[Travis McGee]

“If you don’t accept global warming, you are a flat-earth moron.”

[Kandy Atz]

It takes a whole lot more faith to believe in evolution and global warming than the alternatives.

[ClearCase_guy]

In other words, religious people knew the science; they just weren’t willing to say that they believed in it.

Evolution is a faith-based religion. Some folks believe, others do not.

The Believers are outraged that not everyone attends their church.

[ALPAPilot]

Let me get this straight. The NYC public school system cannot teach the majority of their children to be proficient in algebra, but they can teach them enough statistical physics and error analysis to set them straight on climate change? Maybe they could teach them enough about differential equations so they can teach them to calculate the half life of carbon-14 too.

[Hoodat]

The target audience of this news outlet operates purely on emotion. So any discussion of facts and beliefs have no bearing. They believe in evolution - not because of science - but because it makes them feel good to believe in evolution. It fills them with a feeling of intellectual superiority over those knuckle-dragging religious wacko conservative types.

[exDemMom]

In other words, religious people knew the science; they just weren’t willing to say that they believed in it.

There is no "belief" in science, given that science is a methodological way of gathering evidence about the physical world. To claim that one does not "believe" in observational data is like claiming that one does not " believe" that the sky often appears to be blue. No one can " believe" facts into or out of existence.

OTOH, anthropogenic global warming does not have solid evidence to support its major hypothesis. The issue has become co-opted by politicians, who are subverting what should be the impartial nature of science.

[Hostage]

It’s amazing to me how the scientific method has been reduced to a ‘consensus’ in public opinion polls of people that really don’t have a clue one way or the other.

I and others here on FR have over the years posted quite a bit about a fellow named Lysenko in the old Soviet Union. His brand of ‘science’ came to be known as Lysenkoism. Today’s anthropogenic global warming or climate change (AGW/ACC)proponents appear as a sort of replica of Lysenkoism brought into today’s setting.

With all that we know about history and its failures we really shouldn’t allow these people (AGW/ACC activists) to be funded to carry forward the false pseudo-science of yesteryear.

[chrisser]

Anthropogenic global warming is scientifically bogus on so many levels, that anyone who still believes in it is the true anti-science ignorant luddite.

The data, the methodology and modeling, and the conclusions are all complete and utter crap.

[Sivad]

BS on top of BS. The writer asserts that 97% of climate scientists
agree that human activity CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING. If you pinned
this doof down he would say that 97% of climate scientists agree
that human activities CONTRIBUTE to CLIMATE CHANGE which is
really ownly slightly less dubious in my book. However, there is a
real distinction.

If the scientists took a vote in 1490 then Columbus would never have
bothered to set sail.

[TigersEye]

No smoking hot spot

1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.

Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.

If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.

[ThomasThomas]

Let see 97% of those study to become climate scientists believe there study isn’t junk science.
Ok. Must people do believe their chosen field of study.

Or

97% of climate scientist whose income depends on human activities being the causing global warming.
When your income depends on giving the results the people who pay you want, this could cause some to question it’s accuracy.

Or

97% of climate scientist whose degree would worthless as an degree in the study transgender circus elephants believe that human activities being the causing global warming.

I hope this comment that is meant to be totally ridicules doesn’t start a new field of study a some major university.

[Brad from Tennessee]

If proponents of man-made climate change could prove their theories there would be no need for the Times to trash a skeptical U.S. public.

[aquila48]

Do moronic reporters from the Slime understand that consensus (if it were to actually exist) carries no weight in science?

[reefdiver]

I guess the global warming scheme isn’t going so well and they are out once more trying to sell it

[DeaconRed]

I believe ALGORE invented global warming to get rich.
He got rich.
He had to change it to Climate Control as it got colder than ever.
THERE IS NO MAN MADE GLOBAL WORMING- - - - - - - - - - NONE, NADA.

[Gaffer]

TRANSLATION: “We still have not brainwashed them enough yet.”

[blueunicorn6]

Writers at the New York Times know everything.

[Big Giant Head]

That’s the impulse behind efforts like the campaign to publicize the fact that 97 percent of climate scientists believe human activities are causing global warming.

Hmmm. They have to start a campaign to prove a belief? Sounds sort of Crusade-ish. Seriously, would they have done this before discovering the world wasn't really flat?

[Fledermaus]

There is no such thing as “consensus” in science.