Nah, thats not really how it works lazs. You dont get to pick a time period and then claim that during that time period there is a majority on either side. If there has been 2000 papers published over 10 years, and of those 2000 papers, 3 are "against", you dont get to look at the specific month those papers were published and say "during this month, more papers were against than pro". You need to look at the big picture to get the truth.
But that is all your side is good at. Trying to spin the truth, trying to flood any discussion with missinformation, half-truths and distorted facts pulled from context. Isnt it sad lasz, to be on the side that has to make stuff up or pervert the truto have an argument?
And its funny in a sad and pathetic way that you are using the same link and the same arguments now as the latest time I debunked your BS about the consensus among scientists that global warming is real.
Over to the "how can these scientists be neutral".
First we must consider the source for that piece of information. The study we are discussing have only done one thing. Gone over the abstracts of printed, peer-reviewed articles. That means that we cannot say whether the scientist is neutral or not. All we can say that he has not taken a stand for or against global warming in the abstracts of his paper. Unless the author expressly states in his abstract whether he/his research is pro or against, we cant know his position.
So all your claims about what they have or have not said is completely made up. You are just sitting there, like the dishonest scum you are, making s hit up. "It means they are unwilling to go with the alarmists blah blah". Another lie. Isnt it sad lasz, to have to lie in every single f ucking post to try to build an argument?
Second, big oil is spending millions right now to try to buy junk scientists. Just like the guy in the first post of this thread. Here is a guy who has willingly let himself be bought by pretty much every big anti-environment or anti-health corporation there is.
