And just how did the Most Equal Comrade arrive at his assertion that there is overwhelming consensus on climate change?

Through fudging the numbers:

Obama based his asinine apercu, and then his daft climate speech, on one of the most ingeniously half-baked papers ever written in the dismal but mercifully short history of climastrology.

The paper, pompously entitled “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature,” was written by a lavishly taxpayer-funded propagandist – a soi-disant “Climate Communications Fellow” – of the head-bangingly politically correct “University” of Queensland, Australia.

Not one of the authors is a climate scientist. But all are self-confessed members of the hard left. The paper on the basis of which Obama proposes to set America at a still greater economic disadvantage against other nations than he already has is political, not scientific.

And it is wrong. Hilariously, utterly bogus.

The authors surveyed the summaries of a sample of 11,944 scientific papers about climate change published over the 21 years 1991-2011. Wow! That’s a lot!

Trouble is, their results were bent. They fudged and dodged to travel from the truth to where they wanted to be. And here, exclusive to WND, is how they did it.

First, fewer than 1 in 7 of the scientists who wrote the 11,944 papers replied to their survey. The Trots made up the rest from the summaries. They did not read the full papers, only the summaries.

Next, when they found that fewer than a third of the summaries said or even implied that humans had anything to do with global temperature, they arbitrarily excluded the two-thirds that did not say whether we were to blame. You couldn’t make this up.

But at least they admitted they had done that – not that Black Jesus bothered to read that far.

It is what happened next that was truly outrageous – and may even be fraud. For the propagandists at Queensland “University” found, no doubt to their dismay, that only 64 of the 11,944 papers whose summaries they read – or just 0.5 percent – said that humans had caused most of the late-20th-century global warming that stopped more than 17 years ago.

So they decided not to publish the fact that only 64 papers even went so far as to say that we were the primary cause of recent warming.

Instead, they pretended that all of the 3,896 summaries that had said we have caused some warming had really meant we had caused more than 50 percent of it. Those summaries constituted 97 percent of the 4,014 summaries that had expressed some sort of opinion one way or the other on Man’s influence on global temperature, after they had carefully excluded the 7,930 that had expressed no opinion at all.

And that was how they got the headline “97 percent consensus” they wanted.

Then Black Jesus came along and pretended that they had shown 97 percent of scientists believing global warming might be “dangerous.” But they had been very careful not to ask that question, because not one of the 64 summaries they said had attributed more than half of recent global warming to us had also said that warming – if continued – might prove dangerous.

It gets worse. Once I had found out that only 64 of the 11,944 summaries in their sample had actually blamed more than half of recent global warming on us, I decided to read all 64 summaries. Of these, only 43 said Man had caused more than half. The others did not say what the Queensland propagandists said they said.

Bottom line: the much-vaunted climate catastrophe “consensus” represents not 97 percent of all scientists whose papers were surveyed, but just 0.3 percent. And not one of those 0.3 percent said global warming might one day be dangerous, much less that it might prove catastrophic.

And the son of a bitch is counting on you to be gullible enough to swallow his dog vomit so he can ruin the US economy.

You're not, are you?