Climate Depot’s Marc Morano, author of “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change,” took a jab at the consensus “myth,” saying it was “about time NASA is forced to confront its part in repeating the 97% claim.” “NASA is likely to fight tooth and nail over this false 97% claim because NASA has a vested interest in keeping up the ‘consensus’ myth,” Mr. Morano said in an email. “Sadly, NASA has long been overrun with many scientists who are willing to bend the truth for the climate cause.”
Morano's further comment: "It is about time NASA is forced to confront its part in repeating the 97% 'consensus' claims. The studies that claim a '97% consensus' are deeply flawed and designed to silence any debate on climate change. One of the 97% studies was not even based on 97 scientists, but an anonymous 77 scientists that were whittled down from a much larger survey of scientists. NASA does not care that the 97% claim is fabricated. The lead 'climate change' scientist is Gavin Schmidt and he has openly gone political and promoted carbon taxes and consensus while serving at NASA.'
The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) sent NASA a formal complaint, asking the agency to withdraw the false claim that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that humans are the primary cause of global warming and climate change. The 2013 study purporting to demonstrate that number was fatally flawed and proved no such thing. "The claim that 97% of climate scientists believe humans are the primary cause of global warming is simply false," CEI attorney Devin Watkins said in a statement. "That figure was created only by ignoring many climate scientists’ views, including those of undecided scientists. It is time that NASA correct the record and present unbiased figures to the public." According to the CEI complaint, NASA's decision to repeat the false claim violated the Information Quality Act (IQA). Specifically, NASA claimed that "[n]inety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities." The claim appears on the NASA website on the page "Climate Change: How Do We Know?"
"While I have read Morano’s recent book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change (I recommend this book), I was unaware that Morano had been following the species extinction issue so closely. Witnesses selected by the minority party (at present the Republicans), typically have a week at best to prepare written testimony. So it is clear that Morano’s materials must have been collected and examined over a period of time."
"It is very difficult to rebut Morano’s points without the full Report and its documentation."
"Morano was asked a question about ‘97% of scientists agree.’ Morano nailed it. Moore effectively chimed in on this issue also...The Chairman in his 5 minutes is attacking Morano and the Republicans for inviting him. Also criticizing ‘junior varsity think tanks.'"
Morano: "The models are tuned to show that humans are the cause, and they admit the models don't account for things in nature,” he says. “And models are not evidence. Models are not proof. They are tuned by the programmer to get the result they want.”
Harvard Mag: These are all important questions—but even they ignore a central certainty that no one appears to be addressing: what Dan Schrag calls “climate change’s dirty little secret.” “Even if we could become carbon-neutral tomorrow,” says the director of the Harvard University Center for the Environment, “the climate will keep changing for thousands of years, the ice sheets will keep melting, and the seas will continue to rise.”
Climate Depot's Marc Morano: "So now an allegedly esteemed Harvard professor admits that controlling the climate is futile. Are we supposed to be surprised at this 'secret' that climate skeptics have always known? Even the climate activists will now have to concede that the climate will not stop changing if we refuse to enact the UN Paris pact and the Green New Deal."
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of Biogeography at the University of London, points out that “climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, and the very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by understanding and manipulating at the margins one politically-selected factor [CO2], is as misguided as it gets. It's scientific nonsense."