Barack Obama fired a top scientist to advance global warming agenda
For years we have been told that global warming is settled science because 97% of scientists agree that it is real (a number Barack Obama magically transformed into 99.5% just over one year ago) however that number, as I wrote about in this post, is based on a lie.
The origin of the “97 percent” statistic has been traced back to a 2009 study by University of Illinois/Chicago graduate student Kendall Zimmerman, who sent a survey to 10,257 earth scientists asking them two questions:
“When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” and
“Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”
Eighty-two percent of the 3,146 scientists who completed the survey (a 30.7% response rate) answered “yes” to question 2.
So only 30.7% of the scientists who were surveyed bothered to answer the survey and of that 30.7% only 82% answered yes to the question of global warming being man-made, so where does the 97% number come from?
That figure included 75 of the 79 individuals (97.4%) who self-identified themselves as climate scientists.
The survey was sent to over 10,000 scientists and out of that group 79 of those who bothered to answer the survey identified themselves as climate scientists, and out of that number 75 of them said global warming was man-made. So it turns out for all the hoopla this whole notion that 97% of scientists believe global warming is man-made we are taking the word of 75 scientists out of a total of over 10,000 scientists.
But now we are learning there is a high price to be paid by scientists if they do not go along to get along with the Obama regime’s radical global warming agenda. They get fired and/or intimidated:
A new congressional investigation has determined that the Obama administration fired a top scientist and intimidated staff at the Department of Energy in order to further its climate change agenda, according to a new report that alleges the administration ordered top officials to obstruct Congress in order to forward this agenda.
A top DoE scientist who liaised with Congress on the matter was fired by the Obama administration for being too forthright with lawmakers, according to the report, which provides an in-depth look at the White House’s efforts to ensure senior staffers toe the administration’s line.The report also provides evidence that the Obama administration worked to kill legislation in order to ensure that it could receive full funding for its own hotly contested climate change agenda.
The report additionally discovered efforts by the Obama administration to censor the information given to Congress, interfering with the body’s ability to perform critical oversight work.
“Instead of providing the type of scientific information needed by Congress to legislate effectively, senior departmental officials sought to hide information, lobbied against legislation, and retaliated against a scientist for being forthcoming,” Smith said in a statement. “In this staff report based on lengthy record before the committee, much has been revealed about how senior level agency officials under the Obama administration retaliated against a scientist who did not follow the party line.”
And here is more, this scientist was fired for giving the Congress too much information:
In mid-2014, lawmakers introduced legislation, the Low Dose Radiation Act of 2014, to help regulate the program and minimize harmful side effects.
During an October 2014 briefing with senior DoE staff on the matter, lawmakers heard testimony from Dr. Noelle Metting, the radiation research program’s manager.
Less than a month later, lawmakers discovered that Obama administration officials had “removed Dr. Metting from federal service for allegedly providing too much information in response to questions posed by” Congress during the briefing, the report states.
Congressional investigators later determined that the administration’s “actions to remove Dr. Metting were, in part, retaliation against Dr. Metting because she refused to conform to the predetermined remarks and talking points designed by Management to undermine the advancement of” the 2014 radiation act.
The end justifies the means, is it any wonder that more and more Americans are starting to question the legitimacy of the global warming agenda?
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium