Is the 97% Lie About to be Legally Exposed?

SSDD

Gold Member
Nov 6, 2012
16,672
1,965
280
The CEI is calling foul on NASA's use of the 97% lie in the legal world. They have petitioned NASA to remove from its web site, and published literature the claim that 97% of climate scientists believe that human beings are responsible for global warming.

They (NASA) has 120 days to respond.

The 97% consensus is interesting in that it is often offered up as "evidence" that the AGW hypothesis is correct. In what other branch of science is consensus offered up as evidence that the mainstream hypothesis is correct? Answer: none Question the mainstream hypothesis in any other branch of science and you get bombarded with more evidence than most people would care to wade through...not so with climate science....question the mainstream hypothesis and you get called a few names and told about the consensus.

If this petition goes through, and NASA is forced to remove claims of the 97% consensus from its literature, the rest of the official agencies and anyone else using the figure in anything that could be construed as "advertising" will fall like dominoes. If they don't have the 97% consensus to offer up as a substitute for evidence, what else will the alarmist faction have?

Name calling as evidence of AGW?? Good luck with that.

Here is the beginning of the text detailing the basis of the complaint and it is clear that neither NASA nor anyone else who uses the bogus 97% consensus claim has a legal leg to stand on. The formatting of the document is such that it would be a great big pain in the ass to bring it al here so here is a link to the entire document..

https://cei.org/sites/default/files/IQA_NASA_97_Percent_Final.pdf

Renee Wynn
NASA Chief Information Officer 300 E. Street SW, Suite 5R30 Washington, DC 20546
(202) 358-0001 (Office)
Via Email: [email protected]

Re: Information Quality Act Correction Request Regarding NASA’s Claim that 97 Percent of Scientists Agree on Anthropogenic Global Warming

The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) submits this request for correction under the Information Quality Act (IQA), 114 Stat. 2763, section 515, as implemented through National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidelines. These guidelines were expanded by OMB in a memorandum issued on April 24, 2019.1 The information we seek to have corrected is the claim, on NASA’s website, that 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are responsible for global warming.

We expect a response to this request for correction (RFC) within 120 days. Under OMB’s new requirements, “agencies will not take more than 120 days to respond to an RFC without the concurrence of the party that requested the request for correction.” In addition, the new OMB guidelines require that, “The agency response should contain a point-by-point response to any data quality arguments contained in the RFC and should refer to a peer review that directly considered the issue being raised, if available.” Furthermore, “[a]gencies should share draft responses to RFCs and appeals with OMB prior to release to the requestor for assessment of compliance with the above norms.” Thus, responses to correction requests now need to be reviewed in advance by OMB sufficiently in advance of the 120-day deadline.

We ask NASA to determine that the claim that “[n]inety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities” violates the IQA. As is shown below, that claim is not objective; it is neither accurate nor reliable nor unbiased. This claim appears on the NASA web page titled “Climate Change: How Do We Know?” among others.
 
Last edited:
The CEI is calling foul on NASA's use of the 97% lie in the legal world. They have petitioned NASA to remove from its web site, and published literature the claim that 97% of climate scientists believe that human beings are responsible for global warming.

They (NASA) has 120 days to respond.

The 97% consensus is interesting in that it is often offered up as "evidence" that the AGW hypothesis is correct. In what other branch of science is consensus offered up as evidence that the mainstream hypothesis is correct? Answer: none Question the mainstream hypothesis in any other branch of science and you get bombarded with more evidence than most people would care to wade through...not so with climate science....question the mainstream hypothesis and you get called a few names and told about the consensus.

If this petition goes through, and NASA is forced to remove claims of the 97% consensus from its literature, the rest of the official agencies and anyone else using the figure in anything that could be construed as "advertising" will fall like dominoes. If they don't have the 97% consensus to offer up as a substitute for evidence, what else will the alarmist faction have?

Name calling as evidence of AGW?? Good luck with that.

Here is the beginning of the text detailing the basis of the complaint and it is clear that neither NASA nor anyone else who uses the bogus 97% consensus claim has a legal leg to stand on. The formatting of the document is such that it would be a great big pain in the ass to bring it al here so here is a link to the entire document..

https://cei.org/sites/default/files/IQA_NASA_97_Percent_Final.pdf

Renee Wynn
NASA Chief Information Officer 300 E. Street SW, Suite 5R30 Washington, DC 20546
(202) 358-0001 (Office)
Via Email: [email protected]

Re: Information Quality Act Correction Request Regarding NASA’s Claim that 97 Percent of Scientists Agree on Anthropogenic Global Warming

The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) submits this request for correction under the Information Quality Act (IQA), 114 Stat. 2763, section 515, as implemented through National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidelines. These guidelines were expanded by OMB in a memorandum issued on April 24, 2019.1 The information we seek to have corrected is the claim, on NASA’s website, that 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are responsible for global warming.

We expect a response to this request for correction (RFC) within 120 days. Under OMB’s new requirements, “agencies will not take more than 120 days to respond to an RFC without the concurrence of the party that requested the request for correction.” In addition, the new OMB guidelines require that, “The agency response should contain a point-by-point response to any data quality arguments contained in the RFC and should refer to a peer review that directly considered the issue being raised, if available.” Furthermore, “[a]gencies should share draft responses to RFCs and appeals with OMB prior to release to the requestor for assessment of compliance with the above norms.” Thus, responses to correction requests now need to be reviewed in advance by OMB sufficiently in advance of the 120-day deadline.

We ask NASA to determine that the claim that “[n]inety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities” violates the IQA. As is shown below, that claim is not objective; it is neither accurate nor reliable nor unbiased. This claim appears on the NASA web page titled “Climate Change: How Do We Know?” among others.
Since Climate Change is just about the money, disproving the claims will not deter the scam artists, they just move to the next or new phase of the scam...this isn't the first weather scam I have been through, we were sold an "ice age" scam in the 70's, and then a host of smaller scams since then...no amount of debunking deters a scam artist, it takes money to shut them up.
 
Last edited:
Wait until they are charged and have potential civil liabilities when individuals are charged under the "truth in Government Act" . When the individuals are held responsible is when you will see a change in how often we are lied too.
 
About to be discredited? A bit late, to say the least.

Not really since it was always known to be a lie, but now if CEI succeeds in their case, then it is another eye opening event for people who are on the fence or apathetic about it, just like Climategate was. I personally know people who state that Climategate got them to question the claims and many changed their position to one of being skeptical and realists.

There are over 2,000 skeptical published papers and another 1,350+ more at this site from 10 years ago

Consensus claims are worthless, Reproducible research is priceless!
 

Forum List

Back
Top