yeah, cause forbes has shown to be so accurate when reporting on climate change in the past...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/consensusforbes.html

Forbes claimed 52% of AMS scientists believe in AGW, while the study it is refering too says 64% do, so we know the article is lying to us...

If you are of the opinion that 64% is "consensus", then dance, Monkey, dance...especially when you look at the split between those who agree that are government funded (i.e. if global warming doesn't exist, they don't get paid anymore...) and those that are not government funded. When you break the government political funding leash, it's amazing how this freedom drains away the enthusiasm for the fraudulent "science".

and yes...now you will tell me how government funding is great, blah blah blah, no government would ever have a bad motive in spending money, blah blah balh...oh wait...unless we are talking about military expenditures, in which case government are pure evil, blah blah blah.

dance monkey, dance...

Krellin is making a big deal about a poll of non-climate science experts and their views on climate science, which they do not study.

Why can't you point to actual experts who agree with your irresponsible views, Krellin?

And why is it that the only denialists you can ever trot out are people who do not study climate science and are funded by industry? Funny how that is.

"If you are of the opinion that 64% is "consensus", then dance"

When did AMS scientists become climate scientists?

When we know that an article is misreporting the truth, we can also suspect that they would choose a favorable study to report in the first place. This author and his 'blog', as you should be referring to it (it is more of a blog than fivethirtyeight ever will be) are entirely about how global warming is a hoax, and thus completely unreliable. Even taking that at face value, defining a 'scientist' is pretty much impossible. After all this you claim that privately funded science is more reliable than publically funded science. That is preposterous. If a scientist from the Creation Science Institute of America doesn't agree with the sponsor, than he is fired. On the other hand, government employees, professors and such are practically impossible to fire.

Oh...OK...so when we go back and find out that people involved with the IPCC reports have cherry picked data and misreported data, outright lied, etc...

But wait, I guess that's OK with you guys, right? lol

dance little monkeys, dance! hee hee.

"After all this you claim that privately funded science is more reliable than publically funded science. That is preposterous. "

I didn't make that claim at all. You have dificient reading skills. I merely pointed something out - you drew the conclusion. Must be your guilty conscience.

so yeah...no government agency ever spent money to buy votes....Dance little monkeys, dance.

I'm dancin' ole boy...

Krellin - I understand that why it would be wise to exclude government employees or people reliant on government funding from survey results as they have a degree of bias. But should we also exclude employees of energy companies and industry who also have a vested interest?

If we were talking about risk of tabacco we would possibly exclude scientist who work for the cigarette companies would we not?

Also should we exclude ourselves from having opinions on gun control if we are gun owners, or tax revenues if we are tax payers, or tax revenues if we are not tax payers, or indeed should we exclude ourselves from any poll that we might actually know something about?

A few things:

1: Good link. I used the same one last time I took krellin seriously on AGW :)

2: You all are missing the point of this article. It isn't saying "there is no consensus." What it's actually saying is, "Look, this guy took a survey and he didn't like the result so now he's questioning it!" red herring sort of thing. It doesn't say anything at all substantial on AGW.

All this article leaves you with is the implication that there is no consensus - if you don't read carefully enough to notice (sorry, krellin) but it never actually comes out and says that. It doesn't assert anything, and it doesn't refute anything.

Why is it that atheists never accept the clear consensus of theologians (you know, the ***EXPERTS***) that there is a God (or gods)?

@maniac - I agree...the circle of funding in any of these situations make the outcomes of research predictable and suspect. For anyone to look at the huge disparity between beliefs that is associated with the funding mechanisms and dismiss it makes them fools. It pretty much says this: Politicians fund only the researchers who will provide the answers they want to hear. That *someone* in this thread can't grasp that is sad...but politicians like sheeple-voters.

@YJ - You'll note that *I* didn't say there is or is not consensus either. I just threw a link out there and waited for the inevitable monkey's to dance... ;) As if often the case, much more is attributed to what is written than what is actually written. That being said, *if* 64% is consensus, then there is consensus. If not, then there is not.

@Tolstoy - I tried to convert YJ to Christianity with the same argument. He rejected me.



NOW...on with the dancing!!!! <ta da dee da dit do deee da da...>

For the love of god, this is a poll of a certain subset of scientists who do not, as a rule, study climate science.

To say that this disproves there is a consensus is a lot like polling economists about their views about the plausibility of string theory.

"Why is it that atheists never accept the clear consensus of theologians (you know, the ***EXPERTS***) that there is a God (or gods)?"

For the same reason I never accept the clear consensus among chiropractors that all disease stems from spinal subluxations. Because the entire field is quackery and not scientific.

Dumb analogy.

Simple, there isn't a consensus of philosophers.

To resume:
The poll, misreported on by a rabid anti-climate change blogger, claims that only 2/3 people unassociated with the subject believe in climate change. This is somehow relevant.

Phil, philosophers are not theologians! That's a silly statement. Talk to men that study God(s) if you want to know about god...you know, the ones that are paid to study god. Isn't that how you like to roll?

Your inconsistency is disturbing...

And just because it's fun. Dance monkeys, Dance!

"Global-warming 'proof' is evaporating"
http://nypost.com/2013/12/05/global-warming-proof-is-evaporating/

Mwaaa haaa ha ha ha... <ta da dee da dee da dee ta da...>

Dance my little monkeys...

And phil, my biased little friend...so if someone against AWG says anything, he is suspect and dismissed...but if someone is for AWG, their word is gospel.

Check. Got it. <rolls eyes....laughs my ass off at Phil the Biased>

I dunno krellin, when you say "The Myth of Consensus" in your title you are, at best, doing the exact same thing as the author. Even if you aren't coming out and saying it, the implication is there.

@YJ....so YOU say...I was headlining a headline. You may interpret that as you will.

I'm a student of main-stream media...if you dislike my slanted journalism, I'm simply a victim of my environment.

THAT being said -- is 64% a consensus in my old pal YJ's book?

I wouldn't say so, but I don't really care too much about that number, for reasons phil already stated well.

@YJ - I don't really care too much about it either. But it was fun to watch the monkeys dance.

64% of a subset of scientists in a field that isn't climate science.

々㌧㌦㌻

Consensus is for politicians not scientists. One repeatable experiment/observation which overturns a "consensus" should be good enough. Just exactly how much statistically significant global temperature rise has occurred in the last ten years, remind me please.