You continue to state this though it is clearly erroneous, and then you get agitated when you are ignored because you have no credibility. . I posted, quite a long time ago now, the study from the main meteorological bulletin that reported the results of a recent, rigorous survey of opinions of meteorologists, atmospheric physicists, etc. regarding the impact of anthropomorphic CO2 on climate. Your statement that "there is not a single climatologist that denies man made global warming" is incorrect! And even if your often repeated statement were actually true, it would not affect the science one iota.. We could, all of us, say the moon was made of blue cheese. But saying it would not make it true. Scientific questions are never answered by opinion polls. (Because it is more up to date, 2014, the study I refer to is missing from the References in the NASA article you linked too. It shows that opinions among climate scientists, and especially among atmospheric physicists, is quite divided.)
And none of them are publishing climatologists and if they are they have never expressly said that AGW is false. Never. But to be accurate, there is one Russian that under penalty of banishment to Siberia has said that Russian oil burning does not lead to global warming. So yeah I was wrong to say that NO publishing climatologists expressly deny AGW. I still await a simple quote from one respected publishing CLIMATOLOGIST (you know, the folks who the are experts in the relevant question) denying AGW. Other than the Russian oil guy. BTW. Those guys you cite above? You and I both know that they are deluded, probably religious (so they are used to intentionally ignoring science), Fox News watching, WSJ reading, card carrying, ignorant, right wingers. IOW Republicans. So basically their opinion on this is worth doo doo.
Although I am making a mistake to respond, I should inform you that in the study I refer to, those publishing in the field were separated from those not publishing in the field. You had access to the study I refer to because I posted the summary statistics table from the article here in these forums, and I gave a link to the complete article, which was available to you completely free of charge. The realty, that you simply ignored the results of this very carefully done study when it was spoon fed to you speaks volumes regarding your commitment to truth.
Time for us to set our hair on fire and run in circles screaming "OMG everybody wake up and pee! The world is on fire! "
Yes, I'm sure it was carefully done. Of that I'm certain. The denial propaganda machine is pretty clever. No publishing climatologist - other than the Russian threatened with Siberia - denies man made global warming. If they did it should be an easy matter to just quote them. Why they would be famous. The Koch Bros would be on them like flies on turds.
Not surprising at all. Among the sciences, "environmental science" is known to have the least intelligent students (for example, look at their GRE scores). And it gets worse because they get into the field due to politics and emotions which are the enemy of science. Suffice it to say that you went to school for 4 years and didn't learn how to debate. Suppose we admit your (convenient and totally self-serving) claim, even though it's based on a single publication (LOL). The simple fact is that you're claiming evidence that, as of 2014, climate science was wrong. That's even worse than "not yet settled". The natural conclusion is that climate science cannot be trusted as a guide to policy. You're basically destroying your science's credibility in order to try and save your political position. I mean really. You want to claim that the temperature records from 2000 to 2014 were ridden with uncorrected error but at the same time you want us to believe that the temperature records from 5000BC to 2000AD are perfect? Now do you see why you are losing?
Climate scientists criticize government paper that erases pause in warming http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015...overnment-paper-that-erases-pause-in-warming/
And the inevitable ad hom attack. The last resort for someone losing a debate. Next you will mention Al Gore. Look, it's simple. You are trying to say that if the climate models don't predict every small deviation around the trend line that they cannot be trusted. This shows an ignorance both about climate models and trends and is simply wrong. They are not expected to have that level of resolution. They predict trends. And while we may not want to set our hair on fire this chart should at least get our attention. Do you trade? Do you expect a long term trending stock price to stay exactly on the trend line? If so you are even more naive than I thought. I suppose you sell it if it does not go up one day. As far as temp records from 5000BC , they are irrelevant and certainly not very dependable. The most accurate temp records are within the last thousand years which is also the time period we are most interested in. The relationship between CO2 levels in the atmosphere and solar forcing is robust and proven by empirical observation. It is bedrock climate science that has stood the test of time since it was first described in the mid 1800's. We can see this effect on the above chart and the models have done a good job of predicting it and in no way can be considered invalid.