Your comprehension skills leave much to be desired.

He said he was wrong.
"I no longer maintain this particular criticism. In addition, some of the abstracts that I included in the 34 "reject or doubt" category are very ambiguous and should not have been included."

Furthermore, in a later email to Mediawatch, he also admitted that he only actually found ONE article which challenged the consensus, and this was an editorial, an opinion piece, published by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. NOT a peer-reviewed paper, which were the subject of Oreskes' work.

in his own words:
"Only [a] few abstracts explicitly reject or doubt the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) consensus which is why I have publicly withdrawn this point of my critique."

DID YOU GET THAT?

"...I have publicly withdrawn this point of my critique."

He was "disavowing himself of all his findings".

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/tra...s/s1777013.htm
So, let's go through this again shall we?

1. A non-scientist writes a letter to Science magazine, critical of a published, peer-reviewed paper describing a survey showing a 100% consensus regarding an acceptance of anthropogenic climate change in the scientific literature.

2. Science rejects the letter. And the author later publicly withdraws his criticism.

3. The author later admits that the only one, single non-consensus view he really found was not actually a peer-reviewed paper - but an editorial published by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.

And this, you claim "proves your entire point" which was:


Anthropogenic climate change is just a theory, and in fact, might as well be a myth. ... there are actually scientists who disagree completely with the theory, and its unproven cause/effect relationships, and the faulty data/science behind it.


!!!?!?! Amazing!

every link you provide me gives me more information which proves my point. I think you are selectively choosing verbage which supports your theory, and ignoring that which does not. This is from the link you provided:

Whatever nuance you may now have uncovered to criticise this list, the basic fact remains as this reveals: When Gore suggests there is absolutely no scientific debate on man-made global warming he is not telling the truth.

— Andrew Bolt to Media Watch, 27th October, 2006

__________________
We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. -- Ann Coulter

Ha ha ha ha! you are quoting Andrew Bolt!

Why do you think that the opinion of a very bad journalist "proves your point"?

What does Andrew Bolt's opinion of what Al Gore says has to do with anything anyway? You do realise don't you that Al Gore isn't a scientist either?

And of course - if you read that MediaWatch page - you will realise that all of Bolt's opinions, like yours, are based on the self-denied work of our old friend, Benny Peiser.


That's enough sonny - stop making a fool of yourself.

I will get back to the rest of your "evidence" in due course

This debate has become quit farcical as you continue your campaign to discredit one scientist who disagrees with your views using every liberal media watchdog group you can find to discredit this guy. Well I have already discredited you "watchdog groups" so what is the point here? He is only one of many scientists who disagree with the fact that anthropogenic climate change is a reality.

Look, there is nothing personal about this; I'm not trying to put you down here. There are many other links on the web to support what I am saying beside the few I provided.

Why don't you go to the conference I posted and tell all the scientists there that they are a bunch of heretics for not having the faith in anthropogenic climate change, ask them to turn in their credentials because they don't deserve the right to practice science as you see it. We could have them burned at the stake for not believing in the consensus.

I'm sure you're a heck of a nice guy, but there is nothing you can post to convince me that anthropogenic climate change is a fact, and if that is your goal you might as well call it quits. I am entitled to my opinion you know, after all, this is America.

You are a great debater. I'm sure you are a master debater, but you have lost this one so you might as well hang it up fella and call it a day.

__________________
We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. -- Ann Coulter

Who is this "scientist" you speak of? Benny Peiser is not a scientist.

I am still waiting for you to show me some published research from a scientist.

What were the "liberal media watchdog groups" I used? Which "watchdog group" did you discredit? Was that "Sourcewatch". I quoted no opinion from that site - I gave you direct quotes from Benny Peiser. Are you saying that those quotes were lies? The same quotes were on the Mediawatch site. Is Mediawatch a "liberal media watchdog group"? It is owned by the Australian Government. At the time, a very conservative Australian Government.

You're telling lies again - aren't you.

Who are these "many scientists who disagree with the fact that anthropogenic climate change is a reality". Where is their published research supporting their opinions? You're telling lies again - aren't you.

How exactly did I "lose" this debate? You tried to quote Andrew Bolt!!?!? Ha ha ha (you probably don't know how ridiculous that is - he is very well known in Australia - ha ha ha)

You based your argument on the opinion of a non-scientist who later retracted his claims.

You call that a victory? You're not fooling anyone.

Show them all to me

Geez, it is so easy. Just go to google and type in "scientists disagree global warming" and you get this list of them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ming_consensus

This list is from the IPCC panel itself.

It includes one of your neighbors from down under:

Vincent R. Gray, coal chemist, climate consultant, founder of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition: "The two main 'scientific' claims of the IPCC are the claim that 'the globe is warming' and 'Increases in carbon dioxide emissions are responsible'. Evidence for both of these claims is fatally flawed."

Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't make them a liar.

__________________
We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. -- Ann Coulter

And why does Vinnie the Coal Chemist think these claims "fatally flawed"? What is this evidence of which he speaks?

Stop posting unsubstantiated opinions

Do you also plan on telling me what Andrew Bolt has to say on the subject?

No - claiming that Benny Peiser was a scientist made you a liar.
Saying "you continue your campaign to discredit one scientist who disagrees with your views using every liberal media watchdog group" made you a liar.

Boo hoo

You hurt my feelings. I think I'll take my ball and go home.

Hey, your mom is calling you.

__________________
We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. -- Ann Coulter

I’ve always liked the bogus global warming argument. I hate to say, but it is a tree-hugger notion which is used as a scare tactic for environmental capitalism. Scientists tend to disconnect their respective fields to portray the ‘micro picture’ for the public. Why? Because if global warming exists, which it does, people are worried and government gives compensation to those scientists who are fighting global warming for the will of the world! USA! USA!

Here’s why the global warming scare tactic is a hoax (and this is a personal forte of mine):
We all know plants (and photosynthetic organisms) produce oxygen gas from gaseous carbon dioxide.
Many of us don’t know plants (etc.) produce carbon dioxide gas from gaseous oxygen…

To break this down in simple terms…there are two basic functions of an enzyme called ‘rubisco’ (or ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxegenase) found in overwhelming amounts in plant cells.

The first is to accept CO2 molecules in order to catalyze the reaction of RuBP (ribulose biphosphate). This reaction also has a dynamic second step which creates sugars for the plant to use (see Calvin cycle in photosynthesis). – we know this as photosynthesis

The second is to accept O2 molecules to form a reaction with RuBP. This reaction, stated simply, produces carbon dioxide. But it also requires energy (in ATP), whereas the first reaction, if not efficient, is very resourceful and conserves energy. – this is the lesser known photorespiration

Both occur in plants & photosynthetic organisms to the extent of the gases in the atmosphere (at rates which complement the respective gases). For example, if a largely oxygen rich atmosphere exists, a plant will literally ‘starve’ itself by synthesizing carbon dioxide from oxygen and stored sugars (and ATP). It does this in order to reverse the ‘drowning’ effect of its oxygenized surroundings.

There are eight active sites (locks) on each enzyme of rubisco, meaning, in an ideal CO2 (a key) rich environment most of those active sites are inhibited with carbon dioxide molecules. On the other hand, when only O2 (also a key) is present; the plant will accept oxygen in order to convert to carbon dioxide.

When carbon dioxide levels rise, such as today, we see an increase in the efficiency of plants (as this process is very inefficient). Over the last 150 years, plants have become at least 25%+ more efficient and larger specimens grow much faster today than in the past (also in algae and photosynthetic bacteria). But plants do not solely depend on CO2, there are other minerals which inhibit the efficiency of them to produce faster, such as many minerals. So the rate at which CO2 spurs growth is leveled off by nature in a sort of exponential increase and plateau.

But, to combat global warming with decreased fossil fuel usage and other ‘direct’ approaches will not work, it is simply impossible to decrease the amount of hydrocarbons emitted on such a scale which will remove the threat of global warming. A modest reforestation plan on a semi-large scale (there exists many today) will do enough based on the fundamental properties of photosynthesis. As for the ‘desert’ spreading – warmer temperatures add to these environments, but plants combat the encroachment of the desert with greater survival rates in those areas, meaning less erosion.

__________________
"We've been blowin up, we're the issue, we're ammunition" Switchfoot