Please disable your Ad Blocker in order to interact with the site.

This story is going to make former VP Al Gore choke on his lettuce. The proponents of the global warming theory clam there is a near unanimous consensus of scientists that the world is getting warmer, and its all mankind’s fault.

Now there is actual research conducted by the American Meteorological Society, which shows meteorologists, scientist who study climate are divided almost equally between those who believe in man-made global warming and those who disagree (embedded below).

The survey of AMS members found that while 52 percent of American Meteorological Society members believe climate change is occurring and mostly human-induced, 48 percent of members do not believe in man-made global warming.


Furthermore, the survey found that scientists who professed “liberal political views” were much more likely to believe in the theory of man-made global warming than those who without liberal views.


“Political ideology was the factor next most strongly associated with meteorologists’ views about global warming. This also goes against the idea of scientists’ opinions being entirely based on objective analysis of the evidence, and concurs with previous studies that have shown scientists’ opinions on topics to vary along with their political orientation,” writes survey author Neil Stenhouse of George Mason University.


“The result suggests that members of professional scientific organizations have not been immune to influence by the political polarization on climate change that has affected politicians and the general public,” Stenhouse writes.

President Barack Obama and Democrats have often touted the “97 percent” consensus among scientists that climate change is driven by human activity, primarily through the burning of fossil fuels. However, that study has been proven to be a lie.

Investigative journalists at Popular Technology
looked into precisely which papers were classified within Cook’s
asserted 97 percent. The investigative journalists found Cook and his
colleagues strikingly classified papers by such prominent, vigorous
skeptics as Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv,
Nils-Axel Morner and Alan Carlin as supporting the 97-percent consensus.

Cook and his colleagues, for example, classified a peer-reviewed
paper by scientist Craig Idso as explicitly supporting the ‘consensus’
position on global warming “without minimizing” the asserted severity of
global warming. When Popular Technology asked Idso whether
this was an accurate characterization of his paper, Idso responded,
“That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined
how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in
the spring portion of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle. Other
literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising
temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in
atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion’s share of the
change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement
of CO2-induced global warming.”

A more accurate study such as the one below would suggests there is still a wide open range of opinions regarding global warming, anyone suggesting a consensus is simply afraid of the truth coming out.

Become a Lid Insider

Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Send this to friend