Who believes in global warming?

Well, right now, on Q&A, five business leaders are all supporting a price on carbon, deploring the bad politics calling it a 'tax', and saying that most businesses already factor in a price on carbon.

Q&A, that leftist ABC conspiracy, has 44% coalition supporters in the audience. (Actually, on the last couple of programs I watched, the numbers were pretty balanced coalition v. labor/green)

you know..i..love you p..so i must still say this

you said..

<<..But let's..have a closer look at your article..>>

then ignore the articles facts
and go the auther

but you just said

,,<<But let's have a closer look at your article>>

so lets ignore thhe guy
AND LOOK AT WHAT the articles is saying

refuting any of it?

let me begin

do you agree this is true
[i posted the link under..but wish to talk of the red picture]

on the actual article
http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

hoping we could begin with agreeing

[the picture leads here
but its ccc-rap
http://theconsensusproject.com/#sharePage

anyhow the writing onthe picture
that goes to..a web site..

BUT*

lets write the words..of the picture..it says..

<<>.97%..of climate papers..>>

thousands right?

then notice the conditional modifying clauses

<<..97%..of climate PAPERS..[*stating a position]..
on..*HUMAN CAUSED*..global warming..>>

ok how many left..how many ?
no..really talk numbers..how many?

please think..ONLY 97.%.percent..of
the specific papers..STATING A POSITION..on human CAUSED global WARMING agree

ok..AGREE ON..WHAT?

<<..AGREE global;..warmiing is HAPPENING..and..WE are the cause>>

okhe says this regarding that

<<..Skeptical Science's 2013 'The Consensus Project'

Scientists need to back up their opinions with research and data that survive the peer-review process. A Skeptical Science peer-reviewed survey of all (over 12,000) peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' and 'global warming' published between 1991 and 2011 (Cook et al. 2013) found that over 97% of the papers taking a position on the subject agreed with the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

In a second phase of the project, the scientist authors were emailed and rated over 2,000 of their own papers. Once again, over 97% of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming agreed that humans are causing it.>>

ok..agree or disagree?

is it right or wrong[ignore the auther]

are the facts fact..
or spin..[who..s[pun?]..where is he wrong so far?

Climate Myth...

There is no consensus

The Petition Project..features over 31,000 scientists signing the petition stating "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere ...". (Petition Project)

http://www.petitionproject.org/

is this true[forget authers/names]
this is just basic fact checking

true or false?

Here is some background on the Oregon Petition. In 1998 the OISM circulated the Oregon Petition, a deceptive "scientists' petition" skeptical of global warming: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine.

A quote:

"In reality, neither Robinson's paper nor OISM's petition drive had anything to do with the National Academy of Sciences, which first heard about the petition when its members began calling to ask if the NAS had taken a stand against the Kyoto treaty. Robinson was not even a climate scientist. He was a biochemist with no published research in the field of climatology, and his paper had never been subjected to peer review by anyone with training in the field. In fact, the paper had never been accepted for publication anywhere, let alone in the NAS Proceedings. It was self-published by Robinson, who did the typesetting himself on his own computer. (It was subsequently published as a "review" in Climate Research, which contributed to an editorial scandal at that publication."

As the anti-AGW people have been warning, you have to be cautious about impressive arguments based on selective use of data. It works both ways.

Crossomby,

<< most businesses already factor in a price on carbon>>
And most businesses in Hongkong factor in a price for feng shui--the hole in this wall was made to let the dragons through.
http://tinyurl.com/mex2py4

I'm told that on most warmist maps & charts there are the words beyond "here be dragons" or words to effect that!

<<Q&A, that leftist ABC conspiracy, has 44% coalition supporters in the audience.>>

hmmm, I'd love to know how you made that determination!

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/climate-change-when-ignorance-is-a-recipe-for-disaster-20131111-2xccy.html
Any reader of this link should at least see it try,s very hard to be balanced.
It rebuffs some things but in the end warns us, well what does it warn us.
Yes that scientists have told us the truth.
But if we just take only the evidence of our own eyes and ears, surely we will know some thing has changed and continues to change.

A day will come that holds some to account, that warns us all about the simple truth, politics is driving public opinion, not the science.