I've been arguing with one of my commenters about man's impact on climate change for a while now. He argues that 99.9% of all scientists support the theory of man-made global warming -- and further claims that "hundreds of thousands" of scientists support it while only 10 do not. I've asked him to prove that latter claim, but he either cannot or will not.

I'd argue that it must be cannot, based upon this information. heck, it appears that the IPCC cannot or will not even list those who endorse its positions.

What of the one claim that we hear over and over again, that 2,000 or 2,500 of the world's top scientists endorse the IPCC position? I asked the IPCC for their names, to gauge their views. "The 2,500 or so scientists you are referring to are reviewers from countries all over the world," the IPCC Secretariat responded. "The list with their names and contacts will be attached to future IPCC publications, which will hopefully be on-line in the second half of 2007."

An IPCC reviewer does not assess the IPCC's comprehensive findings. He might only review one small part of one study that later becomes one small input to the published IPCC report. Far from endorsing the IPCC reports, some reviewers, offended at what they considered a sham review process, have demanded that the IPCC remove their names from the list of reviewers. One even threatened legal action when the IPCC refused.

A great many scientists, without doubt, are four-square in their support of the IPCC. A great many others are not. A petition organized by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine between 1999 and 2001 claimed some 17,800 scientists in opposition to the Kyoto Protocol. A more recent indicator comes from the U.S.-based National Registry of Environmental Professionals, an accrediting organization whose 12,000 environmental practitioners have standing with U.S. government agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy. In a November, 2006, survey of its members, it found that only 59% think human activities are largely responsible for the warming that has occurred, and only 39% make their priority the curbing of carbon emissions. And 71% believe the increase in hurricanes is likely natural, not easily attributed to human activities.

Sure seems like we are talking about something less than 99.9% of scientists, and not even what can be reasonably described as a consensus. I guess what I've been getting is junk statistics to go along with the junk science of the supporters of the theory of man-made global warming.

My commenter argues that those who dissent from his beliefs are "outliers" it seems clear to me that those who make such hip, faddish (dare I say cult-like) claims about the metaphysical certainty of and scientific consensus on man's impact on global warming might best be referred to as "In"-liars.