.
Thanks, Steele, for your further input and demonstration of the mental processes of a fraud-backer, or, in your case, a sneaky fraud-backer. I gave the link to that article in the first post in which I mentioned the survey. You pressed for the link to the peer reviewed survey, which I gave you.
The article, which was the original reference upon which I relied, says “ geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming Claims”.

You left this out, Witless, so your sneaky mendacity has dumped you right in it again.
If only you could escape the delusion that you are smart, you would not create these situations, and make such a fool of yourself

Come in spinner.

Dear Leo,

The precise reason I asked you for a direct link to the survey was so you couldn't use an excuse like “The article, which was the original reference upon which I relied”. You can't blame the article if you had taken the time to read the survey for yourself and I gave you every opportunity to do so.

The same applies now. Have you looked at the surveys of meteorologists referenced by the senior fellow from the Heartland Institute or are you just regurgitating his garbage again? Please note I am not saying the studies are garbage, they are what they are, rather it is his take on them that stinks to high heaven. Since you are mainly quoting him you have brought that odour here.

Go read the studies he speaks of and we can have a conversation.

Thanks, Steele, that is about as rational as your brilliant commentary on the article; "regurgitated garbage".
I know that you have to be careful not to learn anything, since it is your ignorance which sustains your ability to support the AGW fraud, but it does disqualify you from rational discussion.

“That is utter fraud in anyone's eyes” No, Steele, only in the eyes of an ignoramus , like yourself. What I said is supported because of the surveys showing the alignment of the opinions of the scientists. Steele wants to hide part of the evidence known to everyone, to claim something to be untrue. Rat cunning is only rewarded like that in your delusional world, Steele, not in the real world.

I see no reason to question the assertion about the surveys of meteorologists being aligned in their outcome with the survey of engineers and scientists. As Steele points out, the article emanates from Heartland, which I have found to be a reliable source. I have seen no valid criticism of it. The fraud-backers are reduced to criticizing it on the sources of its funding, not on its activity or information.. Steele might want to impugn the reference to the surveys, if it were possible, as it might partially redeem his situation.

I looked at one of the reports which says, in part:.

Only 24 percent of the survey respondents agree with United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assertion, “Most of the warming since 1950 is very likely human-induced.”
Only 19 percent agree with the claim, “Global climate models are reliable in their projection for a warming of the planet.”
Only 19 percent agree with the assertion, “Global climate models are reliable in their projections for precipitation and drought.”
Only 45 percent disagree with Weather Channel cofounder John Coleman’s strongly worded statement, “Global warming is a scam.”

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2010/02/01/meteorologists-reject-uns-global-warming-claims

I found this quite encouraging. The truth is not yet buried.

Hello, do you know how can I　post my opinion on the Article section?

I have got to laugh at/with this from Leo Lane:

<<Steele wants to hide part of the evidence known to everyone, to claim something to be untrue. Rat cunning is only rewarded like that in your delusional world, Steele, not in the real world.>>

It's uncanny how unrelated posters, on a disperate assortment of threads, can come up with exactly the same charcter assessment of Steele --LOL.