Creationists Team Up With Climate Deniers To Take Down Science Education.

a reply to: Dfairlite

You may have some points, but when you cheapen your argument to that level, it rarely means you have any real substance.

Well contrary to what some people have rationalized this thread as (probably to deflect any cognitive dissonance it has pointed their way), I don't come here to just troll or bash others. But I do call it like I see it, and I make no apologies about that.

So when you decide to refer to AGW as "junk science" on more than one occasion, it certainly raises some red flags - especially when you consider the context of this thread, i.e. industry funded shills manipulating the public's understanding of research that also happens to be very inconvenient to their business interests.

So again, I invite you to investigate just where that term comes from:

The Consumers Union (US) wrote that "as far as we have been able to trace, the phrase "junk science" has been coined by those practicing public relations and lobbying activities on behalf of some companies in certain industries

Using it just reinforces my point. It's like me starting a thread about racism, and you responding with some derogatory slur while raising a stink about how Liberals always play the race card or something. And if you read the thread I linked to in the last post, you'll see exactly why I tied it back to Fox News. There's a very explicit relationship there, it ain't just random hyperbole.

But whatever, I'd much rather focus on a constructive discussion instead of a pissing contest into the wind, so why don't we move on...

And no, life cycle is not a conspiracy theory. I work for a technology company, there is no planned obsolescence as far as not trying to make things hold more storage/access it faster.

I never said anything about Moore's Law being part of the conspiracy. In fact Moore's Law is the perfect alibi for planned obsolescence, because it is for all intents and purposes a good thing.

But it still underpins my main point that the real "agenda" at play here is not to sell a lot more energy efficient light bulbs - it's to sell a lot more everything. That's the scam. That's the conspiracy. Massive, uninhibited economic growth for those at the top of the pyramid, through exploitation and over-consumption of our natural resources by those at the bottom.

This scam is already very much a part of the establishment today and it doesn't need any elaborate scientific hoax to help it along. It has no use for some "going green" fad that encourages people to use less and conserve more. It wants nothing to do with environmentalism, or people actually thinking about the consequences of big business' actions.

The whole problem of man made industrial and consumer activities contributing to our demise stands as a HUGE detriment to this scam, and that's why the "free market think tank" shills like Heartland Institute and junkscience.com work so hard to deny it.

You can try to fit global warming into this scam instead of against it somehow, but to me this requires the same sort of straw-grasping mental acrobatics as pretending all the world's leading scientists are conspiring against us in the name of profit, while oil companies and meddling billionaires are just funding these opposing front groups because they're looking out for our best interests. #yeahright

I would have to argue that both science education and the heartland campaign (allied organizations) both have agendas - in many instances there are often misplaced reasons. We should stop trying to decide what we "need" to teach children and let them discover the world themselves.

Any sort of brain-washing on either side is ridiculous. A simple EBSCO search would reveal that in many instances increased carbon dioxide levels does not act as a pollutant; instead, widely beneficial scenarios occur. The sheer thought that someone would consider carbon dioxide a pollutant in the most conventionally defined definition is understandable because most people don't understand how carbon, nitrogen and oxygen are involved in the plant cycle (particularly photosynthesis).

And any reasonable person can see that the conversion of most the land to industrial/residential areas is going to increase the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; while this is not accounting for emissions as well - there are many simple ways to solve carbon dioxide levels if we so need to. Teaching has come a long way from instructing individuals solving problem skills to informing them of scientists' research.

a reply to: mc_squared

Fine. Maybe you are right. Maybe global warming is real and humans do cause climate change. I still don't agree with carbon credits. Especially when it is just a local thing. It will do nothing to stop pollution production in India or China. Two countries with MAY more pollution than we have and are gearing up to go into overdrive as they shift more and more of their workforce into industry.

And THAT'S why I have a problem with the global warming thing. The answer is just as absurd. If the science is real and the threat is TRULY dire, then DO something about it. Carbon credits aren't the answer. It will just make us pay more money at the gas pump for the same amount of gas...

originally posted by: mc_squared
a reply to: Dfairlite

You may have some points, but when you cheapen your argument to that level, it rarely means you have any real substance.

Well contrary to what some people have rationalized this thread as (probably to deflect any cognitive dissonance it has pointed their way), I don't come here to just troll or bash others. But I do call it like I see it, and I make no apologies about that.

So when you decide to refer to AGW as "junk science" on more than one occasion, it certainly raises some red flags - especially when you consider the context of this thread, i.e. industry funded shills manipulating the public's understanding of research that also happens to be very inconvenient to their business interests.

So again, I invite you to investigate just where that term comes from:

The Consumers Union (US) wrote that "as far as we have been able to trace, the phrase "junk science" has been coined by those practicing public relations and lobbying activities on behalf of some companies in certain industries

Using it just reinforces my point. It's like me starting a thread about racism, and you responding with some derogatory slur while raising a stink about how Liberals always play the race card or something. And if you read the thread I linked to in the last post, you'll see exactly why I tied it back to Fox News. There's a very explicit relationship there, it ain't just random hyperbole.

But whatever, I'd much rather focus on a constructive discussion instead of a pissing contest into the wind, so why don't we move on...

And no, life cycle is not a conspiracy theory. I work for a technology company, there is no planned obsolescence as far as not trying to make things hold more storage/access it faster.

I never said anything about Moore's Law being part of the conspiracy. In fact Moore's Law is the perfect alibi for planned obsolescence, because it is for all intents and purposes a good thing.

But it still underpins my main point that the real "agenda" at play here is not to sell a lot more energy efficient light bulbs - it's to sell a lot more everything. That's the scam. That's the conspiracy. Massive, uninhibited economic growth for those at the top of the pyramid, through exploitation and over-consumption of our natural resources by those at the bottom.

This scam is already very much a part of the establishment today and it doesn't need any elaborate scientific hoax to help it along. It has no use for some "going green" fad that encourages people to use less and conserve more. It wants nothing to do with environmentalism, or people actually thinking about the consequences of big business' actions.

The whole problem of man made industrial and consumer activities contributing to our demise stands as a HUGE detriment to this scam, and that's why the "free market think tank" shills like Heartland Institute and junkscience.com work so hard to deny it.

You can try to fit global warming into this scam instead of against it somehow, but to me this requires the same sort of straw-grasping mental acrobatics as pretending all the world's leading scientists are conspiring against us in the name of profit, while oil companies and meddling billionaires are just funding these opposing front groups because they're looking out for our best interests. #yeahright

Good post overall, I agree with much of what you said. However, you get it fundamentally wrong when you say:

"pretending all the world's leading scientists are conspiring against us in the name of profit, while oil companies and meddling billionaires are just funding these opposing front groups because they're looking out for our best interests."

The first part is a lie, all of the worlds leading scientists don't agree on AGW. More and more, they're defecting from that position (as the models get proven wrong over and over). See here and [url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/]here[/ur l].

The second part, about the companies, is irrelevant. The science is good in many aspects on both sides of the argument (and both sides of the funding coin), regardless of the money backers. It's never bad to have competition (unless you're a communist) it validates progress and keeps honesty in check. The truth is somewhere in between the CAGW crowd and their opponents.

a reply to: mc_squared

Wow, talk about climate deniers shooting themselves in the foot LOL. What is really stupid is the creationist espouse that God created everything, which he/she did and therefore created science, 'cause he/she created science. So deny science is to deny God which would make creationists, satanists, because they deny God as well.

We live in bizarro world LOL.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: Metallicus

Atheism isn't a religion, as the name clearly indicates...

a reply to: Dfairlite

Ok. Let me preface this by saying that I really appreciate your input on this thread, and I mean that with all sincerity. You’re clearly very suspicious of the man made global warming shtick, which is fine, but you're open-minded enough to actually listen to, and carefully consider the other side. This is pretty much all I ever ask from skeptics (but something that I very rarely get) so you’re totally alright in my book

But dude you've got to be more careful about your sources! This whole thread has been about how completely conniving and full of crap The Heartland Institute is - which no one here seems to disagree with - but now you’ve just linked me to an op-ed written by James M. Taylor, who is THE public voice for these very shills. Here’s his bio on Heartland’s website.

I specifically referred to him in (the 2nd post of) my OP, and there have been several follow up posts by myself and theantediluvian detailing what an absolute lying weasel this guy is.

And the article you’re linking to is a perfect example!

Please see this rebuttal for more context: James Taylor misinterprets study by 180 degrees

The gist of it is he cherry-picked a study that deliberately polled scientists and engineers employed in the oil & gas industry about their views on climate change. The most ironic part about that is the entire point of the study was to show how people in this industry are influenced by their professional ties, and how their views differ from the consensus of real climate experts based on this inherent bias.

You can read the actual paper for yourself right here: Science or Science Fiction? Professionals’ Discursive Construction of Climate Change

Meanwhile Taylor tries to represent this study as some representative general sample of all climate science - what a tool! This is akin to you telling me 97% of biologists believe in evolution, and then I prove you wrong by polling a bunch of engineers who are fundamentalist Evangelical Christians and saying “see, only 36% of scientists believe in evolution, HA!”.

Anyway, I’m not trying to put you down for posting it, so don’t take it the wrong way. Many people just aren't aware of the various shills hiding behind the shroud of “skepticism” here, and that’s exactly why I make these threads on ATS – to spread the word and help expose them for what they truly are.

And whether you’re a skeptic or an “alarmist” (James Taylor’s favorite word), both sides should easily agree there is absolutely no place for such fraudulent intellectual dishonesty in this discussion.


Anyway, I totally agree with you that competition is a good thing, but the problem is that every time I dig deeper and peel another layer here – I constantly find that one side is exclusively lying, cheating, and manipulating EVERYTHING about this race. I know these same accusations have been thrown at the global warming scientists (e.g. climategate), but when you really dig into these accusations – it’s staggering how much the accusations themselves have been lied about, twisted and manipulated by the so-called skeptics. Just like this study on the alleged non-consensus.

So It’s taken a lot of time and research for me to come to where I’m at in dissecting this debate, and believe it or not I've always tried to remain as fair and critical of both sides in doing so, but it just gets harder and harder to justify anything the naysayers put out, when you've seen the truly relentless amount of BS they've piled on like I have. It’s seriously insulting to one’s intelligence.

With that in mind then, don’t even get me started on that other link to climatedepot.com. If there’s anyone even worse than James M. Taylor on the shill scale, it’s Marc Morano. You can just google him and decide for yourself. There are plenty of resources outside the deny-o-sphere that reveal his true colors.


...
Anyway don’t ever stop being skeptical - it’s one of the most important qualities of any truly critical thinking person. But don’t get wrapped up in letting that term define you, or especially define one side of this debate, because that is probably the biggest hoax about it. Always be skeptical of both sides. There are way too many self-proclaimed “skeptics” here who fall completely in love with these blatant shills and never look back, because that would mean they have to admit they were wrong about something. That’s when they mutate from simple skeptics into full-blown deniers. I've seen it happen many, many times and it ain't pretty.

Cheers.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Fine. Maybe you are right. Maybe global warming is real and humans do cause climate change. I still don't agree with carbon credits.

You don't have to agree with carbon credits to believe that man made global warming is a real problem. Personally I think cap and trade is a ridiculous idea, but that has no bearing on how I interpret the science. The reality strictly depends on physics, and the physics don't care about secret government agendas or anything like that.

But the key point is that, instead of wasting away arguing over these silly distractions, we should all be educating ourselves and discussing real solutions - instead of letting incompetent governments do it for us while we sit back and do nothing, but then eagerly complain about how teh gubbermint runs our lives.

We all have the power to change things, as individuals, as voters and as consumers. But nobody wants to step forward and take that initiative - everybody wants to just sit back and point at others and say "well...I'm not doing it if Jimmy's not doing it". It's no wonder we're such friggin' sheep at the hands of the elite.

I once tried to start a thread on ATS about global warming solutions without taxes:
Fighting Global Warming Without Carbon Taxes

Look at how much action it got.

Nobody wants to talk about this subject unless they can just complain about it.

a reply to: mc_squared

Of course it is cherry picked data. That's what the whole debate is, is whose cherry picked data you believe. That's why I said the truth is somewhere in between. Just like the "97% of scientists agree" claim. It's based on 79 cherry picked papers.

The reason I'm skeptical about AGW is not because of what someone said, it's from my understanding of the science behind it. I've got a scientific background and have found their evidence in favor, unconvincing. The numbers don't add up. If people are responsible for ANY of the Climate change we have seen, CO2 has not been a contributing factor of note.

I also find the proposed solutions absurd. If it were really an imminent problem, the proposed solutions would reflect that. Yet they insult that the dam I'd about to break and propose we put superglue in some of the hairline cracks.

BTW, I too, have enjoyed our conversation. Thank you.

a reply to: Dfairlite

The 40% spike in CO2 is very real and there is ample data to support this.

The primary way we make energy involves combustion which releases CO2 into the atmosphere. Not a coincidence!

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Dfairlite

The 40% spike in CO2 is very real and there is ample data to support this.

The primary way we make energy involves combustion which releases CO2 into the atmosphere. Not a coincidence!

I always welcome a debate on the science of it. I would like to know where I have "gone wrong", so lets have at it!

Do you understand the carbon cycle? CO2 get's cycled out of the atmosphere in a number of ways, from plants, to decomposition, to becoming trapped in sediment, and various other ways. Since humans are responsible for 3.75% of the annual carbon cycle (according to the EPA), how exactly do you figure that we are the problem? I mean, our atmosphere has cycled out CO2 to the tunes of thousands of ppm before, why is 400 ppm such a big deal?

Furthermore, CO2 is a terrible greenhouse gas. For every doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere there will be a 1.2-1.7C increase in temperature. Everyone worth their weight in dirt knows this, which is why they made up feedback mechanisms to amplify the projected warming. Well, now we've had enough time to see what kind of warming actually happens when we increase CO2, it's on the low end (~1-1.2C). So if we hit 800 PPM, we can expect another degree. and at 1600 we will see another degree. It took us 150 years to rise by 40%, so to rise by 300% will probably take us at least another 300 years. But we are already an the verge of vastly reducing our carbon emissions (as alternatives become cheaper than oil) so alas, we will likely never see that increase.

And all of this goes with the false assumption that the entire CO2 increase is man-made. But it's not. Most of it comes from the oceans and the biosphere.

So unless you have something more than "not a coincidence" to offer, just quit while you're ahead.

a reply to: mc_squared

Hi mc_squared,

The best way to implement a carbon tax is to make it revenue neutral, so all income generated by that tax at the point of purchase is returned to the taxpayer through other means (e.g. lower income taxes). This costs the general public absolutely nothing in the grand scheme, but it still keeps the incentive strong to use carbon-free resources, because doing so will effectively make that conscientious consumer more money.

ExxonMobil participates in GHG emissions trading when cost-effective, in areas of our operations where regulated trading schemes exist.

However, we believe a well-designed, revenue-neutral carbon tax program provides a more cost-effective alternative to a cap-and-trade regime for reducing GHG emissions. We believe this approach ensures a uniform and predictable cost of carbon, lets market prices drive solutions, maximizes transparency to stakeholders, reduces administrative complexity, promotes global participation, and is easily adjusted to future developments in climate science and policy impacts.

corporate.exxonmobil.com...

The most important challenge that ExxonMobil faced was the climate bill, known as “cap-and-trade,” which Obama and congressional Democrats introduced early in 2009. The House of Representatives passed a version of the law in June and moved it to the Senate, where the most difficult negotiations were expected. The proposed law would have established a new regulatory system under which polluting corporations could buy and sell permits to emit greenhouse gases, under an over-all “cap” that would seek to reduce the rate of global warming.

ExxonMobil denounced the cap-and-trade system as unwieldy and bureaucratic. It did, however, announce that it would support a straight “carbon tax,” which would create incentives for reductions in coal and oil use.

The proposal was a major policy shift for the corporation, which had come to it after years of isolated, deliberative policy analysis. But there was little support for the idea among Democrats. They knew that Republicans—many of whom had signed pledges never to raise taxes—wouldn't go for it. And they had determined that cap-and-trade was the climate-change policy they would try to pass. Exxon’s support for a carbon tax would have been welcome in, say, the early nineties, when Al Gore was pushing the idea. But the debate had moved on.

www.newyorker.com...

I live in Europe, so my perspective on american politics is naturally a different one. But i've been following the debate for a long time now.

You are convinced that oil companies reject the science and push back on climate action because it would hurt their bottom line. That's why they're funneling money to conservative think tanks and lobby groups with an anti-science agenda to create doubt about climate change in the public's minds.


Practically all of the "big five" oil multinationals accept the science as settled and support large scale climate policy action including a carbon tax.

www.bp.com...

www.chevron.com...

www.shell.com...


The argument, that skepticism in climate science mainly exists because of a secretly funded denial industry, falls apart here. It was never valid in the first place.

Accusing people with opposing views of being in the pockets of big oil is common practice. I rarely see the argument being used to simply point out a fact.

If corporate money used to discredit climate science in order to undermine policy action = corporate interests,

does that mean corporate money used to fund climate research to support policy action = corporate interests?

Four big international companies, including the oil giant Exxon Mobil, said yesterday that they would give Stanford University $225 million over 10 years for research on ways to meet growing energy needs without worsening global warming.

www.nytimes.com...

The arrangement will enable Shell to use NERC's world-leading environmental science to help reduce the environmental impact of their operations and projects by providing access to independent, objective advice and information.

At the same time, it will help NERC fulfill its strategic goal to support economic growth and address societal challenges in the environment by funding the best research and ensuring it has the widest possible impact.

www.nerc.ac.uk...

Charles Elachi, director of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., met with top executives of the Norwegian-based oil and gas company, Statoil, on Friday, Nov. 22, in a ceremonial signing of a new agreement to assist in the development and subsequent transfer of technologies to Statoil and America's oil and gas activities. The focus will be on enabling safe and efficient development and production of U.S. and world fossil fuel reserves.

www.jpl.nasa.gov...

Price on carbon

The only people who actually lose big in this transaction are the carbon producing industries themselves, because they lose all that business.

If you take a step back and consider the economic reality that the large oil and energy companies will continue to control the world's energy supply, do you really believe this all happening because they are afraid to loose all that business?

a reply to: mc_squared

Well because real solutions would dismantle our economy and probably even our society. There is no way human society is going give up all these luxuries now that we've created them. Though I also ask you. Why is global warming more important than all the pollution we are dumping into our fresh waters? More important than all the deforestation? The destruction of entire ecosystems just to make a quick buck? If you ask me, man made global warming (regardless of its veracity) is just the tip of the iceberg. We can't fix one problem without addressing all of them.

The increased carbon dioxide is a gleaming opportunity to harvest its benefits. Education science and heartland campaign have no excuse in any shape to infiltrate our textbooks with propaganda.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Not quite right.

The CO2 increase is most certainly due to man's activity on this planet. The 40%+ spike took 150 years, and now we are releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere now than we ever had in the past. In another 150 years it is likely we will have released much more than another 120ppm of CO2. We will likely double the CO2 count in less than 100 years from today.

To say the spike is not caused by human activity is extremely ignorant of science and common sense. The evidence is overwhelming. Can you produce any legitimate evidence to suggest man is NOT the cause of the spike of CO2?

I have pretty darn good understanding of the carbon cycle, chemistry, meteorology, and climatology. I am not trying to debate you, there is not debating this fact.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Dfairlite



Not quite right.



The CO2 increase is most certainly due to man's activity on this planet. The 40%+ spike took 150 years, and now we are releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere now than we ever had in the past. In another 150 years it is likely we will have released much more than another 120ppm of CO2. We will likely double the CO2 count in less than 100 years from today.



To say the spike is not caused by human activity is extremely ignorant of science and common sense. The evidence is overwhelming. Can you produce any legitimate evidence to suggest man is NOT the cause of the spike of CO2?



I have pretty darn good understanding of the carbon cycle, chemistry, meteorology, and climatology. I am not trying to debate you, there is not debating this fact.

Ok, so the signature for "man made CO2" in the atmosphere is usually measured by C13/C12 isotope comparisons, correct? Since man made CO2 is (usually) less rich in the C13 isotope than natural CO2, we look for a variability in the concentrations of each isotope. And of course, there has been some variability. But the problem lies with the the fact that the natural (not man made CO2) variability of CO2 lines up exactly with the variability we have seen. So if naturally this relationship varies at the exact same rate as the variability we have seen, then how can anyone claim that it is man made CO2 that has caused the increase in CO2 concentration?

And no, even according to the IPCC we won't double CO2 in the next hundred years. Their projections are ~600ppm by 2100 (86 years), which is only a 50% increase from the current ~400ppm.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
Ok, so the signature for "man made CO2" in the atmosphere is usually measured by C13/C12 isotope comparisons, correct? Since man made CO2 is (usually) less rich in the C13 isotope than natural CO2, we look for a variability in the concentrations of each isotope. And of course, there has been some variability. But the problem lies with the the fact that the natural (not man made CO2) variability of CO2 lines up exactly with the variability we have seen. So if naturally this relationship varies at the exact same rate as the variability we have seen, then how can anyone claim that it is man made CO2 that has caused the increase in CO2 concentration?

It's a fact that we are emitting more than 29 gigatonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere annually. The Earth's atmosphere is estimated to weigh in at 5,148,000 gigatonnes. In April, the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere was 400 ppm, and since CO2 weighs a bit more than other atmospheric components, it has to be adjusted by multiplying the volume by the mass, or 1.5191, giving a total mass of 3,128 gigatonnes of CO2. Approximately 7 years ago, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was 383ppm, for a mass value of 2,996 gigatonnes of CO2. That's an additionally 18.86 gigatonnes annually. It doesn't just mysteriously disintegrate, so what's happening to it?

As to the 'percent that is man' versus 'percent that is nature' well... let's say you have two glasses of water. One has food dye in it, representing man's contribution of CO2. Another is uncolored and filled to the brim, representing nature's CO2. Also, this second glass is far larger. If you ever so slowly pour the first glass into the second, does the clear or the dyed water flow out over the rim?

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: rigel4
a reply to: mc_squared

All religion impedes human advancement.
/

Including atheism.

Only in the same way that all cars cause pollution ..... including no cars

originally posted by: jrod
We will likely double the CO2 count in less than 100 years from today.

By double I meant using 280ppm as a starting point. I do not think it is unreasonable to say that will will likely have CO2 around 560ppm in 100 years unless something drastic happens with humanity and the world.

I will go ahead and call this my prediction.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Of course it is cherry picked data. That's what the whole debate is, is whose cherry picked data you believe. That's why I said the truth is somewhere in between. Just like the "97% of scientists agree" claim. It's based on 79 cherry picked papers.

I think the “truth is somewhere in the middle” approach is a very good place to start. But you can’t just hang your hat on it – you still have to do your diligence and investigate both sides. And I think if you do that a little more here you’ll see why the truth is actually not in the middle. Not even close.

Again, this is what I have discovered from years of following both sides: the lies and the propaganda are so heavily tilted towards one end of the spectrum that the real narrative becomes resoundingly clear when you just weigh them out side by side. And I know both sides lob an equal amount of rhetoric at each other, not arguing with that, but go beyond the accusations and look at the actual substance behind their accusations.

The argument over the consensus is another perfect example.

On the one side, as shown in the last post, you not only have a very blatant case of cherry picking – you have a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts. James Taylor and Marc Morano took a study that was exclusively about how certain demographics in this debate are corrupted by professional bias, and therefore should not be counted as representative of a larger sample. They intentionally disregarded that bias and used it immediately as representative of a larger sample. That’s worse than just a sneaky little cherry pick – that is absolutely EPIC irony, hypocrisy, stupidity and dishonesty all rolled into one. Like I said in the last post: it’s pretty much a complete insult to one’s intelligence.


Now let’s look at the other side. First off I am assuming you are talking about the 2009 Doran study when you are referring to “79 cherry picked papers”. Please note there are numerous other studies that also arrived at the 97% consensus, through different methodologies and samples, like Anderlegg et al and Cook et al for example. But regardless it doesn't really matter because they all seem to get criticized under the same vague insinuations of cherry-picking by the skeptic blogs.

The Doran survey is the one that ultimately arrived at 79 researchers (not papers), but there is a big difference between cherry-picking something and whittling it down for clarity. That’s what Doran et al did. Just read the study for yourself (pdf) – it’s barely longer than a page. When you do that you’ll see that they didn't just start by picking out 79 convenient scientists. They invited a database of 10,375 to participate in their survey. Of that they got a response from 3,146 researchers.

They then categorized those researchers by level and area of expertise. But even for the entire survey of over 3000 responses they still got an 82% consensus on man’s active role in climate change. As you can see from the graph in Figure 1, when they filter that number down to publishing experts exclusively focused on climate change – the consensus climbs up and up to 97%. It naturally dwindles in sample size, but they are completely open and upfront about their methodology. They don’t hide or misrepresent the number of respondents, and the take away point isn't even that there is a 97% consensus – it’s that when the level of participation and expertise in this subject climbs, so does that consensus.

This makes sense considering the majority of skepticism here comes from these unqualified lawyers and blog scientist hacks like James Taylor and Marc Morano. The same idiots who are cherry-picking and manipulating the data, telling you that’s exactly what all the evil scientists are doing, and then cherry-picking and manipulating the data again to “prove” their accusations.

It's a farce debate, and the truth only seems to lie in the middle when you first count the amount of talking points. It very noticeably moves to one side when you actually investigate them.