>>
>>Instead of saying what other people say that NASA says, just look at the NASA website and get the real info from NASA itself...
>>
>>http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
>>http://climate.nasa.gov/
>
>Victor, a couple of things.
>
>First, that 97% statistic really demonstrates the theme of "how to lie with statistics".
>
>The term "climate change" is euphemistically dishonest - OF COURSE client changes. I'll never forget some of the staffers at MSNBC who directly blamed hurricane Sandy on those who disagreed with Obama's energy and economic policies. Far too much of so-called climate science is wrapped in ideology.
>
>What 97% were acknowledging was that the earth was going through a series of climate changes over the last few decades. As my brother often says when he's joking around, "THANK YOU, CAPTAIN OBVIOUS!!!"
>
>Numbers vary, but a poll in 2012 and again in 2012 showed that of those 97%, more than half felt that changes occurred for reasons other than man-made factors. Only 43% felt strongly that man-made CO2 was driving climate change.
>
>And remember what I posted the other day, by NASA's own admission, the alleged temperature increase (and even that is debatable) since 2010 was roughly 1 fifth the size of the margin for error. I'm kind of amazed that anyone, in any statistical endeavor, could take that seriously.
>
>Look, I'm not saying that I reject man-made climate science predictions. What I am saying is that the evidence brought forward over the last decade has neither been compelling, nor interesting, nor even (in certain ways) even credible. Climate science has not met any reasonable burden of proof in making the case of man-made global warming and climate change.

I think the arguments brought forth by all the scientists is a bit more compelling than stuff like this http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/26/politics/james-inhofe-snowball-climate-change/