97% of Scientists agree..........Al Gore knows what he is talking about

[Soggy in NOLA]

Report: 97 percent of scientists say man-made climate change is real - Science Fair: Science and Space News - USATODAY.com

Forget the four out of five dentists who recommend Trident…. Try the 97 out of 100 scientists that believe in man-made climate change.

This data comes from a new survey out this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The study found that 97 percent of scientific experts agree that climate change is "very likely" caused mainly by human activity.

The report is based on questions posed to 1,372 scientists. Nearly all the experts agreed that it is "very likely that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for most of the unequivocal warming of the Earth's average global temperature in the second half of the twentieth century."

As for the 3 percent of scientists who remain unconvinced, the study found their average expertise is far below that of their colleagues, as measured by publication and citation rates.

Since when does consensus determine fact? And the cultists deem anyone who disagrees to be unqualified?

Yeah, gonna file this one right next to the "9/11 was an inside job" file.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

And BTW... Al Gore is a fraud.... 97% of us think so at least.

 

[Father Time]

The people doing the suppression and stacking the deck are admitting as much themselves...The horse is out of the barn.

Having trouble clicking on links, seeing direct quotes and reading for comprehension?

Ok prove they are suppressing ideas and don't even start with those climategate e-mails everyone takes out of context.

[youtube]uXesBhYwdRo[/youtube]

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

How do you take this out of context:

I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying where’s the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away.

 

[Oddball]

The people doing the suppression and stacking the deck are admitting as much themselves...The horse is out of the barn.

Having trouble clicking on links, seeing direct quotes and reading for comprehension?

Ok prove they are suppressing ideas and don't even start with those climategate e-mails everyone takes out of context.

There's no taking "...even if we have to redefine what peer review literature is" out of context.

There's also no taking “Perhaps the University of Wisconsin ought to open up a public comment period to decide whether Pat Michaels, PhD needs re-assessing?” ...out of context.

I've posted enough links in this thread alone to show anyone who can bothered to take a dispassionate view that the IPCC warmist cartel is now simply going to rig the whole process in their favor.

Your closed mind on the subject is your problem.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The people doing the suppression and stacking the deck are admitting as much themselves...The horse is out of the barn.

Having trouble clicking on links, seeing direct quotes and reading for comprehension?

Ok prove they are suppressing ideas and don't even start with those climategate e-mails everyone takes out of context.

There's no taking "...even if we have to redefine what peer review literature is" out of context.

There's also no taking “Perhaps the University of Wisconsin ought to open up a public comment period to decide whether Pat Michaels, PhD needs re-assessing?” ...out of context.

I've posted enough links in this thread alone to show anyone who can bothered to take a dispassionate view that the IPCC warmist cartel is now simply going to rig the whole process in their favor.

Your closed mind on the subject is your problem.

They're useful idiots and totally indoctrinated. You can't use facts or logic or studies or real science, they'll just repeat lie after lie after lie.

 

[Father Time]

The people doing the suppression and stacking the deck are admitting as much themselves...The horse is out of the barn.

Having trouble clicking on links, seeing direct quotes and reading for comprehension?

Ok prove they are suppressing ideas and don't even start with those climategate e-mails everyone takes out of context.

There's no taking "...even if we have to redefine what peer review literature is" out of context.

There's also no taking “Perhaps the University of Wisconsin ought to open up a public comment period to decide whether Pat Michaels, PhD needs re-assessing?” ...out of context.

I've posted enough links in this thread alone to show anyone who can bothered to take a dispassionate view that the IPCC warmist cartel is now simply going to rig the whole process in their favor.

Your closed mind on the subject is your problem.

Oh bullshit, you can take anything out of context,

Now go on and prove there's a big massive conspiracy. It seems to be the only way people can rationalize lots of scientists disagreeing with them.

 

[keee keee]

Global warming is as full of shit as the Obama administration is!!!!!! when I think of FRAUDS and liars I think of both Al Gore and Barrack Obama!!!!!! I don't know which one is full of more shit. I think it might be Al he must have a blockage that's why he is so Bloated and fat!!!

 

[keee keee]

No one is buying this farce anymore!!!!! we all know it is a fraud!!!!!!

 

[Oddball]

Oh bullshit, you can take anything out of context,

Now go on and prove there's a big massive conspiracy. It seems to be the only way people can rationalize lots of scientists disagreeing with them.

I'm taking nothing out of context...I read all the e-mails and have read the parsings of the deliberately fudged computer code.

The ongoing conspiracy to exclude all who don't go along with the global warm...er....climate change fundamentalist orthodoxy is operating right in front of your face.

The only people who cannot admit it anymore are those with either emotional or financial investments in continuing the hoax.

 

[Father Time]

Ok prove they are suppressing ideas and don't even start with those climategate e-mails everyone takes out of context.

There's no taking "...even if we have to redefine what peer review literature is" out of context.

There's also no taking “Perhaps the University of Wisconsin ought to open up a public comment period to decide whether Pat Michaels, PhD needs re-assessing?” ...out of context.

I've posted enough links in this thread alone to show anyone who can bothered to take a dispassionate view that the IPCC warmist cartel is now simply going to rig the whole process in their favor.

Your closed mind on the subject is your problem.

They're useful idiots and totally indoctrinated. You can't use facts or logic or studies or real science, they'll just repeat lie after lie after lie.

Yes because logic tells us that the reason most scientists disagree is because of a big massive conspiracy theory. Never mind the fact that it completely violates Occam's razor, and sounds completely stupid.

 

[Oddball]

You never answered the question as to what Occam would do if he discovered people distorting data, making up data out of thin air, destroying contrary data, blacklisitng contrary views, fabricating polls with outlandish results.

Occam's razor indeed.

 

[Father Time]

Oh bullshit, you can take anything out of context,

Now go on and prove there's a big massive conspiracy. It seems to be the only way people can rationalize lots of scientists disagreeing with them.

I'm taking nothing out of context...I read all the e-mails and have read the parsings of the deliberately fudged computer code.

The ongoing conspiracy to exclude all who don't go along with the global warm...er....climate change fundamentalist orthodoxy is operating right in front of your face.

THEN PROVE IT!

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, it's a basic principle of science. So far you've given jack shit.

 

[Oddball]

The proof is and has been in front of your face...I've posted several links in this thread.

All it takes on your part is the will to face the facts.

 

[Father Time]

You never answered the question as to what Occam would do if he discovered people distorting data, making up data out of thin air, destroying contrary data, blacklisitng contrary views, fabricating polls with outlandish results.

Occam's razor indeed.

First of all go on and prove they're doing all that crap.

Second you never asked that question before

Thirdly, what's a simpler solution.

A few bad eggs

or

thousands of scientists have committed to a fraud of unprecedented proportions.

You still fail Occam's Razor.

 

[Father Time]

The proof is and has been in front of your face...I've posted several links in this thread.

All it takes on your part is the will to face the facts.

Which links, post them again and point to the specific parts that prove a conspiracy theory.

 

[Father Time]

Here's a joint statement by some of the scientific associations that agree with global warming.

http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

You're telling me all those international organizations got together to form a huge hoax to ... do what... sell hybrid cars?

 

[Oddball]

Oh, and you find absolutely nothing fishy about a poll that came up with results reminiscent of an "election" for Saddam Hussein or Hugo Chavez?

P.S....I blew that piece of crap poll out of the water in post #2.

 

[Father Time]

Oh, and you find absolutely nothing fishy about a poll that came up with results reminiscent of an "election" for Saddam Hussein or Hugo Chavez?

P.S....I blew that piece of crap poll out of the water in post #2.

I never said the poll was accurate, I just find the idea of conspiracy to be ludicrous. Although looking back trying to tie that to your sources was guilt by association on my part. Sorry.

 

[Oddball]

You find the idea of IPCC "scientists" conspiring to get the results they want to get ludicrous, yet re-re-re-posting a poll with results that would do Kim Jong Il proud is worthy of citation as credible.

Mmmmmm'kay.