Here is another recent revelation that impinges on your repeated posts Pooey.
.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.
You have repeatedly claimed that 2500 or some other large percentage of scientists concur wuth the issue of mans contribution to warming and what is in the UN Panels conclusions...This shows you exaggerated!
Quote:
|
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.
|
Recent appraisal of scholarly research also shows that studies and papers on climate do not support the contention that a majority of recent scientists support the man made climate theory.
Quote:
|
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
|
Its also interesting that most scientists seem to reject the catastrophic effects alarmism of the climate demagogues. These are the ones that make the headlines..... which are the favorites when it comes to press coverage