And I thought my diesel truck and cow farts were the cause

Typical leftist, Climate Change Alarmist, attack the source, not the message. But I hear nothing but crickets on the first article posted. I went to the original source: University of Wisconsin, just to shut down people like yourself. Silence. Crickets. Bwaaaahaaaaa.

Here, try one from Investor’s Business Daily, a very reputable source. Quotes various scientists and the conclusion is that the Climate Change alarmists’ model based science has failed the basic tenant of the scientific method: that the results can be repeated by other scientists.

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/is-global-warming-science-just-a-fraud/

Original source article from the BBC:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778

I’ve posted here on Dr. Camille Parmesan seminal, yet flawed, scientific study was published as a “correspondence” on the Edith’s Checkerspot Butterfly, wherein she concluded that Climate Change was forcing the Edith’s Checkerspot butterflies upward and northward. Her “narrative”, which was published in the Journal Nature, has been sited as fact in over 1,000 other research papers on Climate Change. Only problem, it was challenged, her conclusions were proven to be wrong and because she hid behind the “correspondence” curtain, she did not have to provide her source data. So she avoided any scientific challenge on her conclusion. Problem is, there are other subject matter experts on her Butterfly who knew better and could and did soundly challenge her conclusion. Once again, the scary part is that her conclusions were were sited as fact 1000x over by the chorus of Climate Change Alarmists. Downright shameful. Yet the ignorant take these things straight up as fact. SMH.

http://landscapesandcycles.net/climate-doom–parmesan-s-butterfly-effect.html

Opler was not the only expert to dissent. Other scientists, armed with detailed studies aimed at insuring the butterfly’s recovery and survival, also disagreed. “Our observation that human impacts were almost always involved in local extirpations in southern California (even for those areas that may seem to still have “suitable habitat”), the role of global warming as the proximate cause of extinction must be carefully evaluated. We suspect that warming is perhaps an exacerbating factor, but that increased extinction rates in southern California are primarily caused by more direct anthropogenic forces.”7

So I decided Parmesan’s landmark climate study needed to be replicated with a more critical eye on the contributing land use factors. However, when I looked for her methods section there was none. Her study had been published as a correspondence, and in Nature, a correspondence doesn’t require a methods section that allows for independent verification. That also explained how her paper survived a gauntlet of disagreement by leading experts. A correspondence is not typically peer reviewed. It is published simply based on the advocacy of Nature’s editors.

Here’s Camille Parmesan herself…

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/climate-scientist-camille-parmesan.html#.WLGjKzvadPY

We’ve seen prominent Climate Change scientists caught manipulating source data to fit the narrative. When you manipulate source data, it becomes near impossible to replicate the results because the manipulation component reflects their biased opinion. And that is why virtually all of this Climate Change Science is junk science. Now, it is getting flushed, along with fake news.