>>8592000"Fucking moron."-you
Responding like this shows that you either have a vested financial interest or emotional attachment to your viewpoint. It shows that you aren't open to any information that contradicts your pre disposed opinion. It also exposes your lack of intelligence.
Here's another example of misleading things are.
John Cook et al., 2013
Cook et al. examined 11,944 abstracts from the peer-reviewed scientific literature from 1991–2011 that matched the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'.[12] They found that, while 66.4% of them expressed no position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), of those that did, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are contributing to global warming. They also invited authors to rate their own papers and found that, while 35.5% rated their paper as expressing no position on AGW, 97.2% of the rest endorsed the consensus. In both cases the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position was marginally increasing over time. They concluded that the number of papers actually rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
...What that basically says is that 66.4 percent had no position. That leaves 33.6% that do. Out of that 33.6% (note how the article doesn't publish that percentage) 97.1% of the 33.6% do believe that humans are contributing to "global warming". That's hardly a consensus.
Also note the last line about the vanishingly small proportion of published research. That's the fear factor that's preventing scientists to speak their minds. They don't want to be chastised or vilified, because that means they don't get to eat anymore once the religion of "climate change" destroys their careers. This whole situation is analogous to the whole Galileo fiasco, and very bad for science in general.
