If anyone is interested in facts, you know, those oddball things out there, the Royal Society of the United Kingdom and the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S. have made available a free on line pamphlet (you don't even have to register, you can download as guest) summarizing the current scientific knowledge of global warming. The pamphlet is in a very readable Q and A format; after each question, a short answer followed by a more in depth treatment of the question. It covers a lot of the stuff asked here. Of course, if you are absolutely convinced that 97% of the world's climate scientists are engaged in a massive hoax to make everyone believe nonexistent global warming is real in order to legalize gay marriage (and yes, Shooter did say that once), you probably will skip this pamphlet. Which is a shame because it is very informative. And facts, you know.
I don't know about the 97% . . . I would hope $560 million of oil money buys you more than 3% or the scientists out there.
Not sure what Wookie is laughing about, but it's easier to type LOL than to spend 15 minutes on facts. You know, like http://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html a peer reviewed study found that of 13,950 peer reviewed cilmate articles in the last decade, all but 24 accept global warming. 24/13950 gives you even less than that 3% (about 1.7% to be exact). LOL indeed.
If you are distrusting of the gov't . . . I can see that thought process. (And think our gov't can influence global scientists)
Lol indeed. Your link cites this survey: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. 32.6% is a consensus. But only if you use the trick to hide the decline, or otherwise manipulate the data to suit your agenda. Lol indeed.
I disagree . . . but you have never really liked gov't involvement in anything so not surprised you take a skeptical look at grant money.
Big money, you mean. http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/alaska-polar-bear-researcher-reprimanded-allowed-return-work A government scientist who drew international attention after publishing a report about drowning polar bears in Alaska's Arctic didn't always do everything by the book, according to the results of a federal investigative report released Friday. And yet on the very day the report was made public, wildlife biologist Dr. Charles Monnett was given the all-clear to return to his job at the Bureau of Ocean and Energy Management. ... The results of the IG's investigation, published Friday, suggest that Monnett and Gleason were sloppy with their polar bear data and that Monnett was secretly padding the war chest of anti-oil activists with confidential internal government emails pertaining to drilling in the Arctic by Royal Dutch Shell, an oil giant that, after years of delays, now has a ship hovering over a site in the Beaufort, poised to sink its drill. ... What is known is that Monnett has survived the inquest with the administrative equivalent of a slap on the hand, and although the IG submitted evidence to prosecutors about what it suspected might be federal crimes, the Alaska U.S. Attorneys Office declined to pursue charges against either man. ... During the investigation, federal agents also found that Monnett, who once oversaw a budget of more than $50 million, mishandled a sole-source contract and did not manage it in a way that complied with federal procurement policy. ... 50 million reasons, barfo. How does this guy deserve to have his job?
Because he manipulated data to stay on the "97%" side. Which is really ~34%, but that doesn't seem to matter. Again, 97% of scientists who agree with AGW are believers in AGW. I wonder why the number isn't 100%. It's like saying that 97% all NBA fans are fans of the Blazers, but you disregard the results of anyone who isn't a fan of the Blazers.
Time to bump this awesome thread. http://www.wkrg.com/story/26042860/cold-temps-break-128-year-record-in-mobile http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/midwest-to-feel-septemberlike/30357926 http://thesiweather.com/2014/07/16/...ne-of-the-weakest-cycles-more-than-a-century/
