Global Warming/Climate Change: What are the military implications?

Your NASA site makes a common error when it quotes 97% of climate scientists. It uses J Cook's 2013 study as it's reference for this misrepresented fact. The Cook study claims 97% of papers written, among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW. It uses Abstracts as a proxy for the full paper's conclusions (he had to because he only had enough money to pay his helpers to read the Abstracts, not the whole paper), and number of papers as a proxy for numbers of scientists. One helper claimed to have read and assessed 675 Abstracts within 72 hours. If he never slept for 3 days, that would be one Abstract every 6 1/2 minutes. Great science. So a scientist well-funded by NOAA or the IPCC who wrote 7 papers gets counted as 7 scientists, while a non-funded non-partyline scientist writes none, and is counted as not a scientist. See: http://richardtol.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/now-almost-two-years-old-john-cooks-97.htmlclaims

I just see more and more out there about data being manipulated to fit the narrative