poirot/wrote..<<.Regarding..your stellar..article/on consensus-
here's John Cook..on his method on "consensus">>

i never heard of the dude
[p you know names are meaningless to me]

so i visited your link
presuming nothing..cause i thought you posted..MY link

http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

but..it seems its your link
[what confused me..was your refuting..john someone..and linking him..to heartland[who ever that is]

so..i went to the site
[i suppose i should have read the name of the site
ignored the huge two big key words..SKEPTICAL SCIENCE*

IN itself designed to..confuse and confound[ie spin]
then in smaller type

GETTING skeptical..about skeptical science

its WARMIST spin that..seems to be implying 95% concensus..
that was refuted by my link..that i presumed your link refuted..but it seems..we are both are unclear here.

but your words wernt clear..[either]

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

so i looked at YOUR ARTICLE..saw john someone's name
presumed..he was the guy you joined to heart-land whatever
but it wasnt at your link[or rather..it was..and thats the prat in the vidio..[john?][right]..hes the one you rekon is all heart?

<<I suspect if we scratch the surface>>
OF YOUR OWN LINK?..or mine?..refuting your last link?

think poirot..it truth is true..it don need be this confused

SOMEONE is spinning a wicked web

<<we'll find Heartland lurking there somewhere.>>

so what..science is science
[ps these papers wouldnt happen to BE
*students 'papers'..read RE_VIEWED..by their teacher./.[johnheartland whoever?

<<Now let's see....The author of said article is one James Taylor.>>

which article..your link
or mine

dear we must be clear to our mates
same for you belly..look at my proofs..if you refute a link..please say which link

we must..be truthfully CLEAR..to each other..here at olo

[ps watched two minutes of qanda..but crosszombie comment ruined it for me]..all i saw was 5 business lobby lobbying..for business..and less cost for them..more burden on me..

funny [no its sad]..how we only see
what we want/expect..to see.

the well has been polluted/who..paid for
that many biased papers[non mot even papers..something called..<<''abstracts on the subject 'global climate change'>>..thus get your students to wire extracts..[keeping it all in house]

is..not science..its parroting back
the taught rot..back..to..the preacher
note the numbers..surveyed..it that the same as per his student-numbers?

john..is clearly a kid..and biased
he is heartland?

cross-zombie..is the project of origen the same project
[or just students/activists].. doing it..in house with 'earth scientist' phd/greenies?

regardless they must all..have agendas..not facts
JUST THE..FACTS

belly..let talk science
from your biased link
[read the title..that alone is the giveaway

<<..Climate..change:..when ignorance*..is a recipe*..for disaster>>

ie..name-calling
climate deniers are ignorant
by..inference you warmists are genious

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/climate-change-when-ignorance-is-a-recipe-for-disaster-20131111-2xccy.html#ixzz2kNVx8KOz

anyhow next the spin
then the clever visual..affirmative picture..to let the spin..sink-in

<<..one question being asked is whether it is the strongest on record.

The answer? Based on the estimate by the US military's installation on Hawaii, the Joint Typhoon Warning Centre, it was the most powerful recorded cyclone to make landfall. It hit the Philippines with sustained winds of 305km/h to 315km/h.>>

emotive pictures etc deleted
then..the 'balance'

<<Japan's Meteorological Agency, however, estimated it to be much weaker, at some 230km/h. That wouldn't put it in the top 10.>>

but to..get to..that bit
you..have to wade/through..this bit

read it..and think why..so much bias
sits between..the first fear..and its eventual..lol..*balance

the/cut info

Residents..loot**water damaged sacks..ie,.RUBBI$H

Residents loot..water damaged*sacks.
of rice..from..a rice warehouse. Photo: AFP

*..Residents..loot water damaged.sacks of rice from a rice warehouse.
*..A young/survivor carries..a bag of rice..from a warehouse which they stormed..due to shortage of food.
*..People..throw items..out from a warehouse.

Dazed survivors.begged..for help..and scavenged for food,water and medicine..on Monday,..as relief workers..struggled to reach victims.
*..Philippine police and..soldiers..are deployed..to stop rampant/looting.

*.Roy Cagbian,28,stands with his daughters, 7-month-old Shandev and 3-year-old Ashley..in front of..their home destroyed*

*..A man walks home..with his son..through the devastated streets.
*..Survivors..cover their noses..from the stench of bodies left on streets.

*..A father..carries the lifeless body..of his daughter.on the way to the morgue.
*..A man and child..walk past dead bodies along the streets.
*..This aerial photo..taken from a Philippine/Air Force helicopter shows.a cut-off road

*..Residents queue up]..to receive treatment..and relief supplies at Tacloban.
*..Workers load aid packages..for the victims of typhoon 'Haiyan' in the Philippines..into a Lufthansa aircraft..at Frankfurt International Airport.
*;.Staff..load a Hercules aeroplane..with base camps and communications equipment..at Orebro airport..in central Sweden.
*..View all 46 photo/s

HOW..LOW>>>will*THEY..GO*

OUG,

Well, it appears that that was a pointless exercise.

Whodathunk you were so easily confused?

Let me break it down a little.

You posted this article, replete with quotes:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/

"Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming.

After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics.

At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism."

My mistake was assuming that you had read your article and were cognizant of the person being targeted in it....who was mentioned thus:

"Global warming alarmist John Cook, founder of the misleadingly named blog site Skeptical Science..."

So I put up a link to his site and an explanation of his method for his consensus paper.

Next I pointed out that the author of your article was a James Taylor who is affiliated with Heartland and titled something called a "Heartland Expert" (Heartland being a front group for fossil fuel interests and big business)

Also included in your article was a lament by Craig Idso that he'd been wronged by John Cook's paper. Craig Idso turns out to be linked to Heartland also, in their employ and President of the NIPCC - a front group for Heartland (who's prime reason for existence is to attempt to imitate the IPCC and publish junk-science in opposition to "real" scientists.)

There is nothing misleading about "skeptical".

It's the "fake skeptics" who have tarnished the word.

Their skepticism is ideological, not science-based. The science is skewed by fake "skeptics" to fit their ideology.

Hence we have this thread put up to infer that "real" scientists need a commission to decide "science" because the IPCC and the many thousands of affiliated scientists are corrupt.

Poirot,

You keep telling us about the << IPCC and the many thousands of affiliated scientists >>

Can you tell us more about these “many thousands” please because the IPCC and NIPCC reports both draw their conclusions from the same body of published scientific research. So the equivalent lead authors and reviewers actually looks like this.

NIPCC issued its current report, Climate Change Reconsidered II (CCR-II), a book of more than a thousand pages citing nearly 5,000 peer-reviewed scientific references and written or reviewed by some 50 climate scientists.

It looks like the IPCC falls well short of the NIPCC’s numbers?

IPCC AR5

Group 1 (WG 1)

Coordinating Lead Authors: Ulrich Cubasch (Germany), Donald Wuebbles (USA)
Lead Authors: Deliang Chen (Sweden), Maria Cristina Facchini (Italy), David Frame (UK/New Zealand),
Natalie Mahowald (USA), Jan-Gunnar Winther (Norway)
Contributing Authors: Achim Brauer (Germany), Valérie Masson-Delmotte (France), Frank Kaspar
(Germany), Janina Körper (Germany), Malte Meinshausen (Australia/Germany), Matthew Menne (USA),
Carolin Richter (Switzerland), Michael Schulz (Germany), Bjorn Stevens (Germany/USA), Rowan Sutton
(UK), Kevin Trenberth (USA), Murat Türke&#351; (Turkey), Daniel S. Ward (USA)
Review Editors: Yihui Ding (China), Linda Mearns (USA), Peter Wadhams (UK)

Group II (WG II) assesses the vulnerability of socio-economic and natural systems to climate change.

Group III (WG III) assesses options for mitigating climate change through limiting or preventing greenhouse gas emissions.

And this from one of the IPCC’s own reviewers.

“Dr Vincent Gray, the New Zealand scientist who has been an expert reviewer of every IPCC Assessment Report so far summarises the repeated fudges in their preparation. He writes: "Attempts of the IPCC to impose rigid discipline on a large group of scientists to persuade them to claim that human emissions of so-called greenhouse gases harm the climate, without being able to supply convincing evidence, has been a failure. Even their opinions on the supposed reliability of their 'projections' always leave an increasingly small escape route for the day when their approach is proved wrong.

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

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

At the start of every Q&A an audience breakdown is shown on the screen. I presume they ask the audience in advance, just as they must ask them what questions they want to put.