A consensus of what? The survey question is too broad to be able to say what the consensus target is, even among the "published climatologists" (ie, those most intensely invested with the continuing support of the AGW theory - if AGW is even partially discredited, their career is OVER, well, those who have supported AGW in the past, which is pretty much all "published", as you can't get "published" unless you support AGW. Notice the circle here?). Are the climatologists saying that humans are primarily responsible or a contributor, and if a contributor how significant? The correct answer to that question is far from being trivial. In fact, in terms of policy and politics, it is pretty much everything.
Of the 77 publishing climatologists who responded to that question (and, actually, of all the respondents to that question). Ever heard of tenure? I agree with you on that. That survey is not something one would want to base policy decisions upon. barfo
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013...-warming-row-retires-as-part-settlement-with/ The lie about polar bears exposed. http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011...her-under-investigation-for-integrity-issues/ Charles Monnett -- who manages as much as $50 million worth of climate research on Arctic wildlife and ecology -- was told on July 18 that he was being put on leave pending an investigation into "integrity issues," according to a letter posted online by the advocacy group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), which is questioning Monnett's suspension. The complaints against the Anchorage-based scientist with the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) remain unclear, and the connection to his seven-page 2006 peer-reviewed paper on the drownings are unknown, despite a months-long or longer investigation. ($50M. That's incentive to lie.)
And yet, it has been used to drive policy. Repeatedly and with great effect by politicians beating this survey over the heads of those who oppose policies claimed to be done in the name of saving the planet from AGW.
On both sides of this issue, people with agendas stretch, and often break, the truth. The misinformed repeat the misinformation with the absolute certainty and zeal of the converted. It isn't hard, or even all that interesting, to find things said that aren't true. barfo
The trouble with the position of the global warming deniers is that some things actually are true. If everything was a lie, then deniers would be in a great position, because certainly their lies are just as good as anyone else's lies, and are often delivered with even more religious fervor. barfo
Ah, falling into the "both sides do it equally, so it basically cancels out" lie. It is almost exclusively the supporters of AGW (and conveniently supporters of massive increases in government taxation, regulation and power) who piously and contemptuously fling in the face of skeptics (and yes, full on deniers) their claim that the science is "settled" and that "all scientists agree" and those who deny this are ignorant, greedy tools, or worse. And this goes well beyond name calling. Find a prominent AGW supporter who has been attacked, ostracized, ignored, and marginalized by the climate science community. Oh, that's right. Hasn't happened. Instead it has happened to skeptics. Those same skeptics who are looking smarter and smarter every year as their long standing critiques of the AGW Science Mafia have been looking closer to the "truth" than the failed predictions of the anointed climate "scientists".
No, that wasn't what I was saying. Both sides don't do it equally. Well, why would the skeptics piously and contemptuously fling that in their own faces? Find a prominent climate change denier who has been attacked, ostracized, ignored, and marginalized by the denier community... I think the skeptics are actually useful - but that doesn't make them right (or wrong). In the long run, the truth will win out. I'm betting on the scientists rather than the crackpots, but who knows. barfo
You also seem to deny the fact that there are many scientists in the fields directly related to climate research who think AGW is a scam. So it really matters which scientists win, eh? I think the one who have the upper hand are the ones with $50M in grants and don't get caught lying.
Too bad you had to include that bolded part, isn't it? Would be so much more convincing if it wasn't there. It seems logical to me that the scientists who are actually studying the issue are probably the ones who will win. Retired dudes who once upon a time were geologists or something probably won't win. barfo
Or if he can base this thread on one study that has defects, he wants us to believe that every study is defective.
The University of Huntsville, Alabama collects and maintains one of the most referenced and used satellite temperature datasets used in the study of the planet's "temperature" (whatever that really means). Dr. Roy Spencer published and maintained that dataset along with John Christy. Christy is an atmospheric scientist, with impeachable credentials as well. The two of them are both skeptical of Al Gore's climate claims (as well as the scientists who profit from the scam). Now there's "two dudes" who are real scientists. Maybe the scientists should win, and the politicians and their sycophants should lose.
