Posted on 07/30/2015 5:49:58 AM PDT by Bulwinkle
I used to think there was a consensus among government-funded certified climate scientists, but a better study by Verheggen et al shows even that is not true. The 97% consensus is now 43%.
Finally there is a decent survey on the topic, and it shows that less than half of what we would call climate scientists who research the topic and for the most part, publish in the peer reviewed literature, would agree with the IPCCs main conclusions. Only 43% of climate scientists agree with the IPCC 95% certainty..
(Excerpt) Read more at joannenova.com.au ...
But, but, I just read where a retired BG, Marine no less, who declared that many of our military bases would be underwater soon, if the EPA rules were not carried out....am I confused?
To a liberal the word consensus means “everyone who agrees with me.” The words extremist means “everyone who doesn’t agree with me.”
Shows there still is some integrity among scientists despite extensive government subversion
“But, but, I just read where a retired BG, Marine no less, who declared that many of our military bases would be underwater soon, if the EPA rules were not carried out....am I confused?”
No, you now know why he made general officer in the politicized military of today.
That retired Marine was just regurgitating probable command and staff training material produced by Barry’s regime
I am 100% certain that AGW is Socialist BS.
...and the 43% “consensus” are still receiving taxpayer grants.
BINGO!
That’s what it is.
Grammar police: FEWER than half is correct.
1) CO2 increases from burning fossil fuels will warm global temperatures, somewhat. This warming will be mostly beneficial, and have little negative effect on humans. Most of the warming effects will be positive.
2) The increased CO2 will dramatically increase food production from agriculture. The moderate warming will dramatically increase arable acreage in cold climates, and the "fertilizer effect" of CO2 will cause even more pronounced increases.
3) Some time in the future, we will "run out" of fossil fuels, but by then, mankind will have produced inexpensive energy from other sources.
You're treading on thin ice. 'Fewer' generally refers to a value that can be counted. "Half" can't be counted. "Fewer scientists" CAN be counted. You didn't even include "scientists" in your quote. I think you're dealing with a technicality that most followers of Her "Queen's English" would ignore. I'm not sure you're even correct, and to me, it's not even worth looking up.
I was taught that it was a number vs. a quantity. Fewer for a number, less for a quantity. Oh, well, to-MAY-to, to-MAH-to!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.