Bullshit. In the 3 years since the last holdouts (the AAPG) issued their revised statement acknowledging the consensus, not one organisation has issued a retraction, had its council ousted or even had a motion to dissent registered, AFAIK. That’s better than any poll.
All lies,
1. Greenfyre starts off with childish ad hominem attacks of calling skeptics “deniers”. This is a typical propaganda tactic to try and associate skeptics with holocaust deniers. It is a desperate attempt to move the argument away from the science and instead try to silence the skeptics through ridicule. This tactic was popularized by Ellen Goodman in the Boston Globe,
“Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers” - Ellen Goodman, Boston Globe, 2007
Global Warming Denial = Holocaust Denial? (FrontPage Magazine)
Global Warming Ad Hominem Attacks Show Alarmist Believers’ Desperation (The Heartland Institute)
Lie - not peer reviewed, and/or.
Truth - Every paper and journal is peer-reviewed.
Lie - known to be false, and/or.
Truth - None of the papers are known to be false.
Lie - irrelevant, and/or.
Truth - None of the papers are irrelevant.
Lie - Out of date (no longer relevant), and/or.
Truth - The age of any scientific paper is irrelevant.
Lie - not supportive of climate change Denial.
Truth - This is a strawman argument and a typical ad hominem attack [1]. All of the papers support skepticism of man-made global warming or the economic or environmental effects of.
I’ve already rebutted all this nonsense.
I haven’t made anything up. I’ve actually asked for people like you to prove your right, something you have consistently failed to do.
I am never amazed at these silly analogies. Since I am a firm supporter of evolution theory you are going to have to try much harder than that.
I haven’t shifted anything, you have yet to provide evidence that the membership body of these scientific organizations support the position statements. The burden of proof is on you since you are making the claim. So prove it!
Under the Socio-Economic section? Maybe you are confused but their are also papers on policy not just the science.
Or perhaps you can actually read the paper from the Journal of Information Ethics, something you have clearly never done.
You are begining to sound like Frau Farbissina 
As mentioned before, not all skeptics are deniers. But your actions demonstrate that indeed you are a denier.
“Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers” - Ellen Goodman, Boston Globe, 2007
[/quote]
Her complete quote:
So even there she does differentiate between Holocaust deniers.
And the word denier is still applicable to the ones that deny the science behind global warming.
The word was used first in the 15th century.
Nope.
I guess the best way to deal with this is simple.
Can you point to any scientific organization or any scientist group that has accepted your list?
I mean, you should be able to point out how incredible clever that list since it is obvious that it should be approved or certified by some organization accepted as impartial.
Otherwise you are just like Jeremy.
That is the “nowhere man” from yellow submarine.
Here, add this into your percentage.
Bwuh? What claim are you talking about? And where did I make it?
You have made claims about what thousands of scientists say, only to have it shown that many of the people listed are not even scientists. In short, your data are clearly flawed and you have failed to support your initial post.
A few more glaciers that are advancing.
Mount Shasta
Himalayan
http://news.discovery.com/earth/himalayas-glaciers-shrink.html
Whitney Glacier
Norway
http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/controversies/afp.html
Pakistan-China border
http://omaha.com/article/20091217/NEWS01/712179868
Eighty seven of the glaciers have surged forward since the 1960s.
http://www.themoralliberal.com/2010/03/10/glaciers-are-growing-not-melting-more-falsehoods-from-al-gore-robert-w-felix/
Just the second link is based on the very misleading point about the Himalayan glaciers. Not very reliable, it seems that it is falling into cherry picking, even if there is clearly a retreat on most glaciers, there are some exceptions, however those exceptions are not enough for one to say that overall there is no reduction of the glaciers.
Ah yes, the government of Netherlands complaining to the IPCC for using data that was furnished by the Netherlands.
And here is virtually the only bona fide error found from the last IPCC report, still it was shameful that it was climate scientists who caught it instead of the diligent deniers.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/so_thats_why_surfacestationsor.php
It’s right there in my link, in pdf format, and it’s a goddamn diatribe, not a piece of actual climate research:
Next time you try to point us out a pile of climate change gold, at least make an effort to not point out a pile of shit through your own ignorance. The two substances look different to anyone not predisposed to roll around in feces and call himself Midas.
Slanderous
LMAO! She clearly makes the comparison.
That is illogical because no one is denying science based on empirical measurement.
Yes, every single lie from Greenfyre has been refuted.
That is just a bizarre request. Anyone with an ounce of education can clearly see the papers referenced are properly cited and linked.
The impossibility would be to find an organization that people on both sides of the issue would consider to be impartial.
The reality is despite alarmist lies, extensive peer-reviewed papers exist supporting skepticism of “man-made” global warming or the environmental or economic effects of.
Well then a simple test:
Do you agree with what Patric Michael says in this video:
The video is BTW a perfect point of that. The skeptic scientist is actually **blasting **deniers for continuing to affirm that there has been no warming since 1995 or 1998 or that the current warming has no human cause.
As for the rest, just your attempt to repeat the same with no evidence to support it.
More glaciers growing
Alaska Glaciers Growing
http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_21685.shtml
Mount Saint Helens Growing
http://www.katu.com/news/local/18948279.html
France and Switzerland Growing
http://www.katu.com/news/local/18948279.html
Perito Moreno Growing
What part of socio-economic do you not understand? Pretending that the papers in the socio-economic section represent the climate research in the scientific ones is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. Try harder next time.
I don’t agree with anything from a video made by an Al Gore disciple. But in I generally agree with Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology, Research Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, Former State Climatologist for Virginia, Contributing Author and Reviewer, IPCC says,
Climate of Extremes (Video) (60min) (Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Climatology)
Global Warming: Correcting the Data (PDF) (Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Climatology)
Is the Sky Really Falling? A Review of Recent Global Warming Scare Stories (PDF) (Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Climatology)
Keep repeating it, it will maybe change the overall conclusion…
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2008-07-08-mt-shasta-growing-glaciers_N.htm
You really need to see the video, I do not think that you would agree with what he says to deniers.
“So, warming has happened in the last part of the 20th century and humans had to do with it, now get over it!”
Typical propaganda. His argument is how much they had to do with it, how much is CO2 related and how bad will the consequences be. His conclusions are there is nothing much to worry about.
Wait. Are you saying that these all glaciers that are growing is caused by global warming?