Breaking: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory

US Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works ^ | August 29, 2007 | Matthew Dempsey

[VOA]

bump

[Tamar1973]

Appears Savage has been vindicated. Remember about 3 months ago or so he wanted to organise an forum of scientists to debunk global warming? Well, I think he might have a longer list of experts to chose from than he thought!

Could this end up a topic of discussion tomorrow on TSN?!

[sageb1]

Anyone brave enough to post this over here? ;)

[DoughtyOne]

Well Al, what are you going to demagogue now?

[Rudder]

Back to selling snake oil to Monks.

[DoughtyOne]

Yep. You know, that movie of his is going to make some great fodder for comedy skits in the near future. What a clown...

[skeptoid]

Are you tryin' to convince me that less than half of them are PAYCHECK WHORES ??!??!??!!!

[beaversmom]

Ha, ha—the Al Gore Support Center. He needs some support and probably an intervention.

[JennysCool]

Y’know what? I really do think there are those on the Left who care nothing about “Global Warming” but get behind it because they have been feeling sorry for Al Gore for six years and just want to humor him and make him “feel better.”

Oy.

[Tom_Busch]

CONSENSUS

[bluefish]

I believe that most who adhere to global warming are merely substituting it for God. It is a religion, because humans have a need for something transcends their own existence.

Christians would view it as worshipping false Gods. Atheists may view it as the "God part of the brain" manifesting itself.

Interestingly, the majority who "believe" don't "practice." This is why we see the hypocrisy in global warming nutcases. They fly around in private jets, then preach or make movies for their atonement.

It is the same thing as drinking and carousing on Saturday night, then going off to Church to be forgiven on Sunday morning.

Some global warming nuts only attend "church" on holidays (free concert), others weekly (Prius drivers) and still others approach Taliban levels of "devotion" (politicians outlawing conventional light bulbs). Most all of them rely on faith, while there are some who will invent bad science to justify their religion.

[alloysteel]

With the earnest, studious demeanor of the film's presentation, it will become a cult favorite, like the anti-marijuana propaganda piece, Reefer Madness.

And you saw how effective THAT was in deterring kids from smoking rope.

[DoughtyOne]

Yep, I agree.

[TigersEye]

No bears were drowned making this thread.

[SWEETSUNNYSOUTH]

I don’t think anyone really knows if “Man made” global warming is true or not. There seems to be credible evidence on both views. I do resent anyone who expects me to just take their word for it and feel guilty for driving a big vehicle. Al Gore is a bag of wind.

[EGPWS]

I believe that most who adhere to global warming are merely substituting it for God.

Ah, finally it's starting to become clear to the keenly open minded thinkers! : )

[JoeGar]

The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" -- the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.

Fascinating revelation.

[EGPWS]

Well Al, what are you going to demagogue now?

There is only a finite number of rabbit's that can fit in a hat.

[olezip]

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

I just wonder how many of the scientists are funded by human caused global warming proponents, and for how many years they have been funded with, perhaps a vested interest in human causes of global warming? Could there be a conflict of interest for some of these scientists?