Fraud-backers have managed to block publication of a scientific paper questioning the IPCC’s assertion on the effect of CO2 on climate. Careful, ant, if you read this you will cease to be sufficiently ignorant to assert the AGW fraud.

• “ Professor Bengtsson's research suggested carbon dioxide may be less damaging to the planet than feared
• Says he's been subjected to 'unbearable' pressure from other researchers

• Has warned of increasing politicisation of the once 'peaceful' science
• Others describe a 'poisonous atmosphere' fuelled by plotting researchers”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2630958/I-victimised-challenging-zealots-says-Professor-Poison-plots-battle-neuter-climate-change-critics.html

Dear Leo Lane,

Sorry mate I have indeed been ignoring you for far too long. It is your turn now and you have my undivided attention.

Let's look together at a recent post from your good self.

You asserted;

“There is a peer-reviewed survey showing that only 36% of scientists consider that global warming is caused by humans.”

My question to you is do you really believe there is a peer reviewed study showing only 36% of scientists consider global warming is caused by humans? If there is could you please provide it because your link certainly doesn't.

Others might regard you as being happy to dump regurgitated garbage into this forum but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt. You could retract your assertion or stand by it. Your choice.

Steele, thanks for your interest. Here is the link: http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full.

The survey was done last year, so if you know of a later one, please let us know.

Ant gives us a reference to Realclimate, the site of the Climategate miscreant, Michael Mann.

Mann has sued Tim Ball, a prominent climate scientist, for saying that Mann should be in the State penitentiary for his climate science activities. Mann is now required to produce his work on the infamous “hockey stick to the Court. Perhaps we should await the outcome of the case, before considering Mann as a scientific reference.
So far, Mann has falsely submitted to the Court that he is a Nobel Laureate, and that he was cleared by enquiries into Climategate. He altered a quote from the Muir Russell enquiry in a misleading way, before submission to the Court. All reasons to anticipate a good result for Ball against Mann.

Dear Leo Lane,

Nah mate you have stuffed the link up. You were going to direct me toward a study that showed “a peer-reviewed survey showing that only 36% of scientists consider that global warming is caused by humans”. I've already gone through that one and it ain't it.

You see that particular study drew “from survey responses of 1077 professional engineers and geoscientists” so certainly not all scientists.

More importantly was the location Alberta, Canada, you know the place, that is where the tar sands are, the dirtiest form of petrochemical mining known to man kind.

“To answer this question, we consider how climate change is constructed by professional engineers and geoscientists in the province of Alberta, Canada. We begin by describing our research context and the strategic importance of Canadian oil worldwide, to the economy of Canada, and the province of Alberta. We outline the influential role of engineers and geoscientists within this industry, which allows them to affect national and international policy.”

Of course the survey targeted at a truly unbiased group, the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA), keeping in mind “the petroleum industry – through oil and gas companies, related industrial services, and consulting services – is the largest employer, either directly or indirectly, of professional engineers and geoscientists in Alberta”.

APEGA paid for it, distributed the questionnaire in the association's newsletter 'The Pegg”and only 1 in 40 members bothered to reply.

But even given all that only 24% of the respondents thought that humans were having no impact on global warming.

So dear Leo this couldn't have been the survey you had touted because to have used this make the unqualified claim that “only 36% of scientists consider that global warming is caused by humans” would be truly scurrilous and shameful. It would be like quoting tobacco scientist to make the case that smoking isn't harmful.

No I don't think even you would sink that low my friend so I put this down to a simple mistake and invite you to provide a link to the real study.

Mr Redux peddling mischief as usual. The scientists who are sceptical, an oxymoron, which unfortunately has to said because of the capture by AGW ideologues of the description, "scientists" greatly outnumber the alarmists.

The Oregon Petition is a great example of this and a credit for those scientists brave enough to resist the bullying and unscientific tactics of the alarmists:

http://www.petitionproject.org/

AGW is not a product of science but ideology and faith; which is why its supporters are so unreasonable and condescending; they have seen the light.

Dear cohenite,

I believe in your excitement you had really meant to write;

"AGW is not a product of science but ideology and faith; which is why its supporters are so unreasonable and condescending; they have seen the photoluminecence."