Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory

http://www.dailytech.com/Survey+Less+Than+Half+of+all+Published+Scientists+Endorse+Global+Warming+Theory/article8641.htm ^

[chessplayer]

Comprehensive survey of published climate research reveals changing viewpoints

[Dilbert San Diego]

Well, well, well............

Al Gore and others have said there is an overwhelming consensus in the scientific community about global warming being man-made.

Al Gore has even said sometimes that the debate is over, that due to the overwhelming consensus, and the overwhelming evidence of melting glaciers and such, that there is no doubt about this.

Has Al Gore ever been wrong about anything?

[SolidWood]

The Gorebal Alperium is crumbling.

[JennysCool]

James Hansen of NASA is deeply saddened. My guess is he wanted a cushy retirement on the board of directors of Al Gore’s “Carbon Credits” company, or at least that’s what his transformation from scientist to “global warming” groupie would seem to indicate.

[ClaireSolt]

Glad to see the science community didn’t all drink the Kool Aid.

[Kevmo]

Bump. I guess it takes a lot less for a consensus these days.

[Paladin2]

Check out the latest results of AGW on www.climateaudit.org

[chessplayer]

Now AGW`ers will raise the bar and claim a consensus of climatologists believe GW is caused by humans.

[chessplayer]

Very interesting. Thanks!

[rockinqsranch]

Unfortunately Liberals are practitioners of mental excercises in creative dissent. They can apply the talents gained to most anything. Liberals can literally make mountains out of Mole hills.

This topic is far from finished. The Libs will find a new and very creative approach to achieving their goal. The goal that “Global Warming” was to have achieved, or they might create a new reworked “Global Warming”, I don’t know, but they will come up with something rest assured.

They are adamant and intent upon their P.A.T.B. goal of World domination under Elitist Socialist Governance.

---

(P.A.T.B. = Pinky and The Brain)
This round ALGore = Pinky.

[rfp1234]

I demand a RECOUNT!!!

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Fred Singer, professor emeritus of Env. Sciences, U of Virginia, has had a closer look at the so called "consensus" and didn't find any.
In his "Unstoppable Global Warming, every 1500 years," he writes; "the widely touted consensus of 2,500 scientists on the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is an illusion. Most of the panelist HAVE NO SCIENTIFIC QUALIFICATIONS."
He also says, "It is worth noting that tens of thousands of interested persons benefit directly from the global warming scare." "Environmental organizations such as Greenpeace, the Sierra Club and the Environmental Defense Fund have raked in billions of dollars" (from government.) "Emission trading programs will soon reach $100 billion a year, with large fees paid to brokers and those who operate the scams."

[aruanan]

Comprehensive survey of published climate research reveals changing viewpoints

And I bet the change is along these lines: most of them didn't have much of an opinion, choosing to cede to those few who claimed specific knowledge. Over the last few years, though, the controversy has resulted in an increasing number of that majority starting to look on the actual data rather than the gingerbread house constructed with it. The examination has resulted in the gradual deconstruction of the fairy tale.

[Maceman]

I guess this will give the global warming debate deniers something to chew on.

[syriacus]

Refreshing news!!

[delphifalcon]

Real scientists invite peer review and public scrutiny.

[lilylangtree]

But everybody that stands to gain is jumping on the bandwagon to fix something that the mere term “global warming” encompasses everything but says nothing. These same self-styled people are willing to allocate billions in taxpayer funds to try to fix a problem that no one knows anything about. Amazing!

[M203M4]

Scientific consensus, one way or another, means little. The consensus could be 10000000-1, but nothing additional is added to the scientific veracity of either claim. Thankfully, science is not democratic.

An honest scientist would give the only honest answer available at this point - WE DO NOT KNOW. There are no error bars to discuss, no probabilities to argue about, nor ranges of human-induced temperature/sea level/summer ice extent/etc changes to shape policy around. That isn’t sexy, doesn’t make for loud newspaper headlines, doesn’t help usher in new government programs and taxes, doesn’t make us feel guilty for enjoying abundance, and will not rouse people to action. As mentioned in an article posted earlier on FR, it doesn’t fill the teleological breech left void by the embrace of secular leftism - the human mind craves the concept of cosmic justice. In short, compared to the alternatives, the truth doesn’t sell.

[mmanager]

Ping!

[xcamel]

thanks!