More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!

[Abraham3]

Tell me gnarley, what percentage of atmospheric CO2 do you think man is responsible for? Here is a hint, we are not the main reason for increasing CO2. Our contribution to the atmospheric CO2 budget isn't even enough to overcome the natural variation from one year to the next. Our contribution to CO2 is a tick under 3% of a gas that only constitutes 0.035% of the atmosphere. The very idea that that constitutes a danger, considering the past history of the earth simply foolish.

Now HERE is foolish

 

[skookerasbil]

yuk......yuk..........


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBO2IstMi2A]CO2 is a trace gas. - YouTube[/ame]



Duh

 

[Abraham3]

See the guy in red in the lower right corner? The one who actually rejects AGW?

Now THAT'S a trace gas.

 

[SSDD]

The bottom two are older papers and the bottom link does not talk about coral, its about mico-organisms. We aren't talking about those, or at least I wasn't. I made no claims about foraminifera. So let's tick that off the list.

Older papers? The middle paper was published in 2013. Before you start complaining about a 1 year old paper being old, you should first check out some of the antiques posted as proof of AGW by the warmist wacko community. Some were literally written with quill and ink on parchment.

But if you want more papers, I have more papers. Unlike you, my position is based on peer reviewed, published research which does not depend primarily on computer models.

BG - Abstract - Response of the temperate coral Cladocora caespitosa to mid- and long-term exposure to pCO2 and temperature levels projected for the year 2100 AD

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

middle link is also far from our discussion. I am not talking about thermal issues anyway, I have focused on CO2 ppm, for which this link offers no information. oligotrophy is not coral, it's defined as an organism that needs little nutrients. Sounds like you are reaching wide to find arcane papers that you can then claim destroys my conclusions but in reality they offer no information, they are in different worlds.

The middle link is about the effects of acidification on corals. Maybe you need to do some serious brushing up on the basics...like reading...before we continue. The title of the paper should have clued you in on the topic....Near-future reductions in pH will have no consistent ecological effects on the early life-history stages of reef corals. In case you didn't know, papers that mention pH are generally talking about acidification.

The first link is also about plankton too and thus has no relevant info to the discussion at hand. How can you confuse the plankton and coral? Of course we can't read this paper and thus an abstract is hardly substantive. I don't doubt it supports the claim about "becomes more, not less" but they aren't talking about coral.

Really? Did you bother reading...or more importantly, can you read? Here, from the abstract:

"Biological and hydrographic processes change the chemistry of the seawater moving across the barrier reefs and into Palau's Rock Island bays, where levels of acidification approach those projected for the western tropical Pacific open ocean by 2100. Nevertheless, coral diversity, cover, and calcification rates are maintained across this natural acidification gradient. Identifying the combination of biological and environmental factors that enable these communities to persist could provide important insights into the future of coral reefs under anthropogenic acidification."

see your ploy to post some reasonable science but try to only post the ones you can read at length. Thanks.

I suggest youwork on your reading comprehension before you cast aspersions on mine.

 

[SSDD]

R Totten is the writer of your AGW hoax article that you relied on to "tear me down" with your thunderous post. You turned it into a reason for you to claim I was committing a fallacy because you didn't understand it. All I'm asking is to provide the source to this chart or provide another chart.

What AGW hoax article are you talking about? I haven't referred to an AGW hoax article. All of the scientific fact points to an AGW hoax....who needs an article?

it fits your idea of AGW hoax is all the reason to question its credibility. Your pals were staunch to claim the Oregon Petiton had great validity when it has no credibilty.

When did I mention the Oregon Petition? Can you say strawman?

I'm asking is for you to produce your own claims. Don't find an obscure chart that you can't find anywhere else.

Not only are you a wanker, and completely duped, but you are lazy as well. The information on that graph is available in other places if you had bothered to look. I just like that one. Here is another with the same basic information which lists the published articles from which the information comes. You are a real piece of work and your arguments aren't doing a thing towards suggesting that you are intellectually up to this subject.

Maybe it isn't obscure and that's all I ask, show it to me elsewhere or preferably in its original paper. Or at least give me another chart that resembles similar findings. I don't doubt they are right, but when you can't reproduce it, it isn't science.

When you post something I don't agree with, the onus is upon me to find contradictory evidence to support my position. If you are to damned lazy to be bothered to do a search on your own, then you deserve to remain in a state of ignorance.

this will help:
"An increase of 10 parts per million might have needed 1,000 years or more to come to pass during ancient climate change events. Now the planet is poised to reach the 1,000 ppm level in only 100 years if emissions trajectories remain at their present level.”

Might have needed? May reach Xppm if modeled trajectories are correct? Models? Really? Climate models are failing as fast as they can be written and you are trying to "help" by posting modeled claims? I am laughing....right now...just so you know.

Coral reefs suffered mass die-offs during the ancient Pliocene Era which was the last time atmospheric CO2 was at 400 parts per million.

Geez guy, do you ever think. The Pliocene was the period at which the present ice age bottomed out. The oceans were cooling rapidy and in case you didn't know, cold water holds more CO2 than warmer water. Look backwards from the Pliocene and see the atmospheric CO2 levels climb....and the corals were doing fine....AS YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD BEFORE....COLD IS THE KILLER, NOT HEAT OR CO2. The corals died because the earth was bottoming out in an ice age. Use your brain.

after reading the rest, you clearly have no interest in coming to compromises,

I have no interest in accepting shit as shinola if that's what you mean.

in faithfully representing your opponents position.

I am afraid that dubious honor falls to you. In this discussion alone, you misrepresented two papers, claimed one published last year was "old", claimed that I referenced a climate hoax blog from a wacko, and made some reference to my faith as if you had any idea.

You possess the debilitating necessity to be right all the time and so debate with you is an exercise in futility.

Again, I am afraid that dubious honor also goes to you. You ignore, or mischaracterize everything that doesn't agree with you and believe whatever agrees with you as evidenced by your claim that it was CO2 that killed the corals during the Pliocene period, a period of bitter cold and falling CO2 levels. Had you put even the smallest bit of thought into the time you were talking about, you would see that the obvious, and most rational argument to be made regarding CO2 at that time period was that falling CO2 was responsible for killing the corals.

Maybe one day you will realize unwavering ideas tend to bring harm and are less important than life and people.

Indeed, the harm that has been brought about by the AGW hoax is becoming more visible all the time....adherence to a hypothesis when observation clearly says it is wrong. You are the rigid one, not me. I am swayed by actual science....you are not.

course you think you are a philosophic genius but I doubt you have an academic background and so your self-taught philosophy was to serve your needs of being right.

Project much? Look back over the language in these posts...it is you who is the pretender. I try to speak in plain language whenever possible. My education? More than sufficient to expose you as a poser.

 

[SSDD]

See the guy in red in the lower right corner? The one who actually rejects AGW?

Now THAT'S a trace gas.

See, all the green ones, except for the first one, the rest reject CAGW...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

See the guy in red in the lower right corner? The one who actually rejects AGW?

Now THAT'S a trace gas.

Why did they only ask 100 "climate experts"?

 

[skookerasbil]

See the guy in red in the lower right corner? The one who actually rejects AGW?

Now THAT'S a trace gas.

Why did they only ask 100 "climate experts"?

LMAO........Abe has epic amounts of dog doo on his face!!!


Again.

 

[skookerasbil]

Hey Todd......SSDD..........


44,000 viewson this thread.


I recently went and checked on BING and if you do a search for SKEPTICS and WINNING you come up with this thread ON PAGE 2!! I couldn't be laughing any harder.


Meanwhile, these bozo's post up their latest AGW bomb thrower thread, on light bulbs or drought and its gone in a week!!!


Epic is good!!!



Keep it going boys.......soon will be up on the first page of BING if one is searching for things related to SKEPTICS!!!!



WINNING.

 

[polarbear]

See the guy in red in the lower right corner? The one who actually rejects AGW?

Now THAT'S a trace gas.

Why did they only ask 100 "climate experts"?

The "they" is as usual "skepticalscience.com".
And you get the same consensus amongst people who publish papers about paranormal activity, "ancient aliens" and UFO encounters.
Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?

the scientist authors were emailed and rated over 2,000 of their own papers. Once again, over 97% of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming agreed that humans are causing it.

As if anyone who publishes papers that humans are causing global warming and nothing but would rate his own paper any different.

If you do a survey and include those who don`t just rate their own papers, then you get a better picture who the "deniers" are:

• Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [10]
• Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[11][12][13]

• Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).[14]
• Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow ANU[15]
• Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm. [16]
• Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[17]
• Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
• Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[20]
• Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[21][22]
• Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[23]
• Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[24]
• David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[25]
• Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[26]
• William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[27]
• William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University[28]
• Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo[29]
• Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[30]
• William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[31]
• David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[32]
• Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[33]
• Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[34][35]
• Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.[36]
• Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[37][38]
• Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo[39]
• Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[40][41][42]
• Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[43]
• Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[44]
• Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center[45]
• Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[46]
• Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.[47]
• Claude Allègre, politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).[48]
• Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University.[49]
• John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC.[50][51]
• Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.[52]
• David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.[53]
• Ivar Giaever, professor emeritus at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.[54]
• Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.[55]
• Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change [56]
• Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[57]
• Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Listing criteria: The notable scientists listed in this article have made statements since the publication of the Third Assessment Report which disagree with one or more of these 3 main conclusions. Each scientist included in this list has published at least one peer-reviewed article in the broad field of natural sciences, although not necessarily in a field relevant to climatology. To be included on this list it is not enough for a scientist to be merely included on a petition, survey, or list. Instead, the scientist must make their own statement.

Btw Roy Spencer is now on the list of scientists that argue global warming is primarily caused by natural processes.

 

[skookerasbil]

See the guy in red in the lower right corner? The one who actually rejects AGW?

Now THAT'S a trace gas.

Why did they only ask 100 "climate experts"?

The "they" is as usual "skepticalscience.com".
And you get the same consensus amongst people who publish papers about paranormal activity, "ancient aliens" and UFO encounters.
Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?

the scientist authors were emailed and rated over 2,000 of their own papers. Once again, over 97% of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming agreed that humans are causing it.

As if anyone who publishes papers that humans are causing global warming and nothing but would rate his own paper any different.

If you do a survey and include those who don`t just rate their own papers, then you get a better picture who the "deniers" are:

• Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [10]
• Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[11][12][13]

• Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).[14]
• Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow ANU[15]
• Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm. [16]
• Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[17]
• Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
• Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[20]
• Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[21][22]
• Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[23]
• Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[24]
• David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[25]
• Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[26]
• William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[27]
• William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University[28]
• Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo[29]
• Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[30]
• William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[31]
• David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[32]
• Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[33]
• Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[34][35]
• Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.[36]
• Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[37][38]
• Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo[39]
• Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[40][41][42]
• Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[43]
• Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[44]
• Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center[45]
• Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[46]
• Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.[47]
• Claude Allègre, politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).[48]
• Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University.[49]
• John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC.[50][51]
• Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.[52]
• David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.[53]
• Ivar Giaever, professor emeritus at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.[54]
• Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.[55]
• Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change [56]
• Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[57]
• Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Listing criteria: The notable scientists listed in this article have made statements since the publication of the Third Assessment Report which disagree with one or more of these 3 main conclusions. Each scientist included in this list has published at least one peer-reviewed article in the broad field of natural sciences, although not necessarily in a field relevant to climatology. To be included on this list it is not enough for a scientist to be merely included on a petition, survey, or list. Instead, the scientist must make their own statement.

Btw Roy Spencer is now on the list of scientists that argue global warming is primarily caused by natural processes.

Now Polar.......bringing it.


Give the k00ks credit.......they keep coming back in here even after getting flogged daily. I mean......this thread is a Jonestown for the AGW climate crusading mental cases but hey........they keep showin' up!!!

 

[Abraham3]

HOW many times does this have to be spelled out for you numbskulls?

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Y o u h a v e n o t g o t S H I T.

 

[gnarlylove]

This is the one time Wikipedia is wrong.

The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is extremely likely (at least 95% probability) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels...

This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.

NOT!

 

[Roguewave]

Wikipedia embargoes through ravenous editorial stranglehold any skeptical attempts to equalize information on AGW/environmental subjects. I cannot yet post URLs, but a cursory search on Wiki's history of controlling entries in this area will prove me out. The 97% "consensus study" has been thoroughly debunked.

 

[SSDD]

This is the one time Wikipedia is wrong.

The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is extremely likely (at least 95% probability) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels...

This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.

NOT!

One time they are wrong? You are kidding...right? Are you unaware of the number of entries warmist activists on wikipedia have altered or deleted in an effort to get their message across? Literally thousands. Wiki is not to be trusted if they say the moon is made of rock.

 

[Abraham3]

Have you been able to find us reputable, objective surveys that do NOT show these same findings? Do you actually think they could be lying about the positions of the world's national science academies without getting noticed? The various surveys mentioned and the folks who did them have been in the press over and over and over again.

Wikipedia's article on the scientific consensus is accurate and correct.

AGW THEORY is accepted science.

 

[Abraham3]

See the guy in red in the lower right corner? The one who actually rejects AGW?

Now THAT'S a trace gas.

Why did they only ask 100 "climate experts"?

The "they" is as usual "skepticalscience.com".

Not up to your usual standards dude. The "they" in THESE CASES[/u[ (and, please, for god's sake, will someone on the denier side note the FUCKING PLURAL?!?!?) performing the surveys mentioned would be:

Naomi Oreskes
Harris Interactive
Dennis Bray
Hans von Storch
Peter Doran
Maggie Kendall Zimmerman
William R L Anderegg
W. James W. Prall
Jacob Harold
Stephen H. Schneider
Cook, John
Dana Nuccitelli
S.A. Green
M. Richardson
B. Winkler
R. Painting
R. Way
P. Jacobs
A. Skuc

Cook, Nuccitelli et al published in Environmental Research Letters, a peer reviewed journal. You have NO valid grounds on which to criticize their results. Your remaining comments are complete horse shit. If you just want to start listing names on one side or the other, guess what you'll find? You'll find that one list is (97/3) times as long as the other.

 

[skookerasbil]

Have you been able to find us reputable, objective surveys that do NOT show these same findings? Do you actually think they could be lying about the positions of the world's national science academies without getting noticed? The various surveys mentioned and the folks who did them have been in the press over and over and over again.

Wikipedia's article on the scientific consensus is accurate and correct.

AGW THEORY is accepted science.

But how is it mattering? This is a thread about winning!!


Lets say for a moment that the science is accepted. In 2014, its nothing more than a billboard........an intanets hobby. So........what??!!!


Interested parties will take a look back through the pages of this thread and find that there are dozens of links proving that despite the "consensus" and the attendant bomb throwing, renewable energy continues to be a joke. A fringe sliver of the energy market.


Which means the science is having zero impact in the real world = all that is important to myself and the Domination Matrix.


We're just in here keeping it real.

 

[gnarlylove]

One time they are wrong? You are kidding...right? Are you unaware of the number of entries warmist activists on wikipedia have altered or deleted in an effort to get their message across? Literally thousands. Wiki is not to be trusted if they say the moon is made of rock.

I wonder why they do that. Maybe they are biased and bigoted or maybe they are just representing genuine consensus.

I already know your decision but if you ever decided to drop your bias and just do some genuine reading of the truly extensive literature you might change. I'm not saying you'll be an AGW cultist, but you will have learned, actually learned something that has meaning for the world including yourself.

 

[polarbear]

Why did they only ask 100 "climate experts"?

The "they" is as usual "skepticalscience.com".

Not up to your usual standards dude. The "they" in THESE CASES[/u[ (and, please, for god's sake, will someone on the denier side note the FUCKING PLURAL?!?!?) performing the surveys mentioned would be:

Naomi Oreskes
Harris Interactive
Dennis Bray
Hans von Storch
Peter Doran
Maggie Kendall Zimmerman
William R L Anderegg
W. James W. Prall
Jacob Harold
Stephen H. Schneider
Cook, John
Dana Nuccitelli
S.A. Green
M. Richardson
B. Winkler
R. Painting
R. Way
P. Jacobs
A. Skuc

Cook, Nuccitelli et al published in Environmental Research Letters, a peer reviewed journal. You have NO valid grounds on which to criticize their results. Your remaining comments are complete horse shit. If you just want to start listing names on one side or the other, guess what you'll find? You'll find that one list is (97/3) times as long as the other.

Of all the surveys, the one that you favor is the most ridiculous method a survey could be conducted.

The "plural" you want us to notice is a list of 19 names of a few zealots who also conducted such"surveys"

That`s not even half as many as the list of names who say that climate change is due to natural causes.

Actually your list is only 18 names, because Bray and Storch published the same b.s. jointly.

In 2003, Bray and von Storch conducted a survey of the perspectives of climate scientists on global climate change.[citation needed] The survey received 530 responses from 27 different countries. The 2003 survey has been strongly criticized on the grounds that it was performed on the web with no means to verify that the respondents were climate scientists or to prevent multiple submissions.

So they tried again 5 years later and all they got this time was just 373 responses

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 different countries.[11] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 373 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18.2%.

All they got was 373 positive responses from the 2050 climate scientists they surveyed.
...and inflated that to a 97% consensus.

That`s what all these "97% consensus" surveys have in common:

The methodology of the Anderegg et al. study was challenged in PNAS by Lawrence Bodenstein for "treat[ing] publication metrics as a surrogate for expertise". He would expect the much larger side of the climate change controversy to excel in certain publication metrics as they "continue to cite each other's work in an upward spiral of self-affirmation"

Bray and von Storch defended their results and accused climate change skeptics of interpreting the results with bias. Bray's submission to Science on December 22, 2004 was rejected.

And that bogus "skepticalscience" survey which you keep flaunting was conducted in a manner way below any scientific acceptable standard

Cook et al examined 11,944 abstracts from the peer-reviewed scientific literature from 1991–2011 that matched the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. They found that, while 66.4% of them expressed no position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW),

They also invited authors to rate their own papers and found that, while only 35.5% rated their paper as expressing no position on AGW

And this is how the "skepticalscience" charlatans got their 97% consensus:

In their discussion of the results, the authors said that the large proportion of abstracts that state no position on AGW is as expected in a consensus situation,

To fall for a scam like that you would have to be an idiot and not a day goes by when you and the other 2 idiots who show up here re-affirm that you are idiots.

The rest of us side with the scientists that concluded that climate change is a natural process

• Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [10]
• Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[11][12][13]

• Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).[14]
• Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow ANU[15]
• Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm. [16]
• Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[17]
• Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
• Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[20]
• Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[21][22]
• Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[23]
• Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[24]
• David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[25]
• Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[26]
• William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[27]
• William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University[28]
• Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo[29]
• Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[30]
• William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[31]
• David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[32]
• Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[33]
• Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[34][35]
• Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.[36]
• Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[37][38]
• Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo[39]
• Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[40][41][42]
• Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[43]
• Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[44]
• Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center[45]
• Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[46]
• Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.[47]
• Claude Allègre, politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).[48]
• Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University.[49]
• John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC.[50][51]
• Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.[52]
• David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.[53]
• Ivar Giaever, professor emeritus at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.[54]
• Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.[55]
• Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change [56]
• Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[57]
• Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia