Which debunked study are you and he referring to? The Oregon Petition?

If you read the thread, you'd know which study was being referred to.  I'm okay with regurgitating information a few times over in threads, but this particular subtopic came up repeatedly already and there are numerous links throughout the multiple discussions on it.

It's entertaining stuff anyway, you shouldn't be skipping to the last page in a months old thread.

I have actually replied to your posts directly in the past and in the last few days.

I just wanted to make sure you were not referring the the TOTALLY debunked Oregon Petition, which has been shown to be complete nonsense, to the point that the person who organized the "petition" couldn't explain how is favorite Spice Girl, Geri Hollaway, happened to sign the petition.

I looked at the link you posted. I then Googled the authors name of the "97% study" (his first and last names were listed in the article). I ehn found an article in Forbes by James Taylor. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/

I then clicked the link in the article that links to the "investigative journalist's" website. I looked at his name...when I saw what he listed as his name, I stopped reading. If he, as a professional, cannot stand behind his words, why should I believe them?

Perhaps you could look at the very long list I posted in post #348 which lists over 50 scientific societies that agree that warming is due to humans...and the summary of the IPCC as well.

If he won't stand behind his words, why should I believe him? I see no compelling argument to do so. To go back and check his work would require that I feel his work has information that would prove useful. What is his pedigree to even conduct a study like this?

If I said " "Fred" feels that humans have increased carbon dioxide emissions over the last 50 years", would you say "Oh well, I don't need anymore evidence because Fred says humans are causing the world to become warmer"? I think not. Why? You know why.

Tsk tsk. You didn't bite hard enough.

You are right. The posted link to the AAS is broken.

But, if you had taken the time, as I did, to look in the upper right hand corner of the page, you could have used the search function and plugged in "climate change". You would have then found 25 hits with those search terms.

You could have also, you know, read my post, because I copied and pasted their statement in post #385. It's right there. Go back and check...or not.

And to clarify, they are NOT op-ed articles. They are statements by SCIENTIFIC societies and academies that state that, as a unified body and in their EXPERT opinion, climate change is caused by humans. That is, they are willing to base their professional reputations on this opinion.

What do astronomers have to do with climate change? Uhhh...they study the climates of other planets. Like Jupiter and Mars.

If you are making the charge that they are op-ed pieces, show proof.

Did you read the IPCC's summary released on the 27th? Did you see how they took the time to quantify the degree of consensus and the quality of the research? I thinks they already are.

Here are the first and second footnotes from WGIAR5. You'll see that they attempt to describe the quality of the data they are using and the probability that various outcomes will occur.

1 In this Summary for Policymakers, the following summary terms are used to describe the available
evidence: limited, medium, or robust; and for the degree of agreement: low, medium, or high. A level of
confidence is expressed using five qualifiers: very low, low, medium, high, and very high, and typeset in
italics, e.g., medium confidence. For a given evidence and agreement statement, different confidence levels
can be assigned, but increasing levels of evidence and degrees of agreement are correlated with increasing
confidence (see Chapter 1 and Box TS.1 for more details).
2 In this Summary for Policymakers, the following terms have been used to indicate the assessed likelihood
of an outcome or a result: virtually certain 99–100% probability, very likely 90–100%, likely 66–100%, about
as likely as not 33–66%, unlikely 0–33%, very unlikely 0–10%, exceptionally unlikely 0–1%. Additional terms
(extremely likely: 95–100%, more likely than not >50–100%, and extremely unlikely 0–5%) may also be used
when appropriate. Assessed likelihood is typeset in italics, e.g., very likely (see Chapter 1 and Box TS.1 for
more details).

As I said on the last page, you're equating lobbyists with scientists.  Many of those organizations aren't even lobbyist organizations, but direct government entities.  In either case they are beholden to the people in power.

Geological Association X is like the AMA, or the AARP.  Retired people don't necessarily share the opinions of the AARP, doctors don't necessarily share the opinions of the AMA.  Most of their members don't even pay attention to what positions they're backing.  Not all of them are members to begin with, the only use most of them get from being a member is hanging the certificate up in their office saying they belong to association whatever.  People in scientific fields collect them like flies, and they typically have little bearing outside of decoration.

When you list supporting lobbyists as proof of widespread support among scientists for a political position, you're implying that lobbyists for research funding would do anything besides support the position that gets them research grants.  Their sole purpose in life is to get money out of the various legislatures around the world, for purposes of growing their membership by showing their use to the scientists they get grants for.

The people in power are pro AGW because they need reasons to control activities without being removed, they won't be lining up grants for organizations that balk them.

You obviously haven't looked into the activities they undertake.

ANGA is a lobbyist organization, so is the IPAA.  Any environmentalist worth a damn will tell you what terrible organizations they are, spending their money corrupting D.C. with their evil oil mongering ways.  ANGA is America's Natural Gas Association, IPAA is the Independent Petroleum Association of America.

They're associations, just like the AMS or the GSA.  They have a large contingent of lobbyists working out of an office in D.C. that do nothing but wheedle money out of congress.  The AMS works from 1200 NY Ave NW, just a little off from Capitol Hill.  There are dozens of lobbyist organizations working out of that building, much of your list is there.  The Council of Non-Profits is headquartered in that building, so is the Center for Lobbying in the Public Interest.

They trade favors, illegally on occasion, in return for support for their organizations.  They fund lobbying efforts from their membership dues, in order to increase membership or obtain other methods of income.  Grants get them a nice dollar sign to send out with their yearly statements.  Look at how much money congress gave you this year!  What the grant is for is irrelevant, if the people in congress wanted to give the AMS grants to study MLP, they'd do what they needed to get them.  Some poor bastard with no self respect would stop paying attention to the weather and start surveying brony's instead.

They are not altruistic, they may not even serve the interests of their members.  The AMA barely pays lip service to theirs.  They get their real power from being sole owners of the medical billing codes the entire country is required to pay them for.  Doctors are fleeing medicine in droves, but they stand behind that disaster of a health care bill as if it were going to make them all rich.

You think of them as societies of scientists, but that's like saying the US congress actually represents the people.  Most don't even vote, nearly half that voted did so for the other guy, and the ones that did vote for them probably would have preferred almost anyone else to the corrupt pieces of crap they had a choice in.

William Connelly.

No, I am showing you that you are wrong.  You stated that it was the vast majority of scientists.  I am showing you it is not.  And also backing up my statement with scientific data.

That is how it is supposed to be done.  I am sorry you think it is spam.  It is actually educational for most people.

Actually it has 0 climate scientists.  But then none of the other sources have any climate scientists either.  Flagyl's list contains geologists, physicists, meteorologists, and a whole bunch of other ists.  But no Climate Scientists (as apparently defined by you).

Let us look at the leaders of the movement.  Michael Mann.  Does he have a CS degree?  Nope.  Phil Jones?  Nope. Pachauri?  Nope.  Trenberth?  Nope.  Briffa?  Nope.  Amman?  Nope. Cook?  nope. Nuccitelli?  Nope. Schmidt? Nope

Indeed, if you canvas all the universities in the world, you will find only a half dozen offering degrees in Climate science, and none of the authors have such a degree.

But that is all non sequitur, since the issue was "scientists" (read the challenge) and not "climate scientists".  I am merely providing proof that indeed, the supposed consensus is total bunk.  Science is not about consensus.  It is about discerning the truth.  Consensus would have us believe the earth was flat, phlogiston is the element that creates fire, and aether is what we breath.  heretics are the ones that found the earth was round, fire is simply a chemical process, and the atmosphere is comprised of 2 primary gases.

Ooh, ooh!  I know that one!

Methane and Oxygen!

The 'science' of grammar would have you say 'and none of the authors has such a degree'.

'none' is a contraction of 'not one' so is singular - in spite of 'authors' being plural .... ...