skookerasbil
Platinum Member
Reality check: Legates published in a peer reviewed journal and his work is 100% dogshit. The work your link (a James Taylor article in Forbes) examines is a vague discussion by Lefsrud and Myers - both well known oil industry hacks - of surveys restricting themselves to people working in the oil business. Neither Lefsrud not the surveyed group are climate scientists and all have a professional cause to oppose the work of the IPCC.
For a more objective examination, try these:
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia
Surveys of scientists' views on climate change - Wikipedia
Any club may feel it has a monopoly on virtue. Happens all the time. What really matter.........."reality" if you will, is how does the club effect perception in the bigger picture?
Paul Krugman of the New York Times is the head of the world Keynesian Club.......says his economic theories dominate in terms of effectiveness. So they dominate ONLY amongst those in the club.........but, there are many other clubs that disagree!! So what is Krugmans clubs impact in the bigger picture? It is marginal at best.
The "scientific opinion" often referred to by the AGW crowd is having little or no effect outside the club.........its like a guy saying "model railroading is the single best hobby!!". Well it may be..................but only to members of the club.
The LGBT community likely thinks it is 100% correct about 4,000 genders........but the fact is, a huge majority thinks these multiple genders are only embraced by k00ks........very little impact in the real world.
When one can think on the margin, this stuff is easy to understand. But there are many who are not able to think on the margin, no matter the intelligence level.
Nobody s caring about the "scientific opinion" on this stuff..........and not one member of this whole message board can display a single link displaying otherwise.