Michaels and Chip Knappenberger, in which we strongly opposed a U.S. carbon tax. Yet both Michaels and Knappenberger would be climate scientists who were part of the “97% consensus” according to Cook et al. That is, Michaels and Knappenberger both agree that, other things equal, human activity that emits carbon dioxide will make the world warmer than it otherwise would be. That observation by itself does not mean there is a crisis nor does it justify a large carbon tax.
Incidentally, when it comes down to what Cook et al. actually found, economist David R. Henderson noticed that it was even less impressive than what Friedman had reported. Here’s Henderson:
[Cook et al.] got their 97 percent by considering only those abstracts that expressed a position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW). I find it interesting that 2/3 of the abstracts did not take a position. So, taking into account David Friedman’s criticism above, and mine, Cook and Bedford, in summarizing their findings, should have said, “Of the approximately one-third of climate scientists writing on global warming who stated a position on the role of humans, 97% thought humans contribute somewhat to global warming.” That doesn’t quite have the same ring, does it? [David R. Henderson, bold added.]
So to sum up: The casual statements in the corporate media and in online arguments would lead the average person to believe that 97% of scientists who have published on climate change think that humans are the main drivers of global warming. And yet, at least if we review the original Cook et al. (2013) paper that kicked off the talking point, what they actually found was that of the sampled papers on climate change, only one-third of them expressed a view about its causes, and then of that subset, 97% agreed that humans were at least one cause of climate change. This would be truth-in-advertising, something foreign in the political discussion to which all AGW issues now seem to descend….