Surely you know that 97% of statistics quoted in arguments are invented?

norah4you (08:32:04) :
The people who signed the statement you posted were not Climate Science Researchers. You had some bloggers, and scientists who do not specialize in climate science.
Where do you get you 70% figure?”

Eric those scholars have been working with Environmental Questions from their own subjects together with scientists and scholars from ‘Blue side’ = water and air, for many years more than the best of the scholars you on the Climate-threat side been able to put forward!

The first scholars to do a science study regarding the Climate Change published their work in 1931 and that still holds water since every assumed consequence of natural impacts from double the number of factors than anyone every done on your side AND belive it or not – the temperature they presumed would come in 1995 worldwide is almost identical 0,1 degree difference from what you say exist today. So bad luck.

And btw one of the scholars you dismissed Wibjörn Karlén, Professor Emeritus of Physical Geography participated in this work from 1983:
“Abstracts of the Second Nordic Symposium on Climatic Changes and Related Problems : Stockholm (Sweden), May 16-20 1983 / Editors: Knud Frydendahl, Wibjörn Karlén, Nils-Axel Mörner … Nordic Symposium on Climatic Changes and Related Problems (2 : 1983 : Stockholm)
Frydendahl, Knud (utgivare)
Karlén, Wibjörn (utgivare)
Mörner, Nils-Axel, 1938- (utgivare)
København : Det Danske meteorologiske institut, 1983 ”

in 1984:
Climatic changes on a yearly to millennial basis : geological, historical and instrumental records / ed. by N.-A. Mörner and W. Karlén Karlén, Wibjörn, 1937- (utgivare)
Mörner, Nils-Axel, 1938- (utgivare)
ISBN 90-277-1779-6
Dordrecht : D. Reidel Publ. Co., cop. 1984

in 1993
“The earth’s climate : natural variations and human influence / Wibjörn Karlén, Eigil Friis-Christensen, Bengt Dahlström Karlén, Wibjörn, 1937- (författare)
Dahlström, Bengt, 1939- (författare)
Friis-Christensen, Eigil (författare)
Alternativt namn: Christensen, Eigil Friis
Elforsk (medarbetare)
Alternativt namn: Svenska elföretagens forsknings- och utvecklings
Alternativt namn: Engelska: Swedish Electrical Utilities’ R&D Company
Verk som ingår i eller hör samman med denna titel
Karlén, Wibjörn: Jordens klimat. (originaltitel)
Stockholm : Elforsk, 1993 ”

to name a few of his 32 published works…..

the rest aren’t less competent!

That’s a very unscientific measure of the real understanding of researchers about AGW, Eric. You forget to allow for all tho$e pe$ky detail$ in the $urvey.

………

Why would they overturn the consensus of peer reviewed research on Climatology if 97% of researchers accept that AGW is real and a significant factor?”

Well maybe because there aren’t even a 70% consensus among the real scholars! Below find a Googletranslated text from SvD 2nd March 2009

“Heading: No consensus on climate alarms
UN climate panel, IPCC, formed in 1988 with the directive to compile research on the human impact on climate. The perspective has made concentrated efforts on a global warming caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide.

This restriction means that not enough attention of other climatic factors. We believe that the absence of evidence that climate change is not mainly due to natural causes. IPCC scenarios of how you think the climate will be developed based on computer models. The models are designed so as to moderately elevated levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere gives rise to a significant warming. With the scenarios that has, since issued, and issue alerts.

Leading alarm lard has gone beyond the IPCC and has successfully managed to bring out the image that their claims are based on scientific consensus – a claim that can easily be display incorrectly. The development is a serious threat to the entire scientific community’s credibility.

Our view is:

• The fact that it could not show a significant causal link between elevated carbon dioxide content and potential climate change.

• The fact that the observed warming during the 1900s does not give cause for concern, whatever the causes.

• That the climate scares based on low forecast value.

• The claim of consensus on the issue do not support.

• That a climate policy based on the IPCC scenarios is likely to lead to a devastating waste of human and financial resources that primarily affects the poor in the world.

Before society makes far-reaching decisions on climate policy, we should ensure to use on a sounder scientific basis than we have today. The Government should therefore initiate a hearing with a broad spectrum of representatives of the scientific community with different views on the climate issue.

Jonny Fagerström, environmental debater

Göran Ahlgren, Associate Professor of Organic Chemistry

Lars Bern, former Director of the Retailer and the Swedish Environmental Research Institute, formerly chairman of The Natural Step environmental research

P-O Eriksson, the former CEO Sandvik

Peter STILBENE, professor of physical chemistry

Maggie Thauersköld, blog The Climate Scam

CG Ribbing, Professor of Solid State Physics

Gösta Walin, professor emeritus of oceanography

Sten Kaijser, professor emeritus of mathematics

Wibjörn Karlén, Professor Emeritus of Physical Geography

All representing the Stockholm Initiative, a political and economic independence network whose aim is to critically examine the climate issue and to highlight its political and economic consequences. ”

Please observe that these scholars are wellrenomed and have so been for many years. ONLY those who tries to make a consensus belived tries to call them charlatans no matter this every Professor here have a better CV than almost all of the so called scholars.

They aren’t alone most scholars today don’t stand behind the so called AWG. Which is understandable considering that the ‘change’ of CO2 are less than the ppm-value for oil in stone salt used to heat up ice during wintertime!

If a committed is really reexamining this, why would one believe that this would result in a change. What is new since the publication of Monckton’s article in the Physics and Society Online Journal?

Why would they overturn the consensus of peer reviewed research on Climatology if 97% of researchers accept that AGW is real and a significant factor?

A Book of Prefaces is H. L. Mencken’s 1917 collection of essays criticizing American culture, authors, and movements. … the most outspoken essay was entitled “Puritanism as a Literary Force,” during which he alleged that William Dean Howells, Henry James, and Mark Twain were victims of the Puritan spirit.

Mencken had criticized Puritanism for many years, … but through World War I his criticism became increasingly outspoken, in part due to the rising tide of Prohibition.

I kid you not folks, that is not only an argument which has been made, it is made any time a government program fails to achieve it’s stated goals. Faith based economics is surely a strangely irrational approach to such issues. But most of all it is a sign of how deluded people can be about the extent of their knowledge (which is, contrary to their pretensions, quite finite).

“Global warming made it less cool.” Brenda Ekwurzel, of the Union of Concerned Scientists, claimed in a July 24, 2009 letter to the editor in the Washington Post that “2008 was a cooler year, but global warming made it less cool.”

I saw this woman on one of the debates with Michael Crichton, Professor Stott and Richard Lindzen which can be found on You Tube. She didn’t impress me much. (Mind you, neither did her cohorts, one Gavin Scmidt and some bloke called Sullivan if I remember.)

To suggest that it it’s not as cold this year as it should be due to AGW is – well – is there a word for it? I think a heap of snip is all I can come up with.

http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.html

They are firmly in the AGW camp given the Rossby Award they bestowed on the James Hansen.

We should not lose sight of the fact that no matter what the weather/climate is doing, there is very little contribution of the A ( anthropogenic) in Global Warming, and this is continually shown in peer reviewed papers.

“$cience is AGW, trans-fat bans, DDT bans, Freon bans, unilateral nuclear disarmament, organic farms, mandatory ethanol content, $cience is what 0bamarama wants to put front and center. $cience always seems to make someone rich, even if they’ve done absolutely nothing.”

Careful, there. Banning transfats is not political; it’s due to the fact that nobody could deny the incontrovertible evidence of the dangers of consumption, regardless of the money involved. It was the act of forcing food corporations to use transfats in the first place that was political. If you look into the history of the low fat diet movement, you will see that food corporations really had no choice BUT to use trans fats because senate committees ensured saturated fats were suddenly viewed as evil thanks to some incomplete science and vegetarian dogma that is only now being being overturned (albeit very slowly). The “consumer advocacy group”, CSPI, was the main perpetrator for pushing transfats; now, ironically, they are the ones filing lawsuits left, right and centre against companies that still use them! If you think the Pro-AGW camp is alarmist and irresponsible, you should look into the wonderful world of dietary advice and nutrition science. Sorry to go O/T, but I know a great deal more about nutrition than climate change, so I thought I’d add my two cents…

The more I read, the more I wonder due to the lack of knowledge of difference between facts and assumptions; due to the many circle proofs presented by person or persons who should have known that circle proofs never ever prove anything of value; due to the so many faked/corrected figures without any proof what so ever that the assumptions behind the faked figures have any water at all?

It’s incredible to see that some even believe that they can use max and min for each day when not so long ago EVERY scholar who knew anything about temperature-changes in air and water knew that they had to take certain precausions such as reading the figures same time each day; such as checking so that the temperatures read were read at same level over ground; such as that the biotopic situations ALWAYS should be noted in order to compare not only between temperature-stations but the same type in respect of biotops; distance to sea/bigger lakes/rivers/woods; hights over sealevel etc etc.

What I find most disturbing is the fact that I had almost double the parameters those so called scholars at best use when I in 1993 did a survey in order to find the waterways from the Baltic Sea to Lake Roxen in Östergötland, eastern Sweden, from Stone Age up to 1000 AD. Of course both I and the so called scholars haven’t the parameter of reflexe temperatures from ground. I because I didn’t need it they because the seems to in almost every paper, work etc I have read must have forgotten this for them very important parameter…..