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

[Oddball]

As for the "consensus" gambit and the "you're no scientist" stratagem, this posting (#27):

There are a whole lot of things in the history of science which show just how poisonous it is to argue something on the basis of popularity among scientists. To cite just a single, very egregious example: The bacterial causation of peptic ulcer disease (PUD). In the mid-80s, 99.9% of the world's experts thought that PUD was primarily caused by excess stomach acid, which was, in turn, caused by things such as stress, smoking, alcohol, spicy foods, whatever. The evidence for this was overwhelming. The most lucrative operation for surgeons was the vagotomy and antrectomy (ulcer operation). The most lucrative drug was Tagamet (which reduced acid secretion). A lone pathologist in Australia, with no "credentials" came up with the idea that ulcers were caused by a bacterium (helicobacter pylori). No one believed him. He couldn't get the work published. He certainly wouldn't have qualified for any funding. It took nearly 20 years for the world to come around to his way of thinking. In 2005 he (Robin Warren) won the Nobel Prize. Press Release: The 2005 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine Today, the vagotomy and antrectomy, as well as Tagamet, exist primarily as historical reminders of the folly of scientific certitude.

How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?

 

[Jack Fate]

99.9% of the people think Al Gore is a sleaze bag and a political hack.

National Enquirer: Gore accused of sex attack on Portland masseuse | KREM 2 News | KREM.com | When it Matters Most | National News

 

[Big Fitz]

American Thinker: Climategate's Phil Jones Confesses to Climate Fraud

Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Mail Online

Your proof. Of course if this isn't good enough, nothing probably is.

Context, Fitz. From the interview your "American Thinker" uses as it's source:

E - How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?
I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.

That's why I included the Daily Mail article as well. They've been very good reporting on climate change from BOTH sides I've seen, but as time has worn on they've become increasingly anti-AGW because evidence keeps showing up the IPCC EAU-CRU and NASA have lied to them.

 

[Harry Dresden]

The sample was taken from IPCC toadies....The linked piece demonstrates the trail to the purposefully skewed group that were polled.

Your poll and thread are towering fails.

Sure Dude..

97% of scientists are "toadies" because they have been published in the field.
What were they thinking??

and cigarettes don't cause cancer, evolution is just a theory and the earth is flat

Damn those Scientists!

wait a minute....Dean said 96% of scientist buy into this,the Democratic ones....so 1% of republican Scientist also bought into it.....fascinating....there is hope....

 

[Old Rocks]

The sample was taken from IPCC toadies....The linked piece demonstrates the trail to the purposefully skewed group that were polled.

Your poll and thread are towering fails.

OK, Dooodeeee..... you silly ass.

Every single Scientific Society on this planet state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. As does every National Academy of Science, and every major University.

Come on now, show me where all these scientists are stating that AGW is real. And not some made up list from OISM, replete with the names of scientists that were dead at the time of the creation of the list.

 

[Old Rocks]

American Thinker: Climategate's Phil Jones Confesses to Climate Fraud

Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Mail Online

Your proof. Of course if this isn't good enough, nothing probably is.

Context, Fitz. From the interview your "American Thinker" uses as it's source:

E - How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?
I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.

That's why I included the Daily Mail article as well. They've been very good reporting on climate change from BOTH sides I've seen, but as time has worn on they've become increasingly anti-AGW because evidence keeps showing up the IPCC EAU-CRU and NASA have lied to them.

I see. Science and Nature are just full of lies, correct? What fools you fellows be.

 

[Oddball]

The sample was taken from IPCC toadies....The linked piece demonstrates the trail to the purposefully skewed group that were polled.

Your poll and thread are towering fails.

OK, Dooodeeee..... you silly ass.

Every single Scientific Society on this planet state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. As does every National Academy of Science, and every major University.

Come on now, show me where all these scientists are stating that AGW is real. And not some made up list from OISM, replete with the names of scientists that were dead at the time of the creation of the list.

You obviously didn't follow the link, and subsequent links, in post #2.

Because if you had, you'd already know that it was that very holy-and-above-reproach NAS that created the rigged poll!

Schmuck!

 

[Old Rocks]

As for the "consensus" gambit and the "you're no scientist" stratagem, this posting (#27):

There are a whole lot of things in the history of science which show just how poisonous it is to argue something on the basis of popularity among scientists. To cite just a single, very egregious example: The bacterial causation of peptic ulcer disease (PUD). In the mid-80s, 99.9% of the world's experts thought that PUD was primarily caused by excess stomach acid, which was, in turn, caused by things such as stress, smoking, alcohol, spicy foods, whatever. The evidence for this was overwhelming. The most lucrative operation for surgeons was the vagotomy and antrectomy (ulcer operation). The most lucrative drug was Tagamet (which reduced acid secretion). A lone pathologist in Australia, with no "credentials" came up with the idea that ulcers were caused by a bacterium (helicobacter pylori). No one believed him. He couldn't get the work published. He certainly wouldn't have qualified for any funding. It took nearly 20 years for the world to come around to his way of thinking. In 2005 he (Robin Warren) won the Nobel Prize. Press Release: The 2005 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine Today, the vagotomy and antrectomy, as well as Tagamet, exist primarily as historical reminders of the folly of scientific certitude.

How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?

How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?

How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
There have been various surveys or petitions claiming that thousands of scientists are skeptical that humans are causing global warming. The thing is, when you peruse these lists, you find very few scientists who actually have expertise in climate science. So what do the experts think? A 2009 survey found that over 97% of actively publishing climate scientists are convinced humans are significantly changing global temperatures (Doran 2009). Now a new study has digged into this topic a little deeper and broader. As well as covering a larger number of climate scientists, they also researched how many papers each scientist published and how often their work was cited (Anderegg 2010). How many published climate scientists think most of recent global warming was due to human activity? Between 97 to 98%.

The results are strikingly consistent with Doran's earlier work. The overwhelming majority of climate experts think humans are causing climate change. Next, they dig a little deeper. They examine the number of publications by each scientist as a measure of expertise in climate science. What they find is the average number of publications by unconvinced scientists (eg - skeptics) is around half the number by scientists convinced by the evidence. Not only is there a vast difference in the number of convinced versus unconvinced scientists, there is also a considerable gap in expertise between the two groups

Of course, the way to falsify a hypothesis or theory is to present actual evidence. Thus far, such evidence has not been presented by those proclaiming themselves to be sceptics.

So, why doesn't someone present that the absorbtion bands for CO2 and other GHGs do not really exist? Present evidence that the glaciers and icecaps are not melting at an accelerating rate? That the permafrost and Artic clathrates are not now producing CO2 and CH4 that they were not 50 years ago?

You fellows are real long on yap-yap. Very short on evidence.

 

[Harry Dresden]

97% sounds right. The other 3% work for right wing think tanks.

oh bravo!!!..............now that convinced me right there....i dont need to look into this anymore....Dude....Frank....Zander...Yurt....Taz....you others....your all full of shit....Junky just notched it for her side...fascinating statement....Gore would be proud....

 

[Oddball]

As for the "consensus" gambit and the "you're no scientist" stratagem, this posting (#27):

There are a whole lot of things in the history of science which show just how poisonous it is to argue something on the basis of popularity among scientists. To cite just a single, very egregious example: The bacterial causation of peptic ulcer disease (PUD). In the mid-80s, 99.9% of the world's experts thought that PUD was primarily caused by excess stomach acid, which was, in turn, caused by things such as stress, smoking, alcohol, spicy foods, whatever. The evidence for this was overwhelming. The most lucrative operation for surgeons was the vagotomy and antrectomy (ulcer operation). The most lucrative drug was Tagamet (which reduced acid secretion). A lone pathologist in Australia, with no "credentials" came up with the idea that ulcers were caused by a bacterium (helicobacter pylori). No one believed him. He couldn't get the work published. He certainly wouldn't have qualified for any funding. It took nearly 20 years for the world to come around to his way of thinking. In 2005 he (Robin Warren) won the Nobel Prize. Press Release: The 2005 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine Today, the vagotomy and antrectomy, as well as Tagamet, exist primarily as historical reminders of the folly of scientific certitude.

How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?

How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?

How many climate scientists are climate skeptics?
There have been various surveys or petitions claiming that thousands of scientists are skeptical that humans are causing global warming. The thing is, when you peruse these lists, you find very few scientists who actually have expertise in climate science. So what do the experts think? A 2009 survey found that over 97% of actively publishing climate scientists are convinced humans are significantly changing global temperatures (Doran 2009). Now a new study has digged into this topic a little deeper and broader. As well as covering a larger number of climate scientists, they also researched how many papers each scientist published and how often their work was cited (Anderegg 2010). How many published climate scientists think most of recent global warming was due to human activity? Between 97 to 98%.

The results are strikingly consistent with Doran's earlier work. The overwhelming majority of climate experts think humans are causing climate change. Next, they dig a little deeper. They examine the number of publications by each scientist as a measure of expertise in climate science. What they find is the average number of publications by unconvinced scientists (eg - skeptics) is around half the number by scientists convinced by the evidence. Not only is there a vast difference in the number of convinced versus unconvinced scientists, there is also a considerable gap in expertise between the two groups

Of course, the way to falsify a hypothesis or theory is to present actual evidence. Thus far, such evidence has not been presented by those proclaiming themselves to be sceptics.

So, why doesn't someone present that the absorbtion bands for CO2 and other GHGs do not really exist? Present evidence that the glaciers and icecaps are not melting at an accelerating rate? That the permafrost and Artic clathrates are not now producing CO2 and CH4 that they were not 50 years ago?

You fellows are real long on yap-yap. Very short on evidence.

Not so short on evidence that they have to make up fake polls that come up with absolutely absurd results.

 

[Sinatra]

Newsflash:

The Oregon woman recently linked to Big Al's hot -n- heavy is no less than...


Old Rocks.

 

[Old Rocks]

The sample was taken from IPCC toadies....The linked piece demonstrates the trail to the purposefully skewed group that were polled.

Your poll and thread are towering fails.

OK, Dooodeeee..... you silly ass.

Every single Scientific Society on this planet state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. As does every National Academy of Science, and every major University.

Come on now, show me where all these scientists are stating that AGW is real. And not some made up list from OISM, replete with the names of scientists that were dead at the time of the creation of the list.

You obviously didn't follow the link, and subsequent links, in post #2.

Because if you had, you'd already know that it was that very holy-and-above-reproach NAS that created the rigged poll!

Schmuck!

Come on, idiot child, how about a Scientific Society that states AGW does not exist? How about a major University that states AGW does not exist. A National Academy of Science.

After all, most first and second world nations, of whatever political bent, have a National Academy of Science, so why aren't there some that state AGW is false?

Are all of the major Univesities in the world skewed?

 

[Big Fitz]

Context, Fitz. From the interview your "American Thinker" uses as it's source:

That's why I included the Daily Mail article as well. They've been very good reporting on climate change from BOTH sides I've seen, but as time has worn on they've become increasingly anti-AGW because evidence keeps showing up the IPCC EAU-CRU and NASA have lied to them.

I see. Science and Nature are just full of lies, correct? What fools you fellows be.

Crocks, don't even bother. You're so discredited, I'm stunned you still have the gall to post your bullshit.

But the high priest of the CLCC must go on I guess, regardless of how few still believe.

Like the last surviving member of the Mythras Mystery Cult.

 

[Sinatra]

Wait until Pachauri gets a load of this: “The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider. The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen experts,” he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography, co-authored with student Martin Mahony,” as reported in the National Post.

Doh!!!


Climate Change Fraud - Global warming defectors ? at the highest levels

 

[Sinatra]

Pielke (2007) and Sarewitz (2010) agree that the IPCC has failed in its role as an ‘honest-broker’ and has moved towards being an ‘issue advocate’ in Pielke’s terminology, or even on some occasions a ‘stealth issue advocate’

http://www.probeinternational.org/Hulme-Mahony-PiPG[1].pdf


Doh!

 

[Sinatra]

Climate Change: what do we know about the IPCC?Mike Hulme and Martin Mahony
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ
Review Article for Progress in Physical Geography
5180 (plus) words
12 April 2010
Abstract


Doh!!!


http://www.probeinternational.org/Hulme-Mahony-PiPG[1].pdf

 

[Oddball]

OK, Dooodeeee..... you silly ass.

Every single Scientific Society on this planet state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. As does every National Academy of Science, and every major University.

Come on now, show me where all these scientists are stating that AGW is real. And not some made up list from OISM, replete with the names of scientists that were dead at the time of the creation of the list.

You obviously didn't follow the link, and subsequent links, in post #2.

Because if you had, you'd already know that it was that very holy-and-above-reproach NAS that created the rigged poll!

Schmuck!

Come on, idiot child, how about a Scientific Society that states AGW does not exist? How about a major University that states AGW does not exist. A National Academy of Science.

After all, most first and second world nations, of whatever political bent, have a National Academy of Science, so why aren't there some that state AGW is false?

Are all of the major Univesities in the world skewed?

Nice try at changing the subject....No, not really.

The stupid NAS poll, which is the subject of this thread, is a fraud....And a extremely transparent fraud at that.

If all the "science" is settled, why would NAS commission and release such an easily debunked and so positively laughable poll?

Is there not one scintilla of intellectual curiosity in your head?

 

[Sinatra]

It was a poll likely rushed for release to coincide with the oil leak.

As always, the global warming masters care little about climate, and far more about power.

Their golden child is no longer singing such an alluring tune these days though...

 

[Old Rocks]

And the idiots continue the yap-yap in leiu of any thing real to say.

 

[Old Rocks]

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.000.png