Global Temperatures Plunge. Icy Silence from Climate Alarmists

[Anler]

19 hours ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

Why do climate change deniers hail weather pattern changes as proof that the climate isn't changing when it is in their favor, but when climate change believers use weather patterns as proof deniers use the excuse, "You can't judge the climate off something as short term as a half a year..."? 

Anyone who thinks a month, a warm summer, a cold winter, a year, two years, etc are an indicator of climate is a fucking retard and shouldn't even be in this conversation... Cough cough Momo. 

Momo is a fucking dummy...

[Mainecat]

Where I fished at high tide as a kid in the 60's is now underwater at high tide. The ocean is rising due to global warming.

[Snake]

9 hours ago, revkevsdi said:

Does anyone on this site have a PHD? Anyone? 

Because evidently people who actually know shit believe the following.

The survey found 97% agreed that global temperatures have increased during the past 100 years; 84% say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiates its occurrence.

Obviously these people can't compete with a bunch of fuck heads on a sledding site.

 

Forbes magazine... I am sure you have heard of them.

 

Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.

So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.

That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”  Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19^th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)

The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/#5f0adef81690

 

Stick with thinking you know about American politics. Obviously the climate is beyond your critical thinking skills.

Edited December 1, 2016 by Snake

[DriftBusta]

11 minutes ago, Mainecat said:

Where I fished at high tide as a kid in the 60's is now underwater at high tide. The ocean is rising due to global warming.

well i guess that settles the global warming debate.  FFS.

[ArcticCrusher]

11 minutes ago, Mainecat said:

Where I fished at high tide as a kid in the 60's is now underwater at high tide. The ocean is rising due to global warming.

Would you be happier if there was no water there anymore?

[racer254]

14 minutes ago, Mainecat said:

Where I fished at high tide as a kid in the 60's is now underwater at high tide. The ocean is rising due to global warming.

Tides are controlled by the moon.  Maybe the Moon's gravitational pull is getting stronger in that area.  LOL.

[old indy]

 possibly due to our present axis angle its a bit higher than it was in the 60s only to recede as we come back around?

the moons gravitational pull does vary with axis change does it not?

[Momorider]

46 minutes ago, old indy said:

 possibly due to our present axis angle its a bit higher than it was in the 60s only to recede as we come back around?

the moons gravitational pull does vary with axis change does it not?

4 inches in a century  

[02sled]

The only constant in life is that things will change.

[02sled]

11 hours ago, revkevsdi said:

Does anyone on this site have a PHD? Anyone? 

Because evidently people who actually know shit believe the following.

The survey found 97% agreed that global temperatures have increased during the past 100 years; 84% say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiates its occurrence.

Obviously these people can't compete with a bunch of fuck heads on a sledding site.

 

And "scholars" have never been wrong. Scholars used to believe the earth was flat and if you sailed out to sea to far you would fall off the end. Heck there are still some people that believe the earth is flat.

There was a report by a well known scientist that suggested climate change was and is just a cycle of nature and those suggesting it's our fault were driven by a desire to get funding for themselves to continue their research. The more they claimed we were causing global warming the more they were able to get grants to study the situation and how to address the situation. Self perpetuating employment.

 

[Momorider]

9 minutes ago, 02sled said:

And "scholars" have never been wrong. Scholars used to believe the earth was flat and if you sailed out to sea to far you would fall off the end. Heck there are still some people that believe the earth is flat.

There was a report by a well known scientist that suggested climate change was and is just a cycle of nature and those suggesting it's our fault were driven by a desire to get funding for themselves to continue their research. The more they claimed we were causing global warming the more they were able to get grants to study the situation and how to address the situation. Self perpetuating employment.

 

Jizziky still thinks it is flat   

[xtralettucetomatoe580]

12 hours ago, revkevsdi said:

Does anyone on this site have a PHD? Anyone? 

Because evidently people who actually know shit believe the following.

The survey found 97% agreed that global temperatures have increased during the past 100 years; 84% say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiates its occurrence.

Obviously these people can't compete with a bunch of fuck heads on a sledding site.

 

Do you have a PhD? Not many people here question either it happening or humans having some sort of involvement. As you know, the jury is still out in the scientific community to the implications. Whatever they come up with though, I got $1M to anyone who wants to take the bet that in 50 years civilization will be able to handle it and move forward... Like we are some fragile beasts with no ability to shape the world around us...? But enough ability to make the whole damn earth warm...? Humans prevail, like we always do over nature. 

6 hours ago, Mileage Psycho said:

If? They are rising  

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

Well that settles it, by the time I am 126 years old, on my fifth wife, been elected unanimously to 12 consecutive terms as Emperor of the United States of Ryan, the oceans will have risen almost a foot. We are fucked. 

I ask again. What is more likely: Humans struggling with an inability to stop themselves from licking windows and eating crayons cannot deal with a rising sea level of 1.2in per decade. Or. Humans, who have shaped the earth to their liking, put men on the moon, conquered all climates and made them livable, etc will deal with the 1/9th of an inch a year sea level rising. All while slaying pussy, shooting AR-15s in the air, burning trees for the fun of it, and killing endangered species because fuck them. 

I happen to have a little more faith in us. I also happen to think a warmer climate has more upsides than down. All the others can be dealt with through ingenuity. You can't, however, make growing seasons longer through such. Shit, in 100 years Canada might be a viable place to live without wanting to blow your brains out. You're welcome Canada. American exceptionalism may finally make your country livable. (Please try not to soil any tampons over the last part as it was a joke)

[s pump]

22 hours ago, Mainecat said:

I assume none of you guys live on or near the ocean?

50 miles, will I be ok?

6 hours ago, Mileage Psycho said:

If? They are rising  

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

Yah, so. Come on Vince you dont have to follow the company line any more. Your team lost, go riding, you'll feel better. Google Wisconsinan Glaciation, fascinating.

3 hours ago, Mainecat said:

Where I fished at high tide as a kid in the 60's is now underwater at high tide. The ocean is rising due to global warming.

You do realize Georges Banks was on the coastline 18k years ago right? Ninety miles is under water that used to be land. That's just in the last glaciation. It will be ok, you can shuffle 11 inches inland and still reach the blue fish.

[bussman]

Earth has been warming for 12,000 years..... 

 

But carbon.....

.....must.....tax.....air..... 

 

Some of you are complete suckers.  

[Snake]

3 minutes ago, bussman said:

Earth has been warming for 12,000 years..... 

 

But carbon.....

.....must.....tax.....air..... 

 

Some of you are complete suckers.  

Taxing rain.

[revkevsdi]

5 hours ago, ArcticCrusher said:

Who gives a shit.  Titles do not mean anything.  Hell I have a SIL with one in Science (so not a useless arts one) and guess what she is a joke.  What have these people accomplished that we should listen to what they say?  Their models haven't even been close to the predictions they have been making.

The last mini ice age occurred a little over 500 years ago and temps tend to rise from that point on, just like history has taught us.  Climate is gonna change, get used to it.  ExtraLettuce was correct in his post.

 

5 hours ago, washedupmxer said:

Titles don't mean anything. LOL.  

It reminds me of the Carpenters when were were going through the plans for my house. "Uhhhh you had a arkatek make these didn't yuh. "

I said no a cab driver. 

Funny how people have such contempt for educated people.

But then again that's why they US. ended up with George Bush, almost had Palin as VP and now Donald Trump.

 

 

 

[Momorider]

6 minutes ago, revkevsdi said:

 

Titles don't mean anything. LOL.  

It reminds me of the Carpenters when were were going through the plans for my house. "Uhhhh you had a arkatek make these didn't yuh. "

I said no a cab driver. 

Funny how people have such contempt for educated people.

But then again that's why they US. ended up with George Bush, almost had Palin as VP and now Donald Trump.

 

 

 

All with at least 80 IQ points on you  

[Boered]

On ‎2016‎-‎11‎-‎30 at 1:15 PM, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

No, I don't think they can stop it nor do I think we should be investing billions to do so. I think we should be spending that money to take advantage of what the changing climate will bring. More rain in the midwest and a longer growing season. Less rain in the west and southwest. How do we produce crops that are better suited, handle weather changes, etc. I don't see how climate change can't have opportunities. There is always opportunity. 
 

As for the extent of human influence on that change, I don't know. I think there is some, but I don't subscribe to the doom and gloom side of it. I think most of it is a cycle caused by mother nature herself. Not saying I think we should polute away because there is effects on drinking water and air quality, but I do not think we should hamstring business and manufacturing because of global warming. 

The oceans aren't going to rise 100 feet and kill everyone either. I think that is foolish. If they do rise, humans will counter it as we always do with weather. Time to put aside the fear based politics of GW and start looking for solutions rather than knee jerk reactions that don't help anyone. 

 

100% correct.

 

[ArcticCrusher]

9 minutes ago, revkevsdi said:

 

Titles don't mean anything. LOL.  

It reminds me of the Carpenters when were were going through the plans for my house. "Uhhhh you had a arkatek make these didn't yuh. "

I said no a cab driver. 

Funny how people have such contempt for educated people.

But then again that's why they US. ended up with George Bush, almost had Palin as VP and now Donald Trump.

 

 

 

Not without accomplishments.  I went to UofT for Electrical Engineering, how many prof's (PH.D and tenured) there do you think anyone would listen or give the time of day to?  They could never be of any value in the real world and most have nothing of any substance to their credit, so stifle it.  There are some, but they are few and far inbetween.  You should spend time with the ones who can't hired by the universities and end up teaching in the highschools, talk about having some major screws missing.

Architects know the building code,  beyond that you need an engineer, you wouldn't want either involved in the actual construction. 

[bussman]

Arkatek

 

[Skidooski]

14 hours ago, revkevsdi said:

Does anyone on this site have a PHD? Anyone?

Because evidently people who actually know shit believe the following.

The survey found 97% agreed that global temperatures have increased during the past 100 years; 84% say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiates its occurrence.

Obviously these people can't compete with a bunch of fuck heads on a sledding site.

 

Oh STFU you angry Elf

[02sled]

Those that can do those that can't teach comes to mind. I have hired programmers fresh out of school. Then they have been taught how to code for the real world and not the BS that their professors taught them. Time is money.

A friend of mine bought his son a high end laptop to go to university with this fall. He is studying business. Two of his professors told him to ditch the laptop and get a Mac because business now runs on Mac and his laptop would be useless in the business world.

[ArcticCrusher]

16 minutes ago, 02sled said:

Those that can do those that can't teach comes to mind. I have hired programmers fresh out of school. Then they have been taught how to code for the real world and not the BS that their professors taught them. Time is money.

A friend of mine bought his son a high end laptop to go to university with this fall. He is studying business. Two of his professors told him to ditch the laptop and get a Mac because business now runs on Mac and his laptop would be useless in the business world.

This one of his prof's?

 

 

[02sled]

15 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said:

This one of his prof's?

 

 

That was an excellent movie.  I liked the part where he hired Kurt Vonnegut to write a paper for him and the professor says it's obvious he knows nothing about Kurt Vonnegut.

[Sleepr2]

15 hours ago, revkevsdi said:

Does anyone on this site have a PHD? Anyone? 

Because evidently people who actually know shit believe the following.

The survey found 97% agreed that global temperatures have increased during the past 100 years; 84% say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiates its occurrence.

Obviously these people can't compete with a bunch of fuck heads on a sledding site.

 

Quote

The 97% “consensus” study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogosphere. The shoddy methodology of Cook’s study has been shown to be so fatally flawed that well known climate scientists have publicly spoken out against it,

“The ‘97% consensus’ article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it.”

– Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)

The following is a list of 97 articles that refute Cook’s (poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed) 97% “consensus” study. The fact that anyone continues to bring up such soundly debunked nonsense like Cook’s study is an embarrassment to science.

---

Summary: Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW. While only 65 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause). Their methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing AGW, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors. Cook et al.’s author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with their abstract ratings.

---

[ Journal Coverage ]

Energy Policy – Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis (PDF) (October 2014)
Energy Policy – Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: Rejoinder (PDF) (October 2014)
Science & Education – Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change (PDF) (August 2013)

---

[ Media Coverage ]

American Thinker – Climate Consensus Con Game (February 17, 2014)
Breitbart – Obama’s ’97 Percent’ Climate Consensus: Debunked, Demolished, Staked through the heart (September 8, 2014)
Canada Free Press – Sorry, global warmists: The ’97 percent consensus’ is complete fiction (May 27, 2014)
Financial Post – Meaningless consensus on climate change (September 19, 2013)
Financial Post – The 97%: No you don’t have a climate consensus (September 25, 2013)
Forbes – Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring ’97-Percent Consensus’ Claims (May 30, 2013)
Fox News – Balance is not bias — Fox News critics mislead public on climate change (October 16, 2013)
Herald Sun – That 97 per cent claim: four problems with Cook and Obama (May 22, 2013)
Power Line – Breaking: The “97 Percent Climate Consensus” Canard (May 18, 2014)
Spiked – Global warming: the 97% fallacy (May 28, 2014)
The Daily Caller – Where Did ’97 Percent’ Global Warming Consensus Figure Come From? (May 16, 2014)
The Daily Telegraph – 97 per cent of climate activists in the pay of Big Oil shock! (July 23, 2013)
The Guardian – The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up (June 6, 2014)
The New American – Global Warming “Consensus”: Cooking the Books (May 21, 2013)
The New American – Cooking Climate Consensus Data: “97% of Scientists Affirm AGW” Debunked (June 5, 2013)
The New American – Climategate 3.0: Blogger Threatened for Exposing 97% “Consensus” Fraud (May 20, 2014)
The Patriot Post – The 97% Consensus — A Lie of Epic Proportions (May 17, 2013)
The Patriot Post – Debunking the ‘97% Consensus’ & Why Global Cooling May Loom (August 7, 2014)
The Press-Enterprise – Don’t be swayed by climate change ‘consensus’ (September 10, 2013)
The Tampa Tribune – About that ’97 percent’: It ain’t necessarily so (May 19, 2014)
The Wall Street Journal – The Myth of the Climate Change ‘97%’ (May 26, 2014)
Troy Media – Bandwagon psychology root of 97 per cent climate change “consensus” (February 18, 2014)
WND – Black Jesus’ Climate Consensus Fantasy (June 25, 2013)

---

[ Organization Coverage ]

Competitive Enterprise Institute – Consensus Shmensus (September 5, 2013)
Cornwall Alliance – Climate Consensus? Nonsense! (June 16, 2014)
Friends of Science – Friends of Science Challenge the Cook Study for Bandwagon Fear Mongering on Climate Change and Global Warming (May 21, 2013)
Friends of Science – Only 65 Scientists of 12,000 Make up Alleged 97% on Climate Change and Global Warming Consensus (May 28, 2013)
Friends of Science – 97% Consensus? No! Global Warming Math Myths & Social Proofs (PDF) (February 3, 2014)
Friends of Science – Climate Change Is a Fact of Life, the Science Is Not Settled and 97% Consensus on Global Warming Is a Math Myth (February 4, 2014)
George C. Marshall Institute – The Corruption of Science (October 5, 2014)
John Locke Foundation – The 97% consensus on global warming exposed (July 3, 2014)
Liberty Fund – David Friedman on the 97% Consensus on Global Warming (February 27, 2014)
Global Warming Policy Foundation – Consensus? What Consensus? (PDF) (September 2, 2013)
Global Warming Policy Foundation – Fraud, Bias And Public Relations: The 97% ‘Consensus’ And Its Critics (PDF) (September 8, 2014)
National Center for Policy Analysis – The Big Lie of the “Consensus View” on Global Warming (July 30, 2014)
National Center for Public Policy Research – Do 97% of All Climate Scientists Really Believe Mankind is Causing Catastrophic Global Warming? (February 10, 2014)
Principia Scientific International – Exposed: Academic Fraud in New Climate Science Consensus Claim (May 23, 2013)
The Heartland Institute – What 97 Percent of Climate Scientists Do (May 12, 2014)

---

[ Weblog Coverage ]

Australian Climate Madness – ‘Get at the truth, and not fool yourself’ (May 29, 2014)
Bishop Hill – ‘Landmark consensus study’ is incomplete (May 27, 2013)
Climate Audit – UnderCooked Statistics (May 24, 2013)
Climate Etc. (Judith Curry Ph.D.) – The 97% ‘consensus’ (July 26, 2013)
Climate Etc. (Judith Curry Ph.D.) – The 97% ‘consensus’: Part II (July 27, 2013)
Climate Etc. (Judith Curry Ph.D.) – The 97% feud (July 27, 2014)
Climate Resistance – Tom Curtis Doesn’t Understand the 97% Paper (July 27, 2013)
JoNova – Cook’s fallacy “97% consensus” study is a marketing ploy some journalists will fall for (May 17, 2013)
JoNova – That’s a 0.3% consensus, not 97% (July 1, 2013)
JoNova – “Honey, I shrunk the consensus” – Monckton takes action on Cooks paper (September 24, 2013)
JoNova – John Cook’s consensus data is so good his Uni will sue you if you discuss it (May 18, 2014)
JoNova – Uni Queensland defends legal threats over “climate” data they want to keep secret (May 21, 2014)
JoNova – Cook scores 97% for incompetence on a meaningless consensus (June 6, 2014)
José Duarte (Ph.D.) – Cooking stove use, housing associations, white males, and the 97% (August 28, 2014)
José Duarte (Ph.D.) – The art of evasion (September 9, 2014)
Making Science Public – What’s behind the battle of received wisdoms? (July 23, 2013)
Popular Technology.net – 97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists’ Papers, according to the scientists that published them (May 21, 2013)
Popular Technology.net – The Statistical Destruction of the 97% Consensus (June 1, 2013)
Popular Technology.net – Cook’s 97% Consensus Study Game Plan Revealed (June 4, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – The Consensus Project: An update (August 16, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – Biases in consensus data (August 24, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – More irregularities in the consensus data (August 24, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – Open letter to the Vice-chancellor of the University of Queensland (August 27, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – Bootstrap results for initial ratings by the Consensus Project (August 28, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – The 97% consensus (May 10, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – My First Audioslide (May 20, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – A new contribution to the consensus debate (June 4, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – 24 errors? (June 8, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – More Cook data released (July 21, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – Days of rater bias (July 23, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – Days of rater bias (ctd) July 28, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – Another chapter on the 97% nonsensus (August 1, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – ERL does not want you to read this (October 14, 2014)
The Blackboard (Lucia Lundgren Ph.D.) – I Do Not Think it Means What You Think it Means (May 15, 2013)
The Blackboard (Lucia Lundgren Ph.D.) – On the Consensus (May 17, 2013)
The Blackboard (Lucia Lundgren Ph.D.) – Nir Shaviv: One of the 97% (May 17, 2013)
The Blackboard (Lucia Lundgren Ph.D.) – Why Symmetry is Bad (May 19, 2013)
The Blackboard (Lucia Lundgren Ph.D.) – Possible Self-Selection Bias in Cook: Author responses. (May 20, 2013)
The Blackboard (Lucia Lundgren Ph.D.) – Bias Author Survey: Pro AGW (May 21, 2013)
The Lid – Claim 97% of Climate Scientists Believe In Global Warming is TOTALLY BOGUS! (May 21, 2014)
The State of the Climate – Cook’s survey not only meaningless but also misleading (May 17, 2013)
WUWT – The Collapsing ‘Consensus’ (May 22, 2013)
WUWT – Self admitted cyber thief Peter Gleick is still on the IOP board that approved the Cook 97% consensus paper (June 4, 2013)
WUWT – ‘Quantifying the consensus on global warming in the literature’: a comment (June 24, 2013)
WUWT – On the 97 percenters: ‘You Must Admit, They Were Careful’ (July 28, 2013)
WUWT – What Is Cook’s Consensus? (July 29, 2013)
WUWT – Cooks ‘97% consensus’ disproven by a new peer reviewed paper showing major math errors (September 3, 2013)
WUWT – 97% Climate consensus ‘denial’: the debunkers debunked (September 9, 2013)
WUWT – Join my crowd-sourced complaint about the ‘97% consensus’ (September 20, 2013)
WUWT – The 97% consensus myth – busted by a real survey (November 20, 2013)
WUWT – 97% of pictures are worth 1000 climate words (February 26, 2014)
WUWT – John Cook’s 97% consensus claim is about to go ‘pear-shaped’ (May 10, 2014)
WUWT – An Open Letter puts the University of Queensland in a dilemma over John Cook’s ‘97% consensus’ paper(May 22, 2014)
WUWT – The climate consensus is not 97% – it’s 100% (June 11, 2014)
WUWT – The disagreement over what defines ‘endorsment of AGW’ by Cook et al. is revealed in raters remarks, and it sure isn’t a 97% consensus (June 24, 2014)
WUWT – If 97% of Scientists Say Global Warming is Real, 100% Say It Has Nearly Stopped (November 18, 2014)