No.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change

Regarding the above quote, it is possible that scientists who do not believe in man-made global climate change aren't releasing papers about their findings, but frankly, scientsts that don't produce any documented evidence are poor scientists indeed.

The only poll I've ever seen with more than 20% of scientists against the idea of man-made climate change was conducted by a Conservative group whose stated goal is to reduce regulations. Their sample group had clear political agendas, since belief in global warming seems to split along party lines in the political, if not the academic arena. (I'm just going to assume that there aren't more Democratic scientists than Republican ones, although I am only speculating.)

Wikipedia is not a credible source since anyone can access and edit it. You know what that means, bias. What about this site?

"A survey of climatologists from more than 20 nations has revealed scientists are evenly split on whether humans are responsible for changes in global climate. The findings refute a widely reported study by a California “Gender and Science” professor who claimed that, based on her personal examination of 928 scientific papers on the issue, every single one reached the conclusion that global warming is real and primarily caused by humans"..............

http://tinyurl.com/mbrjf

You're complaining about bias, yet you quote the heartland institute??

Sometimes its just pitiful, Alias.

Apparently you failed to even look at the links I provided before because you were too busy focusing on my spelling.

Get educated:

Global Warming: What You Need to Know

Inconvenient, but indeed true

The Climate Crisis

The Presentation

you aint gonna educate me. I agree with the Heartland Institute. If you find them objectionable, then show us why. Al Gore is a lying politician, not a climatologist.

Survey Shows Climatologists Are Split on Global Warming

Alarmist 'consensus' does not exist
Written By: James M. Taylor
Published In: Environment News
Publication Date: June 1, 2005
Publisher: The Heartland Institute

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A survey of climatologists from more than 20 nations has revealed scientists are evenly split on whether humans are responsible for changes in global climate. The findings refute a widely reported study by a California “Gender and Science” professor who claimed that, based on her personal examination of 928 scientific papers on the issue, every single one reached the conclusion that global warming is real and primarily caused by humans.


Professor Claims Scientific Unanimity

In December 2004, Dr. Naomi Oreskes of the University of California at San Diego received widespread media attention for claiming her review of scientific literature showed scientists were in unanimous agreement that global warming is occurring and is being caused primarily by humans.

In an article titled “Undeniable Global Warming,” Oreskes wrote in the December 26 Washington Post, “There is a scientific consensus on the fact that Earth’s climate is heating up and human activities are part of the reason. We need to stop repeating nonsense about the uncertainty of global warming and start talking seriously about the right approach to address it.”


Climatologists Dispute Oreskes

The May 1 London Telegraph, however, noted Oreskes’ “unequivocal conclusions immediately raised suspicions among other academics, who knew of many papers that dissented from the pro-global warming line.”

The newspaper reported that Dr. Benny Peiser, a senior lecturer in the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University, “decided to conduct his own analysis of the same set of 1,000 documents [cited by Oreskes]--and concluded that only one-third backed the consensus view, while only 1 percent did so explicitly.”

The London Times then reported on Professor Dennis Bray, of Germany’s GKSS National Research Centre. Bray surveyed hundreds of international climate scientists, asking the question, “To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes?” Bray received 530 responses from climatologists in 27 different countries.

With a value of 1 indicating “strongly agree” and a value of 7 indicating “strongly disagree,” Bray reported the average of the 530 responses was 3.62, almost right down the middle. More climatologists “strongly disagreed” than “strongly agreed” that climate change is mostly attributable to humans.

“The results, i.e. the mean of 3.62, seem to suggest that consensus is not all that strong,” Bray reported in his findings. “Results of surveys of climate scientists themselves indicate the possibility that Oreskes’ conclusion is not as obvious as stated.”


Journals Swayed by Politics

Lorne Gunter, a columnist for the Canadian journal National Post, was more blunt in his assessment of the survey.

“It’s a long way from a consensus backing the most extreme global warming scenarios, as environmentalists and UN officials would have us believe,” observed Gunter.

“Interestingly but hardly surprisingly, Dr. Bray has had trouble getting his findings published. Science magazine turned down even a letter-to-the-editor from him,” Gunter added. “That’s doubly galling because back in December Science didn’t hesitate for a second to print a discreditable paper by Dr. Naomi Oreskes of UC San Diego in which she claimed that in her analysis of 928 abstracts from peer-reviewed climate research papers, ‘Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.’”

Concluded Gunter, “Actually, were Dr. Oreskes’ assertion of unanimity true, it might only prove how totally co-opted the peer journals have become by enviro group-think and how willing they are to censor dissenting views in an effort to preserve and polish the notion of worldwide scientific consensus.”


Okay katz, there is the Heartland Institute article. Refute it.

Oh, I are gunna educate you.

I did show you why. Perhaps if you actually clicked the links I provided, and watched them or read them...but then again I think reading or listening is asking too much of you. Apparently.

*COUGH*

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. The Heartland Institute is an NPO with a political agenda.

Al Gore and UN with global warming have a political agenda also. Wikipedia is an onliine encyclopedia that you or I can access and write anything we think about any topic. Thus, it is a biased source.

The Heartland Institute has no more of an agenda than the Global warming entusiests. Everyone has an agenda. That doesn't mean your's is right. It's called politics. You believe yours and I believe mine.

But unfortunately for your argument, the science falls with Gore's arguments. But then again you'll probably call me a liar without actually checking the sources I gave before.

And inacuracy doesn't mean bias. Wikipedia could be inacurate, but I don't see how its article had a bias. If you're unsure about the validity of the wikipedia article, that is why they have sources at the bottom so you can check for yourself.

Inaccuracy on purpose means bias and that is what happens when you have an information site that can be accessed by anyone and everyone to edit. Just because it you get it from wikipedia means nothing. It might read different the next day.

The science does not fall with Gore's argument. The science community is divided. I check sources, lots of sources. I find sources that say there is global warming caused by man, sources that say global warming is a natural phenomenon as is global cooling, and sources that say there is no global warming caused by man. You seem to have a hard time with sources that dispute your sources. You think you're gonna "educate" me and then I'll come around to your way of thinking. Kinda arrogant on your part. Is that kinda like a dog trying to teach a human to bark?