So, you are like most of the deniers. Determining the validity of the science according political ideology. It doesn't work that way. The 98% of the WORLD'S climatologists have not reached their consensus because they are all democrats or liberals or want to control your life. Really.
And if the earth can outgas greenhouse gases... and with historical records showing temperature leads CO2 accumulation and dissipation where is your proof? all you have is speculation. that is why freeman dyson and those other top scientists are telling you the modeling is lacking. You have sun, you have el nino, la nino cycles, milankovitch cycles solar cycles, you have outgassing, you have billions more humans, you have so many factors which could be causing warming. you have no proof. the models are weak. we have not warmed in the last 14 years which pretty much invalidates the models. and you a living in the past with that 98 percent figure. There are hundreds and hundreds of top scientists who question whether there is any proof that man has created has contributed to warming in an significant amount.
here is how your bullshit number was derived. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_science_opinion2.png The Anderegg et al 2010 source defined a scientist's expertise as determined by his or her number of climate publications. The top 50 scientists considered CE ("convinced by the evidence" in the terminology of the authors) wrote an average of 408 articles each which were submitted to and successfully published by climate journals. Scientists were counted as UE ("unconvinced by the evidence") if having signed a public "statement strongly dissenting from the views of the IPCC." That resulted in a list of 472 UE scientists, of whom 5 were among the 200 most-published scientists in the study's sample, amounting to 2.5% when the other 195 (97.5%) were counted as CE. see that last sentence... So you had 472... scientist UE... but they only gave them a 2.5% weighting while they gave the other 195... a 97.5 percent weighting. Reality... you have no idea how many qualified Climate scientists think man made CO2 is causing warming to a significant degree. ----- 10257 surveys were sent out. 3146 returned. 82 percent answered yes to the question I would have answered yes to as well. the question was not about CO2. you are completely full of shit fc. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/about-that-overwhelming-98-number-of-scientists-consensus/
You can't answer a simple question can you? Is CO2 a greenhouse gas or not. Simple question. Yes or no.
Reminder....Watts is a paid denier hack joke meteorologist. So of course he's a favorite of the ignorant denier crowd. Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[103] no scientific body of national or international standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.[10][11] The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change There is an overwhelming level of scientific consensus on human-caused climate change. Over 95% of actively publishing climate scientists agree that the earth is warming and that human activity is the cause. In spite of this agreement, only about 50% the general public think that scientists have reached a consensus on human-caused climate change. Two sources of the discrepancy are the unbalanced portrayal of the situation in the media, and the Manufactured Doubt Industry. The Science When "scientific consensus" is referred to in relation to climate change, it's referring to the following points: The earth is getting warmer The warming is mostly due to human activity If greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions continue, the warming will accelerate The Consensus Numerous survey studies have been done, and the results are overwhelmingly in favor of scientific consensus that the earth is warming and human activity is the cause. Surveys done by reputable organizations find that around 97% of climate scientists agree with the statements above. The following are results from a few of these surveys, plus a resolution from a very distinguished group of scientists. Expert Credibility in Climate Change (NAS) This study compiled a list of 1,372 climate scientists, and then looked at those who are "actively publishing" in the science of climate. They categorized the scientists as either "convinced" or "unconvinced" by the evidence. The results were that 97% of actively publishing climate scientists are convinced by the evidence of anthropogenic climate change. They also found that those scientists that were unconvinced had significantly fewer publications (in any science) than those that were convinced. This suggests that the (vocal) "unconvinced" group actually has done a lot less research. (Read this study in full.) Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change (AGU) This study was done in order to address the broader question of public opinion versus scientific opinion. It asked two questions, one about whether temperature is increasing, and one about whether or not human activity is contributing to any change. Here are the results: Question #1: When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant? About 90% of all the scientists and 97% of the climate scientists said temperatures had risen. Question #2: Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures? About 82% of all the scientists and 97% climate scientists agreed that human activity is a significant contributing factor. The anonymous poll sought the opinion of the most complete list of earth scientists they could find, contacting more than 10,200 experts at universities and government labs around the world listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments. The 2-minute, two-question poll had 3146 responses (30.7% of those polled). Approximately 90% of the scientists who responded were from the U.S., and about 90% held a Ph.D. degree. Of these scientists, 5% were climate scientists who published more than 50% of all their peer-reviewed publications in the past five years on the subject of climate change. The authors noted that the survey included participants with well-documented dissenting opinions on global warming theory. More results from this study, including responses from the general public, are shown below in Figure 1. (Read this study in full.) Response distribution to the question, "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"
And you are a complete and total idiot to repeat this AGAIN. That even having been shown multiple times the deceptiveness of this statement, you still can't tell the difference between two cherry picked points and a trend is ludicrous. To call you an idiot is an insult to idiots everywhere. It's really getting ridiculous now. Why don't you just do a self-lobotomy. You'd be better off.
Jem is an attorney and his posts give an impression of a man far more intelligent than you. Really, you seem like a petulant child by comparison. His argument holds up under logical and empirical scrutiny. Your argument seems to be rote repetition of material that has not been completely comprehended to begin with. He exhibits patience and delivers thoughtful retorts where you invariably resort to infantile ad hominem responses that are incorrect and irrelevant to the topic. Since day one here you have consistently been unpleasant and a nasty piece of work. I'm really not sure why Jem puts in the effort.
Oh that's funny. Lucrum agreeing with saying someone is a nasty piece of work. LOL And 377, he has a monopoly on the arrogant douchebag market. Perhaps I could be more patient, but after having patiently shown Jem multiple times the fallacy of the "It hasn't warmed in 14 years" and still he persists with this dumb argument, that anyone with the slightest understand of charting and trends would understand, I tend to lose patience. Also, may I remind you, Jem has called me a liar and other insulting names many times. In fact repeating the "It hasn't warmed for 14 years" is in essence a lie, implying warming has stopped when nothing could be further from the truth. In fact the last 14 years have included about ten of the warmest years on record and the trend remains strongly up. However, I will attempt to refrain from further insults if others will also. There is some validity to that criticism and it does not help with my arguments to do so.