Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory

[shira]

Originally posted by: bbdub333

Originally posted by: shira

In other words, they have a preconceived opposition to anthropogenic climate change, and they're just trying to find arguments to support their locked-in beliefs.

You act as if it isn't exactly the same on the other side of the issue. Even from your own post your bias is painfully evident. Most people here seem to discount his posts as "right-wing propaganda" without actually even addressing anything related to the issue, simply because he takes an opposing view. I've seen it on multiple occasions, and each time the justification is similar.

The only intellectual dishonesty is coming from posters like yourself.

But the basis of the "propaganda" charge in this case HAS been addressed thoroughly is this thread:

Counting a paper that expresses no opinion on a issue as somehow being equivalent to the paper's writer having no opinion on the issue is clearly a grossly erroneous assumption. And using this dubious methodology to draw conclusions about the attitudes of the entire community of climatologists (not just paper writers) is even more ludicrous.

But it gets worse: ProfJohn shifts his criteria based on which criteria appear to serve him. If using consensus/lack of consensus serves his purpose, he uses it (as he does here). If it doesn't serve his purpose (as is true in other threads), he claims consensus is somehow meaningless.

Heads, he wins. Tails, we lose.

That's direct evidence of intellectual dishonesty. That you think we're just making unsubstantiated claims reveals your own bias.

 

[bbdub333]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: bbdub333

Originally posted by: shira

In other words, they have a preconceived opposition to anthropogenic climate change, and they're just trying to find arguments to support their locked-in beliefs.

You act as if it isn't exactly the same on the other side of the issue. Even from your own post your bias is painfully evident. Most people here seem to discount his posts as "right-wing propaganda" without actually even addressing anything related to the issue, simply because he takes an opposing view. I've seen it on multiple occasions, and each time the justification is similar.

The only intellectual dishonesty is coming from posters like yourself.

But the basis of the "propaganda" charge in this case HAS been addressed thoroughly is this thread:

Counting a paper that expresses no opinion on a issue as somehow being equivalent to the paper's writer having no opinion on the issue is clearly a grossly erroneous assumption. And using this dubious methodology to draw conclusions about the attitudes of the entire community of climatologists (not just paper writers) is even more ludicrous.

But it gets worse: ProfJohn shifts his criteria based on which criteria appear to serve him. If using consensus/lack of consensus serves his purpose, he uses it (as he does here). If it doesn't serve his purpose (as is true in other threads), he claims consensus is somehow meaningless.

Heads, he wins. Tails, we lose.

That's direct evidence of intellectual dishonesty. That you think we're just making unsubstantiated claims reveals your own bias.

So do you also discount the original study which claimed there was an "overwhelming" consensus, and which is so often cited as proof that there is no debate that we are causing global warming? It is just as vague and just as dubious in its assertions and definitions.

And if you do not discount that study, then you must also accept this one as being accurate, as it is using the exact same methodology. I see people claiming this study is bogus, but there was never an uproar over the original, which made some pretty big leaps of logic and used fuzzy definitions to make its point.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: bbdub333

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: bbdub333

Originally posted by: shira

In other words, they have a preconceived opposition to anthropogenic climate change, and they're just trying to find arguments to support their locked-in beliefs.

You act as if it isn't exactly the same on the other side of the issue. Even from your own post your bias is painfully evident. Most people here seem to discount his posts as "right-wing propaganda" without actually even addressing anything related to the issue, simply because he takes an opposing view. I've seen it on multiple occasions, and each time the justification is similar.

The only intellectual dishonesty is coming from posters like yourself.

But the basis of the "propaganda" charge in this case HAS been addressed thoroughly is this thread:

Counting a paper that expresses no opinion on a issue as somehow being equivalent to the paper's writer having no opinion on the issue is clearly a grossly erroneous assumption. And using this dubious methodology to draw conclusions about the attitudes of the entire community of climatologists (not just paper writers) is even more ludicrous.

But it gets worse: ProfJohn shifts his criteria based on which criteria appear to serve him. If using consensus/lack of consensus serves his purpose, he uses it (as he does here). If it doesn't serve his purpose (as is true in other threads), he claims consensus is somehow meaningless.

Heads, he wins. Tails, we lose.

That's direct evidence of intellectual dishonesty. That you think we're just making unsubstantiated claims reveals your own bias.

So do you also discount the original study which claimed there was an "overwhelming" consensus, and which is so often cited as proof that there is no debate that we are causing global warming? It is just as vague and just as dubious in its assertions and definitions.

And if you do not discount that study, then you must also accept this one as being accurate, as it is using the exact same methodology. I see people claiming this study is bogus, but there was never an uproar over the original, which made some pretty big leaps of logic and used fuzzy definitions to make its point.

You're making an assumption that I accept the existence of a consensus based on the earlier study. I don't (I didn't even know the earlier study existed, and I would question the validity its conclusions just as vehemently if it used the same methods).

I accept that there's a consensus based on publications and statements by major scientific organizations and bodies that represent the broad scientific community: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, and others, all of which have published recent statements that human activity appears to be a major contributor to climate change. Here's the most recent statement by the IPCC:
2007 Summary by the IPCC

Furthermore, I'm not "invested" in the conclusion that significant anthropogenic climate change exists. I accept the theory only because there appears to be a strong consensus. If, for example, there were a REAL lack of scientific consensus on this, I'd treat that as strong evidence that actual cause of the observed climate change was uncertain and I'd probably become a fence-sitter.

In other words, I'm not shifting my criteria. I accept that scientists by and large exhibit independence, especially if their work isn't being funded by a group that has a vested interest in the outcome. Thus, the existence of a consensus or lack thereof means something to me.

Contrast this with ProfJohn: He questions scientific independence when confronted with a consensus. But just show him a study that purports to show a lack of consensus, and suddenly he's a big believer in scientific independence. He can't have it both ways.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: bbdub333

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: bbdub333

Originally posted by: shira

In other words, they have a preconceived opposition to anthropogenic climate change, and they're just trying to find arguments to support their locked-in beliefs.

You act as if it isn't exactly the same on the other side of the issue. Even from your own post your bias is painfully evident. Most people here seem to discount his posts as "right-wing propaganda" without actually even addressing anything related to the issue, simply because he takes an opposing view. I've seen it on multiple occasions, and each time the justification is similar.

The only intellectual dishonesty is coming from posters like yourself.

But the basis of the "propaganda" charge in this case HAS been addressed thoroughly is this thread:

Counting a paper that expresses no opinion on a issue as somehow being equivalent to the paper's writer having no opinion on the issue is clearly a grossly erroneous assumption. And using this dubious methodology to draw conclusions about the attitudes of the entire community of climatologists (not just paper writers) is even more ludicrous.

But it gets worse: ProfJohn shifts his criteria based on which criteria appear to serve him. If using consensus/lack of consensus serves his purpose, he uses it (as he does here). If it doesn't serve his purpose (as is true in other threads), he claims consensus is somehow meaningless.

Heads, he wins. Tails, we lose.

That's direct evidence of intellectual dishonesty. That you think we're just making unsubstantiated claims reveals your own bias.

So do you also discount the original study which claimed there was an "overwhelming" consensus, and which is so often cited as proof that there is no debate that we are causing global warming? It is just as vague and just as dubious in its assertions and definitions.

And if you do not discount that study, then you must also accept this one as being accurate, as it is using the exact same methodology. I see people claiming this study is bogus, but there was never an uproar over the original, which made some pretty big leaps of logic and used fuzzy definitions to make its point.

The study is fine, your conclusions are the problem. All this study showed was that there is little debate about the cause of global warming and therefor no reason to publish about it. Additional of those who published about the case the vast majority linked global warming to human activity.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: bbdub333

Originally posted by: shira

In other words, they have a preconceived opposition to anthropogenic climate change, and they're just trying to find arguments to support their locked-in beliefs.

You act as if it isn't exactly the same on the other side of the issue. Even from your own post your bias is painfully evident. Most people here seem to discount his posts as "right-wing propaganda" without actually even addressing anything related to the issue, simply because he takes an opposing view. I've seen it on multiple occasions, and each time the justification is similar.

The only intellectual dishonesty is coming from posters like yourself.

This isn't "science camp", not everyone gets a turn to be right. If you can back up an argument, do so. If not, sit down, shut up, and listen to the people who can make an argument. "Bias" is a silly charge when it comes to science, of COURSE you're going to lean one way or the other...the real problem is what that opinion is based on. In ProJo's case, that opinion is based on nothing (or at least nothing scientific), while for a lot of us it's based on sound science and good reasoning. I don't see how "bias" in favor of the truth is a bad thing...

 

[ProfJohn]

What is with all the people attacking me for MY opinion? MY opinion is no where to be found in this thread.

I posted two articles that are based on the opinions of scientists. Instead of making cheap attacks and insults against me, why not refute what the scientists are saying?

1. The idea of a consensus is just totally bogus, on either side. There is just way to much differing opinion the subject of GW.

2. We already know that there are major problems with using CO2 to ?prove? anything about global warming. First off the idea that raising CO2 is related to global warming is completely different than past warming where CO2 always FOLLOWED warming. CO2 is a trailing effect, not a leading effect. Second, the three articles at the start of the thread all reach the same conclusion that CO2 may not be as important or dangerous when it comes to GW as we thought.

Dispute those two points, which are made by scientists, and stop trying to distract from the point of the thread by throwing my name around.

 

[mfs378]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
What is with all the people attacking me for MY opinion? MY opinion is no where to be found in this thread.

I posted two articles that are based on the opinions of scientists. Instead of making cheap attacks and insults against me, why not refute what the scientists are saying?

1. The idea of a consensus is just totally bogus, on either side. There is just way to much differing opinion the subject of GW.

2. We already know that there are major problems with using CO2 to ?prove? anything about global warming. First off the idea that raising CO2 is related to global warming is completely different than past warming where CO2 always FOLLOWED warming. CO2 is a trailing effect, not a leading effect. Second, the three articles at the start of the thread all reach the same conclusion that CO2 may not be as important or dangerous when it comes to GW as we thought.

Dispute those two points, which are made by scientists, and stop trying to distract from the point of the thread by throwing my name around.

Look at the topic of your thread:

Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory

That is not supported by the article you posted. You are interpreting the facts, and I disagree with your interpretation. That is what is being criticized here.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
What is with all the people attacking me for MY opinion? MY opinion is no where to be found in this thread.

I posted two articles that are based on the opinions of scientists. Instead of making cheap attacks and insults against me, why not refute what the scientists are saying?

1. The idea of a consensus is just totally bogus, on either side. There is just way to much differing opinion the subject of GW.

2. We already know that there are major problems with using CO2 to ?prove? anything about global warming. First off the idea that raising CO2 is related to global warming is completely different than past warming where CO2 always FOLLOWED warming. CO2 is a trailing effect, not a leading effect. Second, the three articles at the start of the thread all reach the same conclusion that CO2 may not be as important or dangerous when it comes to GW as we thought.

Dispute those two points, which are made by scientists, and stop trying to distract from the point of the thread by throwing my name around.

I honestly don't see why we can't rip on you AND refute the articles posted in this thread. In fact, that's exactly what we did.

1. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, this point (as made in the first article) has been refuted several times already. It's an idiotic argument based on the idea that a lack of comment on a particular topic in a related paper proves that the particular topic in question is "uncertain" or "undecided". Without reading every paper in question, it's impossible to say whether or not man-made climate change wasn't addressed because there wasn't enough evidence or because it wasn't the topic of the paper. The conclusion drawn by the article is silly based on the available facts.

2. Interesting (the three articles, not your claim). I certainly think there are aspects of climate change science that we don't know everything about, but 3 articles is hardly a significant number. Now if those articles are not refuted by others, and if they gain more support, then we might be on to something. I'm certainly willing to grant that scientific consensus could be wrong, but 3 articles is only a small step in that direction. As for your claim about CO2, that really doesn't make sense. CO2 coming about as a natural reaction to global warming and man-made CO2 being responsible for global warming are two very different things, the first being a natural effect and the second being, well, not.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: mfs378

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
What is with all the people attacking me for MY opinion? MY opinion is no where to be found in this thread.

I posted two articles that are based on the opinions of scientists. Instead of making cheap attacks and insults against me, why not refute what the scientists are saying?

1. The idea of a consensus is just totally bogus, on either side. There is just way to much differing opinion the subject of GW.

2. We already know that there are major problems with using CO2 to ?prove? anything about global warming. First off the idea that raising CO2 is related to global warming is completely different than past warming where CO2 always FOLLOWED warming. CO2 is a trailing effect, not a leading effect. Second, the three articles at the start of the thread all reach the same conclusion that CO2 may not be as important or dangerous when it comes to GW as we thought.

Dispute those two points, which are made by scientists, and stop trying to distract from the point of the thread by throwing my name around.

Look at the topic of your thread:

Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory

That is not supported by the article you posted. You are interpreting the facts, and I disagree with your interpretation. That is what is being criticized here.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

Maybe I am wrong, but 45% equates to less than half right?

The other 54% either reject it or are neutral.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I honestly don't see why we can't rip on you AND refute the articles posted in this thread. In fact, that's exactly what we did.

1. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, this point (as made in the first article) has been refuted several times already. It's an idiotic argument based on the idea that a lack of comment on a particular topic in a related paper proves that the particular topic in question is "uncertain" or "undecided". Without reading every paper in question, it's impossible to say whether or not man-made climate change wasn't addressed because there wasn't enough evidence or because it wasn't the topic of the paper. The conclusion drawn by the article is silly based on the available facts.

2. Interesting (the three articles, not your claim). I certainly think there are aspects of climate change science that we don't know everything about, but 3 articles is hardly a significant number. Now if those articles are not refuted by others, and if they gain more support, then we might be on to something. I'm certainly willing to grant that scientific consensus could be wrong, but 3 articles is only a small step in that direction. As for your claim about CO2, that really doesn't make sense. CO2 coming about as a natural reaction to global warming and man-made CO2 being responsible for global warming are two very different things, the first being a natural effect and the second being, well, not.

1. Were you that skeptical of Al Gore when he spoke of a consensus? Or are you only making that argument because the facts are leaning the other direction now?

I hope you read the article and noticed that the researched used the exact same methodology as the researcher who came up with the ?consensus? argument. For the past three years we have heard over and over how there is a ?consensus? in the science field based on this survey. Now that they survey has been re-visited and shown to be false everyone wants to ignore the results?

2. Three research paper, by three different groups on three different continents and yet they all reach a related hypothesis. I guess the question becomes: how many papers are floating around that say something different than these three?

As the articles points out in its conclusion the impact or lack of impact of CO2 is HUGE. CO2 has become the primary focus of the Global Warming crowd and if there is evidence that shows that CO2 is not that big a problem then the GW crowd losses its biggest boogyman. Carbon trading, carbon neutral etc etc are all based on offsetting CO2. If CO2 is proven to not be that big of a deal then much of the push to limit CO2 emissions losses it power. Why spend literally billions of dollars world wide to cut emissions if it won?t make much difference long term?

 

[mfs378]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

Maybe I am wrong, but 45% equates to less than half right?

The other 54% either reject it or are neutral.

As I wrote above,

What is written in a paper does not necessarily represent the entirety of the views of the authors.

Your argument hinges upon the above statement being false, and that is a very, very weak foundation. You, however, seem to hold it up triumphantly as iron clad. You should expect criticism if you take such a position.

 

[mfs378]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
1. Were you that skeptical of Al Gore when he spoke of a consensus? Or are you only making that argument because the facts are leaning the other direction now?

I hope you read the article and noticed that the researched used the exact same methodology as the researcher who came up with the ?consensus? argument. For the past three years we have heard over and over how there is a ?consensus? in the science field based on this survey. Now that they survey has been re-visited and shown to be false everyone wants to ignore the results?

2. Three research paper, by three different groups on three different continents and yet they all reach a related hypothesis. I guess the question becomes: how many papers are floating around that say something different than these three?

As the articles points out in its conclusion the impact or lack of impact of CO2 is HUGE. CO2 has become the primary focus of the Global Warming crowd and if there is evidence that shows that CO2 is not that big a problem then the GW crowd losses its biggest boogyman. Carbon trading, carbon neutral etc etc are all based on offsetting CO2. If CO2 is proven to not be that big of a deal then much of the push to limit CO2 emissions losses it power. Why spend literally billions of dollars world wide to cut emissions if it won?t make much difference long term?

One thing we have to count on is that people believe what they say. If 7% give explicit endorsement and 38% do so implicitly, then at least 45% agree that humans are affecting the climate. If 6% reject, then at least 6% disagree. If the remaining 48% don't give any indication, then what category do you put them in? The only correct answer is that we don't know.

Therefore, as I have said: the results of this study does nothing to prove or disprove the existence of a consensus. This does not mean that a different result would also have proven nothing. If the study cited by Gore revealed a majority of papers supporting the theory, then it does prove that a consensus existed at the time.

Not that here also we make an assumption: namely, that what authors write in their papers represents at least some part of their views. However, this is much more justifiable than your assertion that what is written represents the entirety of their views.

 

[ProfJohn]

Mfs378? All I want to know if you made that same argument when Al Gore and the other Global Warming folks made their ?consensus? statements?

The only conclusion that I think should be drawn from article one is that there is NO consensus and that the GW question is still up for debate.

 

[mfs378]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Mfs378? All I want to know if you made that same argument when Al Gore and the other Global Warming folks made their ?consensus? statements?

Read my edited post above - I messed it up while posting. I haven't seen the original study. Also, how long ago was the first 'consensus' statement made? I'm a young guy.

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The only conclusion that I think should be drawn from article one is that there is NO consensus and that the GW question is still up for debate.

And I think that the results are not very clear, and don't lend themselves to drawing strong conclusions such as the one in your post title. Sometimes you get inconclusive results, and when you read too much into the data, you get into trouble. The original article didn't go as far as you are going with your conclusion, because the data doesn't support it and the paper would not have made it past peer review.

 

[ProfJohn]

For the record my thread title comes right from the title of the blog I got the story off.

It is not MY interpretation.

 

[WHAMPOM]

When we see an audit of 528 papers on man made global warming. Phoughjohn you may have something to base your lying statistics on.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: bbdub333

Originally posted by: senseamp
So 45% accept, and 6% reject and remainder avoid. So of those who do take a position, 88% accept the view and 12% reject. Riight, no consensus here...

That logic is so flawed it's ridiculous.

According to you, if 1000 people did not think there was enough evidence to say one way or the other, and 5 people accepted the view, you would say that there was 100% consensus among the people who took a position.

Maybe those people who you so casually rule out because they don't take a position, are not taking a position for a reason.

I don't understand how you can even take yourself seriously with such a terribly idiotic argument.

I am sure that's one in a long list of things you don't understand. :roll: Scientific method is one of them too. Logic is another.
They reviewed papers, not polled scientists. Of the papers that took a position on global warming, 88% accepted the view and 12 rejected. Not all papers about climate change need to take position on what causes it. Some papers study the effects of climate change or simply report measurements without taking a position on the causes. Just because some papers don't talk about causes of global warming, you can't interpret that to mean that their authors are supporters or deniers of global warming being man made. It just means that not all papers are about causes of global warming. But the sample of those scientists who did disclose their views showed that 88% accepted and 12% rejected the view that global warming is man made.

 

[Comanche]

When you all talk about concensus, you need to be living in the time of Copernicus. Do you realize what you all sound like.

If you want to discuss the merits of GW, you need to start citing facts and argueing those points. Consensus in science is mute. If you remember in Copernicus day, pretty much the whole world was against him. It wasn't until after he died that things really came out.

As far as GW is concerned, for every fact you give me saying GW is real, I can refute that with another study saying just the opposite.

And onother thing. This thing about biased reports is bogus also. It is still science, it may be false, as is most reporting on GW, but it is still science. One has to dig into the articles to get to the truth. You don't attact the person writing the article, you attact the article itself and show where the falacies are.

Enough said

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Comanche
When you all talk about concensus, you need to be living in the time of Copernicus. Do you realize what you all sound like.

If you want to discuss the merits of GW, you need to start citing facts and argueing those points. Consensus in science is mute. If you remember in Copernicus day, pretty much the whole world was against him. It wasn't until after he died that things really came out.

As far as GW is concerned, for every fact you give me saying GW is real, I can refute that with another study saying just the opposite.

And onother thing. This thing about biased reports is bogus also. It is still science, it may be false, as is most reporting on GW, but it is still science. One has to dig into the articles to get to the truth. You don't attact the person writing the article, you attact the article itself and show where the falacies are.

Enough said

Comanche, you could not have picked a poorer example to make your point than Copernicus. The point is that the Ptolemic system also almost perfectly described what was happening with planetary motion but did it with an extremely complex system of epicycles. Wheel with in wheels based on the assumption that the earth was the center of the universe.

Ptolomy was by no means a stupid man and his system was based on prior millenniums of
imperial observations. And then along came Copernicus with an alternative system based on another assumption that also described planetary motion very well and in a far simpler manner. The point being that Ptolomy was official Catholic church dogma and Copernicus was not. And if it took burning a a heretic at the stake, that was simply the price of dogma.

With global warming there is no agreement about even the data. Much less any system that even comes close to describing what we see on earth or on other planets.

And now we are faced with making decisions based on incomplete very data and no model that describes anything worth a hoot..

 

[heartsurgeon]

Therefore, while this study does not prove there is a consensus, it also does not prove that there is no consensus

whats gibberish!!

 

[mfs378]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
For the record my thread title comes right from the title of the blog I got the story off.

It is not MY interpretation.

OK, its not your interpretation, but that hasn't stopped you from arguing it here. Since you are the one espousing the view, you get the criticism. How about responding to the criticism?

 

[mfs378]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

Therefore, while this study does not prove there is a consensus, it also does not prove that there is no consensus

whats gibberish!!

You're worthless.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

Therefore, while this study does not prove there is a consensus, it also does not prove that there is no consensus

whats gibberish!!

Were you truly the educated professional you pretend to be, you would recognize the accuracy of the bit you quoted, as well as the total gibberish of what you post.

 

[Comanche]

Comanche, you could not have picked a poorer example to make your point than Copernicus. The point is that the Ptolemic system also almost perfectly described what was happening with planetary motion but did it with an extremely complex system of epicycles. Wheel with in wheels based on the assumption that the earth was the center of the universe.

Ptolomy was by no means a stupid man and his system was based on prior millenniums of
imperial observations. And then along came Copernicus with an alternative system based on another assumption that also described planetary motion very well and in a far simpler manner. The point being that Ptolomy was official Catholic church dogma and Copernicus was not. And if it took burning a a heretic at the stake, that was simply the price of dogma.

With global warming there is no agreement about even the data. Much less any system that even comes close to describing what we see on earth or on other planets.
And now we are faced with making decisions based on incomplete very data and no model that describes anything worth a hoot..

Which is why consensus is mute. This idea of consensus is like the bully who says look at things my way or else.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Comanche
When you all talk about concensus, you need to be living in the time of Copernicus. Do you realize what you all sound like.

If you want to discuss the merits of GW, you need to start citing facts and argueing those points. Consensus in science is mute. If you remember in Copernicus day, pretty much the whole world was against him. It wasn't until after he died that things really came out.

As far as GW is concerned, for every fact you give me saying GW is real, I can refute that with another study saying just the opposite.

And onother thing. This thing about biased reports is bogus also. It is still science, it may be false, as is most reporting on GW, but it is still science. One has to dig into the articles to get to the truth. You don't attact the person writing the article, you attact the article itself and show where the falacies are.

Enough said

BS!