Above: The Goreacle of Unbelievable Crap Preaches His So-Called "Inconvenient Truth"
Here's proof: There is NO consensus. Never mind the claim of the UN's IPCC that they got a "consensus" amongst some "scientists" who simply signed a piece of paper, perhaps actually falsely claiming that they studied the data of the IPCC.
In fact, a majority are in consensus that the global warming/climate change theory isn't something they agree with!
So which side are we going to believe: something peer-pressured/backed with implied threats to careers and even death threats against those who don't endorse the IPCC's position, or independent, unafraid-of-consequences scientists in a survey as to whether they agree with the IPCC's position?
(Some emphasis mine, some emphasis the article's)
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."
The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for
"catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.
These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that -- whatever the cause may be -- the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.
Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." 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.
So who to believe? Decisions, decisions... what's easier, to believe those who sometimes threaten one's career, one's reputation, even one's life, or those who simply speak the plain truth?
I'm not a guillible useful idiot like those who automatically believe something just because it appears that everyone else believes it. Nope- I use my own head and demand proof, rather than lies and propagandic manipulation, which is what the whole global warming/climate change thing really is. It's a moneymaking scam, nothing more, by greedy, unscrupulous, unethical, immoral progressive liberal leftist revolutionaries.
This survey is, by the way, based on a database on 8,700 scientific journals and publications, including all the world's leading scientific journals.
So why should I, or anyone, give a crap about global warming? There's no reason at all to believe it's going to lead to any catastrophic climate changes. Besides, it gets cold half the year where I live, So I'll go right ahead and burn all the dead dinosaurs in my internal combustion engine I want! F*ck Al Gore! He does it, too, after all!
