The recent count of pro vs. con positions by actual peer-reviewed scientific papers is summarixed here:
http://norvig.com/oreskes.html
The consensus was quantified in a Science study by Prof. Naomi Oreskes (Dec. 2004) in which she surveyed 928 scientific journal articles that matched the search [global climate change] at the ISI Web of Science. Of these, according to Oreskes, 75% agreed with the consensus view (either implicitly or explicitly), 25% took no stand one way or the other, and none rejected the consensus.
So what exactly do you base your wild claim on?
Apparently nothing.
Don%26#039;t beleive the junk aired on Fox News:
At Fox News, a Pundit for Hire
http://www.freepress.net/news/print.php?...
%26quot;Objective viewers long ago realized that Fox News has a political agenda. But, when a pundit promotes this agenda while on the take from corporations that benefit from it, then Fox News has gone one disturbing step further%26quot;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Mill...
The science of global warming has nothing whatsoever to do with Al Gore. He%26#039;s just a guy who made a movie about it. 29% 2 Votes 0% 0 Votes
The globe has been a name ,of a map of the world that is on a ball, in most schools for centuries.
it comes from the planet being round 0% 0 Votes
