progressiveslol wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 5:36pm:



Yes.

"I wonder just how many politicians, environmentalists or scientists who use the phrase ’97% of scientists’ (or those who more carefully use ‘active climate scientists’) to give weight to their arguments regarding climate change to the public, have any idea of the actual source of this soundbite. 

"Perhaps a few may say the ’Doran Survey’, which is the one of the most common references for this ’97% of active climate scientists’ phrase. In fact, the Doran EoS paper merely cites a MSc thesis for the actual source of this 97% figure and the actual survey."

“This was a very simplistic and biased questionnaire.”

"Here are but just a few of many responses from scientists that actually took part in the survey, taken from the appendi of the MSc thesis:

“..scientific issues cannot be decided by a vote of scientists. A consensus is not, at any given time, a good predictor of where the truth actually resides..”

“..The “hockey stick” graph that the IPCC so touted has, it is my understanding, been debunked as junk science..”

“..I’m not sure what you are trying to prove, but you will undoubtably be able to prove your pre-existing opinion with this survey! I’m sorry I even started it!..”

"One fact that is not obvious (ie missing) from the Doran EoS paper and that surprised me, is that over 96% of the scientists that responded were from North America (90% USA, 6.2% Canada), with 9% from California alone."

"Are the public aware when they are lectured that ’97% of scientists’ agree based on the Doran paper, by their media, lobbyists, activist scientists and their politicians justifying climate action, that the UK, Germany, Spain, France, Australia, New Zealand respondents made up less than 3% of the survey in total. China had 3 scientists respond (three not 3%), Russian and India zero."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/

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 (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 11:39pm:


I do mind changing my lightbulbs. I can no longer see in most rooms because of those stupid dull new lightbulbs. If they actually made them bright it would be a different matter.

Not only that but these new lightbulbs are more dangerous than the old ones and harder to get rid of. They certainly arent "Green".

SOB

Which is certainly why the following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities":

greg pec jacking it to his copy of HUMAN ACTION by ludwig von mises

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 17^th, 2012 at 3:48pm:



It doesn't irk me that you in particular don't subscribe to the AGW hypothesis, it annoys me when you spread propaganda that intends to limit our response to AGW.