97% of climate scientists agree that if "Global Warming/Climate Change" isn't a major political matter and/or a major scientific project by the ELITE scientists, then they would cease to be paid amicably and their scientific projects would cease to be funded by "The People"!

Would I be guessing if these Climate Clowns prefer to dilute and prolong the investigation with more scientific jargon and misleading information on purpose in order to prolong their ELITE paychecks and get more 'Government-paid science toys' to play with?

Seems to me that any Government employee is part of some type of Union. Figures!

I would agree that most all climate scientists would say that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will raise the temperature of the atmosphere. Beyond that, They certainly do not have agreement at 97% levels.

Now that being said, clearly MORE climate scientists believe that AGW is bad and will cause all sorts of catastrophic problems than don't. This is hardly debatable given what most of the models look like. BUT, 95% of the models are overestimating the current temperatures. If I saw this level of bias in any other field of science combined with the political aspects of AGW, I would be highly concerned that politics is influencing science.

This one always amuses me, the papers on climate change are pretty clear, denier have been unable to get much published that disputes the science and this is not because of whatever today's conspiracy theory is, but because denier have no science that will pass muster, which is why they play out public opinion games in blogs.

Whatever the the figure it is certainly up over 90%, that was confirmed by a number of published works not just Cook's. Of course deniers while try to play the consensus doesn't count also tried to play the consensus card with their little petition project all that showed was that denier where not very good at creating a fake petition.

That denier continue to use the same dozen or so expert (some of even these are not qualified in climate science) yet deniers continue to say they have a large support, so where is it, the claimed 30,000 of the OISM don't seem to exist, that petition has been around almost a decade, yet there is no serious numbers at any conference (like i.e. AGU) who seriously dispute AGW, that is attended by in the order of 16-18,000 scientists each year.

It doesn't matter what you look at in science, be it published papers, the views of member organisations like AGU, no mater what denier may claim their is no serious disputing of the science, that is a fact.

Deniers fixate on the 97% because they know it makes them look bad, but honestly you have enough problems even without this so many different conspiracy theories and so many other theories that conflict with each other none of which can pass even basic peer review because they are simply groundless nonsense.

I think the saddest thing is when deniers send off their little petitions, like the one sent to the President a few years ago, a list of just 100 and even in this so called cream of the crop, only a handful of scientists could be found, the list had to be padded with engineers and even an astronaut, even in the top ten of this list, that tells everyone just how much support denial has from scientists, and that would be zip!

Not definitive, but on the right track -- While practically all scientists who look at the raw data agree that there is climate change (in the sense of global warming), very few seem to agree with the drastic model that's the favourite of politicians and journalists.

I haven't read Cook's material in any real sense, but the bits I've seen seem to be trying to prove that science has become highly politicized.

These people are really a menace to science. There are plenty of leftists out there who have enough common sense but these fascist at Skeptical Science have done more to promote garbage than anything else. It took me about a minute to figure out what kind of site it is. When I see someone quote from them, I know they are true "believers".

The issue ought to be with the definition of "scientists" when it comes to the supposed support of APG in the "scientific community." Most of the so-called scientists are not career scientists but were hired to lend support to a predetermined conclusion.

There's an old saying, if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bulls**t.

Its only 75 Scientist and cooked papers from the IPCC .

Its pure fiction

No, it is not. It is a person trying to confuse the issue once again.

Why not start with page 1? - http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/...

!. What the climatologists agree on is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will induce a warming of the climate and that human activities are adding tons/day of CO2 into the atmosphere. They will also agree that the destruction of rain forests, paving over soil and strip mining are activities that compound the issue. They will agree that increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere will lead to ocean acidification. They will also agree that as the climate warms that harmful specie migrations will occur and this will have negative impacts on the native biosphere of the region.

2. “Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers he surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” - This is correct, except it was not just Cook that was able to determine this..

"This is a fairly clear statement―97 percent of the papers surveyed endorsed the view that man-made greenhouse gases were the main cause―main in common usage meaning more than 50 percent." - This is incorrect. Yes, it is a fairly clear statement made by Cook but Cook never said the scientists made the statement that greenhouse gases are the main cause. Alex Epstein, if wished to be honest, would have said the scientists agree that human emissions are contributing to the climate change that occurring now.

Epstein never gets to the root issue. The AGWT itself. He never provides any evidence that the AGWT is not the scientific theory that bets explains the observations being made concerning our chnaging climate now. I thought that you are a skeptic, Sagebrush. Why are you not as equally skeptical of anything that Epstein is saying as you are of anything that the scientists are saying. Do you reveal your bias?

In their forum, they were discussing problems with their methodology, then went ahead and used their acknowledged problematic methodology anyway. They had the 97% number in mind, and the ratings were done by denizens of Skeptical Science.

It's kinda takes the irony of the name of the website "Skeptical Science" to a whole new level. Gotta support the team: