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

[bucs90]

Dude!

it ain't work'n pal.....Your attempt to disqualify 97% of climate scientists because they are experts in their field just ain't cutting it

Science............just another Liberal Fad!

I dont think he was trying to disqualify the scientists at all. I think he was pointing out that the study is inherently flawed because they screen out scientists that disagree with the global warming agenda before factoring them into the poll.

I think you realize that. But I am not convinced you care.

Those Bastards!

They screened out those scientists who know nothing about global warming! How dare they try to poll subject matter experts? Next time they should stick with FoxNews viewers...just to make Dude happy

No, man, thats just how propoganda is done. You, being too gullable to know the difference, bites on it every time.

So, lets say in 1939 Hitler wanted to do a poll about whether Jews are a threat to Germany or not. Don't you think he'd screen the people answering?

I know this. If I was given a chance to put a poll on the front page of the New York Times, and could ask "Is Obama the worst president ever", and I was allowed to screen those people who answered, you're damn right I'd get a 97% favorable rate.

Wake up dude.

 

[Charles_Main]

Wait so let me get this right. This dude posted a link about a poll in which they surveyed some scientists, who had already signed off on global warming as being mostly man made, and asked them if global warming is man made?

the real question here is, who the hell were the 3% that answered no on the survey after signing off on the bogus science?

LOL

 

[saveliberty]

What is next?

Peanut lovers will iinsist on peanut by-products being used to make air filters for large office building air handlers.

Wisconsin cheese producers will be ad censors for the California millk industry.

A vegan board will supervise the beef industry.

A Latino advisory board will end all white people from appearing on tv programs. Gibbs will still allowed to do press conferences, but only with a Jalapeno on a stick vantriloquist routine.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's Environmental Fascism.

We have a Fascist Democrat Party that tried, in broad daylight, to hand Iraq to the Islamic Insurgents in the middle of a real live shooting war, why should it surprise anyone that the same Fascists will lie about the "science"?

They keep repeating it until we give up.

But guess what?

You fuckers don't control the debate anymore, you don't control the facts, you don't control the media. You can rant and rave and blame the Glacier Eating CO2 Spaghetti Monster all you want, you lie and lie and LIE AND LIE AND LIE.

And we call you on it every time.

We're all in, so you're fucked.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Wait so let me get this right. This dude posted a link about a poll in which they surveyed some scientists, who had already signed off on global warming as being mostly man made, and asked them if global warming is man made?

the real question here is, who the hell were the 3% that answered no on the survey after signing off on the bogus science?

LOL

Denyers aka:Heretics

 

[saveliberty]

Wait so let me get this right. This dude posted a link about a poll in which they surveyed some scientists, who had already signed off on global warming as being mostly man made, and asked them if global warming is man made?

the real question here is, who the hell were the 3% that answered no on the survey after signing off on the bogus science?

LOL

Same group who has no opinion on the question of do you want to live or die.

 

[Oddball]

Just when I thought two stories on this joke of a poll would suffice, up pops another:

Dear Professor Schneider,

I am writing in regards to your recently published paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, titled 'Expert Credibility in Climate Change.'

I would like to start by asking you if your previously held opinions on global temperatures, which you have since discarded, should be used to disqualify you from current or future work or discussion regarding climate change. If not, why do you libel Roger Pielke Sr. as a skeptic based on his signature to a petition in 1992?

Second, I would like to know how you could associate your name and reputation with a paper with so many errors of data. Are you aware of the mistakes regarding the backgrounds, employment and specializations of the scientists on the lists used for your paper? What quality control measures did you use that could get Willam Happer's field of specialization wrong? Do you stand by the integrity of the data used in your paper?

Third, I would like to know how you validated your lists as fit for purpose. How were the petitions selected? What quality control checks and validation procedures were used? Surely, assuming you libeled Pielke Sr. unintentionally, you would have realised that his appearance on your list would call into question the list itself and not his character or beliefs.

Global warming: Open letter to Stephen Schneider

 

[CrusaderFrank]

They can't win, they have no science behind them, so they put their thumb on the scale.

They give us "polls" as proxies for repeatable experiments. Seriously? You make Ghostbusters look like real scientists.

They lie about the "Facts", they use tree rings, until its exposed as a fraud and its "pay no attention to the man humping the tree rings behind the curtain, I am the great and powerful Glacier Eating CO2 Spaghetti Monster!"

They can't do a single repeatable laboratory experiment demonstrating that 200PPM increases in CO2 causes measurable warming, so they tip the scale and add 600,000PPM of CO2, like its no big deal.

They tell you GHG's are CO2, CH4 and always leave off the most powerful one, the one they never want to discuss: H20. That's because the Environmental Fascists can't get control of Western Civilization be telling you to stop taking such hot showers.

You're all done.

 

[Oddball]

How would you like your numbers; broiled, baked, poached or pan seared?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How would you like your numbers; broiled, baked, poached or pan seared?

Dude, how come we hear so little from the East Angelia Insane Clown Posse and Data Cooking Center these days?

 

[Douger]

Bullshit. Fear mongering ans gred.
Murkin elites and Europeans want da money.

I see no problem with a bit of smoke.

 

[Big Fitz]

EXCELSIOR!

THAT'S where I heard it!!!!

 

[txlonghorn]

 

[edthecynic]

a 12 year decline in tempatures somehow proves global warming? It's nonsense.

Oh God, this again? Just when I thought the documented fact of cooling temps the past decade had sealed the warming freaks fate, here we go again.

Repeat after me: Global warming is real.

Sure, it's real. Has anybody here said it isn't? The debate is whether or not we have caused it. We didn't cause it. The earth gets warm for 200 years and then it gets cooler for 200 years and so and so on. In fact, it's just been in the news that we can expect a pretty hot summer because solar activity has risen on the Sun. Probably why we're already averaging mid 90s here every day.

You deniers need to get your spins going in the same direction.

Obviously the global cooling whackos say global warming is not real!! They have been saying we are in a new Ice Age since the 70s.

The last decade has been the WARMEST in the history of direct instrument measurement, and to deniers that documents global COOLING.

BTW, the Sun's activity is in a low cycle now and the globe has been warming in spite of it.

 

[oreo]

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.

I am certain that those scientific evidence papers that were buried--we're from people called the opposition-that their-credibility regarding their knowledge and intelligence has been attacked-- What's new there?




Problem is-- 97% of the world want this book--

 

[Tom Clancy]

 

[Oddball]

PNAS Climate Change Expert Credibility Farce
Submitted by Doug L. Hoffman on Tue, 06/22/2010 - 16:01

A new, purportedly scientific report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) is claiming that more “top” environmental scientists believe in global warming. Moreover, the report also claims that the scientists who do believe in global warming—now re-labeled anthropogenic climate change (ACC)—have higher credibility than those who do not. All of this is based on an “extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data.” Citing such data is like saying “most of the people who write for conservative magazines are conservatives.” In other words, the study is devoid of factual significance and possibly purposely misleading. More propaganda from the sinking global warming ship.

In an open access article, rather innocuously titled “Expert credibility in climate change,” William R. L. Anderegg, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold, and Stephen H. Schneider have attempted to denigrate those who dare to disagree with the IPCC party line. In order to provide a false sense of balance, the “researchers” refer to climate change believers as “convinced by the evidence” (CE) and skeptics as “unconvinced by the evidence” (UE). That is the only unbiased thing about the report. Here is the paper's abstract:

Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.​

The first suspicious thing is that the “extensive dataset” contains only 1,372 climate researchers on both sides of the issue. I seem to recall that the IPCC alone claimed more than that many “experts” had worked on its reports. The second suspicious thing is the 97-98% pro-AGW result, a figure more in line with the election results from a tin-pot dictatorship or Stalinist people's republic. This result alone is an indication that the dataset is biased.

PNAS Climate Change Expert Credibility Farce | The Resilient Earth

 

[SuMar]

Global warming, Scientists, Al Gore climate change

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ]YouTube - Al Gore sued by over 30.000 Scientists for Global Warming fraud / John Coleman[/ame]

The Climate Change Climate Change - WSJ.com​

Really?

 

[Father Time]

Global warming, Scientists, Al Gore climate change

YouTube - Al Gore sued by over 30.000 Scientists for Global Warming fraud / John Coleman

The Climate Change Climate Change - WSJ.com​

Really?

[youtube]qZzwRwFDXw0[/youtube]

I find it interesting that Dude's source implies that there's a conspiracy by scientists in peer review to keep other scientists down. It's a conspiracy claim everyone with a crackpot claim rejected by scientists makes.

 

[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?