No headline

“… (O)nly a very small fraction of published studies actually involved research into how much of recent warming has been due to human activities. Instead, the papers simply assume human causation.”

This statement at the beginning of Chapter 5 of Prof. Roy Spencer’s “Global Warming Skepticism for Busy People” begins an expose of a current variation of how to lie with statistics as being used in the 97 percent of scientists’ drumbeat. In fact, a 2015 study of UNIPCC papers found that “the papers surveyed (many of which were not even climate-science studies) merely had to acknowledge, or even simply not dispute, that a consensus exists in order to be counted as “endorsing” the consensus. Those that explicitly endorsed the consensus as stated above amounted to less than 1 percent, not 97 percent.” Further criticisms of the 97 percent , from 2016 and 2017, can be found in Chapter 5.

The alarmist claims of increasing storminess and increasing storm intensity is refuted in Chapter 14 with studies and charts on heat, drought, rainfall, hurricanes and tornados for periods as far back as the mid-1880s. It underscores that it has been worse than now.

Prof. Spencer establishes how most climate “models” exclude natural effects on our climate and emphasize assumed human effects. The result is an exaggeration of every data series. How accurate have those “models” been? Grossly inaccurate. Would proposed changes based on faulty data produce positive results? Garbage in equals garbage out.

JEREMY CONLIN

Cocolalla