Should the Scientific Challenges of Dissident Nobel Laureates be answered?

From the above posted:

"...I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it…"


You could view that as scientific debate on a meta level.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Actually it was in response to your choice of author. So be it:

One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes... She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.
HOWEVER:
A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren't substantiated in the papers.

"Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union" by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master's thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists.
HOWEVER:
The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.

Additionally, with only 79 respondents how can anyone claim this represents any significant percentage of anything.

In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on climate change...
... oh boy... He searched google scholar and produced a published paper? Wow. Just wow.
HOWEVER:
200 researchers out of the thousands who have contributed to the climate science debate is not evidence of consensus.

So thats 5 out of the 6 you posted as 'evidence'. I didnt bother with the last one.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

Nice finish for your continued fallacious arguments, starting with the garbage Cook paper.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
At what point will you begin to explore that Maybe, JUST maybe your backing the wrong pony.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

repeat of quote:

If the MODEL and the OBSERVATIONS do not confirm the THEORY, the THEORY must be wrong.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is funny:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It actually does. Statistically that's far larger a sample than you need to have greater than 97% confidence.

Well let's see. Should I back the IPCC or a denier? Let's see whose predictions are more accurate:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Looks like your "ponies" won't even place.