I love his comments so much that I just have to post it here. Read the whole thing at the link.
Some curious researcher with a lot of time on his hands set out to explore the “broad consensus” regarding Glowball Wormening and started going through all research papers written on the subject over the last four years.
His conclusions? If the Mindless Muttonheads of the Church of Gore™ wish to continue using that talking point, they’ll have to re-define “broad consensus” regarding the “catastrophic consequences” of mankind’s continued living in the industrial age as opposed to the Paleolithic period to mean “7% of scientists.”
Poor Gorebots. First they lose their hockey stick, then they lose their “upcoming catastrophic hurricane seasons” two years in a row and now their “broad consensus” is gone as well.
The original document can be found here.
An interesting paragraph from the document that is being pushed around by Sen Inhofe (my guy)...
Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" -- the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.