Kurt Ullman ) writes:
In article ,
"DGDevin" wrote:

"aemeijers" wrote in message
...


First ya gotta define 'climate scientist', and then you have to see the
paper trail of whatever survey the article is quoting.


I'm not talking about an article, but about the overall consensus of the
scientific community.


Consensus of the scientific community? 99.9% of the scientific community
won't _participate_ in it, because it's science that has been politicized!

In science 101 it is learned, when sciences are politicize, a person of
science must be very careful, the person could be cornered, and no matter
what, they will be a loser. Solution to not being a loser... don't
participate. The propagandists know this... that's why they are bold with
their science fiction. This is a destruction of knowledge. Of course this
is nothing new... it goes back for centuries... pick up a history book and
study Galileo Galilie.

Toronto Canada has a population of 2.5 mill, there is maybe 40,000
scientist there. Think that number is too big?... divide it in two. 20,000
of 2.5 mill is 0.8%. Canada has a population of 35 mill. 0.8% of 35 mill is
280,000. California has a population of 35 mill also. Half a million
scientists in just Canada and California. Do the math for the rest of the
USA, don't forget Western Europe with it's population of 320 mill,
then Eastern Europe/Russia all the way over to China, Japan, Australia,
India, Middle East, Africa, Mexico, South America, and I hear there is an
extremely high percentage at the South Pole... but they really don't stay
there very long... something to do with -100F and colder wind chills.



Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of
scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is
already settled.
Michael Crichton (1942 - 2008), Caltech Michelin Lecture, January 17,
2003


Bingo. Add to that scientists who work for organizations funded by the
fossil fuel industry (as prominent climate change skeptic Richard Lindzen
has) and you have cause to wonder how they came to their conclusions. It's
amusing that some folks insist scientists will back a phony climate change
theory to get research funding, but apparently it's no problem if a
scientist who denies manmade climate change has a history of being funded by
OPEC and EXXON.


Yet nobody gets all upset about the governmental grants that focus on
climate change. WHen was the last time any hypothesis that CC isn't real
got any funding from the Feds. People note that and change behaviors
accordingly. Governmental funding can be every bit of skewed as that of
Exxon.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz