You've copied and pasted this rubbish from Watts once before. I'm pretty sure I supplied a couple of other studies that support the 97%. I guess you weren't listening.

The 97% is utter BS

warming is inevitable.
the yanks and the chinese and the indians are only interested in their economies.
they will not even consider doing anything to reduce carbon emissions or push up the price of energy.

only wankers like rudd and the greens cant see this.

it doesnt matter if the greens are right or not, this is not the point.

humans are selfish and they will never turn off their air conditioners in australia to help prevent flooding in bangladesh.
NEVER
forget it, it aint gunna happen

MOTR wrote on Nov 20^th, 2012 at 3:13am:


There is an alternative.

I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee or a ragout.

I do therefore humbly offer it to public consideration that of the hundred and twenty thousand children already computed, twenty thousand may be reserved for breed, whereof only one-fourth part to be males; which is more than we allow to sheep, black cattle or swine; and my reason is, that these children are seldom the fruits of marriage, a circumstance not much regarded by our savages, therefore one male will be sufficient to serve four females. That the remaining hundred thousand may, at a year old, be offered in the sale to the persons of quality and fortune through the kingdom; always advising the mother to let them suck plentifully in the last month, so as to render them plump and fat for a good table. A child will make two dishes at an entertainment for friends; and when the family dines alone, the fore or hind quarter will make a reasonable dish, and seasoned with a little pepper or salt will be very good boiled on the fourth day, especially in winter.

MOTR wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2012 at 4:28am:



Which part is "rubbish" exactly?

Are you saying this is all a lie:

"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!..” (Doran/Zimmerman feedback)

"I wonder just how many politicians or environmentalists (or scientists) that have used the phrase ’97% of climate scientists, have actually read the original source of the cited survey.

“Climate is a very complex system with many variables including sun radiation cycles, ocean temperature, and possibly other factors that we are not even aware of.

"There are studies and data out there that are being overlooked by the IPCC. Ultimately, maybe we are the biggest cause or maybe we are not, but the current push of saying that human activity is the cause is interfering with an unbiased and scientific evaluation.”

Are you now ignoring what these scientists say?

Why is that?

You love to quote the 97% figure, yet you totally ignore what the scientists involved in the survey actually say?  Why is it all of a sudden "rubbish"?

Soren wrote on Nov 27^th, 2012 at 9:29am:


wtf??