Can you also live with the fact that the governments where these scientists come from have to approve of their work before it gets published by the IPCC?<quoted text>
Instead of surveying climate scientists, they surveyed geologists. Why do you think they would do that?
In my book, 97% of scientists IS a consensus. Yes, there are still 3% that disagree, but I can live with that.
Let's see now....... where do scientists get their money for the research they do? Hmmm.
Next question: if government is allowed to control our energy, does that give more power to the people or more power to the government? To put it another way, do we have more freedom with our healthcare today or did we have more freedom with our healthcare five years ago?
If you guessed less freedom, then you win a gold star, because as of the first of next year, you will be FORCED by the federal government to have healthcare. The federal government also FORCED insurance companies to provide birth control to women. The federal government FORCED insurance companies to spend at least 80% of their premium collections on actual payments instead of investments that offset those huge bills which increased our healthcare premiums dramatically.
But back to this IPCC thing:
Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation
Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker.
6:10PM GMT 28 Nov 2009
A week after my colleague James Delingpole , on his Telegraph blog, coined the term "Climategate" to describe the scandal revealed by the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, Google was showing that the word now appears across the internet more than nine million times. But in all these acres of electronic coverage, one hugely relevant point about these thousands of documents has largely been missed.
The reason why even the Guardian's George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Professor Philip Jones, the CRU's director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC's key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely – not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it.
Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph which 10 years ago turned climate history on its head by showing that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history.