I wasted time today responding to a philistine on TK so I don't want to waste more of my time. Since you didn't answer my question it tells me you are indeed a schoolie, an arts student/grad or someone with no tertiary qualifications in maths or science. Since you wont understand a detailed technical explanation and the TK is not the forum for it I'll keep it short in laymans terms that you can understand.
>"99% of the actual science community?"
You must be talking about the fake "97% consensus" article by John Cook that was peddled around by Obama and Gillard as the "science has been settled we have a 97% consensus".
By his own admission John Cook bragged at the time on his website that when he did that paper that he was a self employed cartoonist in Qld. He has since withdrawn that statement when investigators revealed the tricks he did to get to that bogus number. His qualifications now are in "Cognitive Science", ie. the study of the mind and the brain, in laymans terms "mind tricks and how the mind works". Nothing to do with fluid mechanics which is one of the main underlying sciences that drives the weather and climate. I'm not going to explain what fluid mechanics is because you wont understand it unless you have studied 4 Unit Maths in the HSC followed by Mechanics, Vector Calculus and Fluid mechanics at Uni. I won't even explain the tricks he did to get to that bogus number because you won't understand unless you have studied Statistics.
>"Climate gate"
You get your source from the "Guardian" a noted climate alarmist organisation. Do you know what those emails revealed? It was emails between climate scientists in the UK and US who stated:
1) "it was a travesty that the satellite data did not show the global warming their models predicted".
2) they wanted to boycott any publication that did not support global warming.
3) they ridiculed any scientist outside their little bubble who questioned their ideology and wanted to see their data.
4) they discussed "tricks" to artificially raise their data when their own data showed a decline in temperatures.
Some of the scientists involved in those emails have subsequently declined to reveal their raw data in court while some have apologised under a Senate hearing for their abhorrent behaviour. Have you ever heard of a scientist who won't publish their own raw data? It's unheard of.
Below are predictions made by climate scientists over the years. Tell me which one of them has come true?
1988: Maldive Islands will Be Underwater by 2018
1989: Rising Sea Levels will Obliterate Nations if Nothing Done by 2000
2000: Children Won’t Know what Snow Is - According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event". "Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.
2008: Arctic will Be Ice Free by 2013
2016: Arctic will Be Ice Free by 2018
More predictions made by climate scientists over the years. Tell me which one will have a remote chance of being true?
1989: New York City’s West Side Highway Underwater by 2029
2004: Britain will Be Siberia by 2024
Do you remember Professor Tim Flannery, the "Chief Commissioner of the Climate Commission" who famously declared the "Australian dams will never be full again because of climate change" which led to the NSW govt spending $1B of taxpayers money on building a desalination plant?
Do you know what his PhD Thesis was based on? Take a guess. Atmospheric Physics, Turbulence in Fluid Mechanics, Carbon Chemistry?
None of the above. Professor Tim Flannery's PhD was on "Evolution of Kangaroos". Australia's Chief Commissioner of the Climate Commission expertise was in Kangaroos. According to Gillard, that somehow made him an expert on the climate (aka Atmospheric Physics and Fluid Mechanics).
Footnote: A year after he made that "dams never full" prediction the dams around Australia were overflowing.
Moral of the story: Do your own investigations to determine the truth rather than believe all the media hype and propaganda.
