bogusnot

Ok, you have obviously not checked the paper? Why not?

From the damn paper:

(1) Explicit endorsement with quantification Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming

(2) Explicitly states humans are causing global warming or refers to anthropogenic global warming/climate change as a known fact

(3) Implicit endorsement Implies humans are causing global warming. E.g., research assumes greenhouse gas emissions cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause

For some unknown reason you think that #2 and #3 don't apply. But the paper was in-fact judged on a scale. You can look at it here ranking it.

You then misrepresent the statement in the abstract, (that anyone can click to see) as having the word "main" in it. It does not. It says, "Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

If you are spreading misinformation due to disagreeing with a fact, you are doing a disservice to humanity. If it is by mistake, take a moment and read everything related and be skeptical.

This guy is creating a tempest in a teapot. He is taking the categories in which the authors themselves have confirmed that they are stating that climate change is manmade and just clipping one.

He is just being deceptive.

Btw, hilarious if you are the guy who's blog you are linking too.

I am embarrassed to say that my knowledge of native authors does not extend much beyond Sherman Alexie (who I think is great). Any young authors or artists I should know about?

This seems similar to Enron in some ways, any lessons that you've taken from that case?

One obvious challenge to keeping track of pollutants is the ability to document the sources of pollution. What challenges or barriers are there to reporting and investigating pollution?