On an international level it's more like 95 vs 5 percent. Asking scientists in the US, the second largest environmental polluter worldwide, seems to be fitting the curve, if I followed your argument re scientific integrity for a moment.
But but but government funded scientists couldn't possibly have a bias!!!!!! Anytime a Libtard pant pisser like Futurecunt tells you that fossil fuels fund someone's research just remind him that government and environmental agencies fund his side and they are no better.
bring up the studies zzzz. show us the studies in which scientists state man made co2 is causing warming. not fake surveys saying man is causing warming. but lists of scientists stating man made co2 is causing warming. there are 30,000 scientists who are skeptical. you are not going to find anything close to 95 to 5 percent ratio. you are another misinformed lefty filled with fake news. then take it to the next step. find us peer reviewed science showing man made co2 causes warming. hint... there isn't any peer reviewed science showing man made co2 causes warming... besides a few old studies based on failed models. zero zip... no science.
Not a single publishing climate scientist denies man made global warming. The consensus is essentially 100%.
another joke from the greenhouse gas salesman. thousands of scientists are skeptical. 1350 plus peer reviewed papers are skeptical. We have presented dozens of articles showing that the sun and the tides cause some or all of the warming. The issue is that there is no peer reviewed science saying man made co2 causes warming.
The New York Times and the Boston Globe in allying themselves closely with activist groups with which they share ideological goals, reporters have fundamentally misled readers on the facts of global-warming funding. In truth, the overwhelming majority of climate-research funding comes from the federal government and left-wing foundations. And while the energy industry funds both sides of the climate debate, the government/foundation monies go only toward research that advances the warming regulatory agenda. With a clear public-policy outcome in mind, the government/foundation gravy train is a much greater threat to scientific integrity. Experts in the research community say that it is much more difficult for some of the top climate scientists to get funding for their work because they do not embrace the global-warming fearmongering favored by the government-funded climate establishment. If many had only mouthed establishment platitudes, they could’ve been named to head a big university [research center] like Michael Mann.” Mann is the controversial director of Pennsylvania State’s Earth System Science Center. He was at the center of the 2009 Climategate scandal, in which e-mails were uncovered from climatologists discussing how to skew scientific evidence and blackball experts who don’t agree with them. Mann is typical of pro-warming scientists who have taken millions from government agencies. The federal government — which will gain unprecedented regulatory power if climate legislation is passed — has funded scientific research to the tune of $32.5 billion since 1989, (as of Feb. 2015) according the Science and Public Policy Institute. That is an amount that dwarfs research contributions from oil companies and utilities, which have historically funded both sides of the debate. Mann, for example, has received some $6 million, mostly in government grants — according to a study by The American Spectator — including $500,000 in federal stimulus money while he was under investigation for his Climategate e-mails. Despite claims that they are watchdogs, media outlets such as the Times have ignored the government’s oversized role in directing research. And they have ignored millions in contributions from left-wing foundations, like government grants, that seek to tip the scales to one side of the debate. Last summer, a staff report from the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works gave details on a shadowy network of charitable foundations that distribute billions to advance climate alarmism. Shadowy nonprofits such as the Energy Foundation and Tides Foundation distributed billions to far-left green groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, which in turn send staff to the EPA who then direct federal grants back to the same green groups. Media outlets have also discriminated in their reporting on Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. The Times trumpeted Greenpeace FOIA requests, yet it has ignored the government’s refusal of FOIA filings requesting transparency in pro-warming scientists’ funding. The Competitive Enterprise Institute, for example, has submitted FOIA requests asking for the sources of outside income of NASA scientist James Hansen (a key ally of Al Gore). Media reporting further misleads readers in suggesting that “fossil fuel” utilities seek only to undermine climate science. In truth, energy companies today invest in solar, biomass, and landfill facilities in addition to carbon fuels. This alliance worries a scientific community that is hardly unanimous that warming is a threat. Continued funding of contrarians is essential to getting the best scientific research. The lack of warming for over a decade and Climategate are proof that the establishment has oversold a warming crisis. Attempts by the media to shut up their critics ignore the real threat to science.
So many wrong things in that joke of piece. Complete and total crap. You must be an idiot to accept that BS. And yet not one peer reviewed climate scientist, anywhere in the world, denies the fact of man made global warming. How does that make you feel? Stupid? Like a dumb ass Trumper?