Do you disagree with the scientific consensus about Global Warming?

Question

All of you who have shown any form of positive response to this question are idiots.

Nigel E:

What you have just said sums up the doomed attitude we as a species have.

Firstly, you doubt something that is proven by scientists who get up every morning to put their decades of knowledge into practice and have agreed that humans are to blame for increase in CO2 emissions, the levels of which determine (more than anything else) the temperature of this planet.

I agree with Lenny- Im nowhere near qualified to make a sure-fire statement. The point is, the OVERWHELMING majority of scientists have proven this.

Nigel then goes on to say that, if his set-in-iron beliefs are in fact wrong, there's not much that can go wrong.

Imagine global catastrophes, like the one in Burma, happening on a monthly basis; 2 billion Indian and Chinese displaced through lack of water;spread of majaria;global extinction of 50% of species.

You ******* idiots!

Answer 1

No, what I disagree with is that there actually is a scientific consensus.

I hear about various political bodies such as the IPCC and Algore talk about a consensus, but I still find a lot of scientists that do not agree, including the ones that are listed by the IPCC as being part of their consensus.

Besides, consensus is not the same as science.  There was once a consensus that Alar was harmful and should not be used on apples.  Once the actual science was put to the problem it was found that there was no problem.

Answer 2

Not all scientists go along with the recent global warming hysteria, these are the scientists I agree with

Answer 3

Yes!

Some scientists are on the bandwagon and some aren't.

Most say it is a problem and many say it is one of the Earth's normal cycles - every few thousand years the Earth goes thru the same cycle - warms up and cools down.

20 years ago the doom amd gloom merchants predicted another ice age - sorry, I must have nodded off and missed it.

Another tax raising con by governments.

Easier solution - lower the fuel taxes and plant more trees to convert the CO2 into oxygen and stop importing goods from countries that cut down rain forests to promote their goods.

Answer 4

1. An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole: "Among political women . . . there is a clear consensus about the problems women candidates have traditionally faced" (Wendy Kaminer). See Usage Note at redundancy.

   2. General agreement or accord: government by consensus.

since scientists are being censored for disagreeing with GW.. and people are recommending others be stripped of accreditation for disagreeing.. it is hard for me to see how you can say there is a consensus.. since obviously the group of scientists as a whole do NOT agree.

Answer 5

YES !!!   They are not scientist but just propagating Gore's lie about GW. The green house gas that is supposed to caused it is not there. There are some pretty stupid people about your green house gas. Don't listen to what they have figured out. It is the Left trying to cripple the US .

Answer 6

Whilst I agree that the greenhouse effect is fact, and that carbon dioxide and methane are greenhouse gases. I am unconvinced that

1)  Emissions as a result of human industry/agriculture are significant enough to end the current ice age.

2) If it was that it would be such a bad thing.

Answer 7

A consensus is just a vote, the opinion of the majority.

This is not science, this is politics.  Science does not need a consensus to show that it is right, it just needs one person with the facts to show that it is right.

Science isn't voted on.  This is a sign that global warming is nothing but political.

Answer 8

Very much so.  Ecology is a science that is still very much in its infancy and we simply do not know enough about it to make good predictions, or even very accurate global observations.

Right now Ecology is about the same level that genetics was at when Mandel did his studies on heredity in the 1860s.

Every single long term climate model that has been proposed so far, has been wrong, and usually very wrong.  It's not that Ecology is a bad science, there are just way too many variables that we still are only barley aware of.  It's very difficult for weathermen to predict the weather two or three weeks out, so how is that that predictions made about the weather ten years from now are accurate?

Ecology needs more time and study, we're just not at the level where it's reasonable to say something like "The world will heat up 5 degrees in fifty years."  Not yet, maybe one day.

Answer 9

I disagree with anybody who believes in Gorebal Warming..

Answer 10

Just because some one disagrees doesn't mean they think they are smarter than the scientists, that is a stupid argument. Do you think you are smarter than the scientists that do disagree with Global warming??? See people who disagree with global warming get their facts and information the same way you do, reading reports and papers by those with PHD's. Basically your conclusion is that you think the scientists that agree are smarter than the scientists who disagree. Have you ever met any of them? How do you know one group is smarter than the other? You have already acknowledged that you are no where near as smart as the scientists studying this. If you have ever studied debate what you are doing is called "ad hominem" you are attacking the person not the issue. If you want to have a real debate don't attack the person discuss the issues.

Answer 11

Well, unless any of us are scientists I expect we're about as qualified to make comment as my cat!

Answer 12

no,  i don't disagree.

i seriously doubt that i'm smarter than the PhDs who study climate.

and i doubt that anyone else here is smarter either.

Answer 13

No.I believe them.

Answer 14

No, the consensus is correct.  I've spent a lot of time studying the scientific evidence regarding the causes of global warming (and summarized the evidence in the link below), and the more I learn, the more I'm convinced that the consensus is right.  We're causing global warming, which is causing dangerous climate change, and we need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions 80% by the year 2050 to avoid catastrophic climate change.

Even if I wasn't convinced by the scientific evidence, I would have a hard time believing that I understand it better than the scientific experts do.  That's what I really don't understand about global warming 'skeptics' - they have little scientific education, yet they think they understand the issue better than scientists with PhDs in climate science who have spent their lives studying the subject.  It boggles my mind that anybody could be so arrogant.

Answer 15

They haven't actually PROVED it you friggin IDIOT

Answer 16

Yes I do, global fluctuations are a natural phenomena and part of cyclical weather changes. There is now a multi billion $ industry grown up around global warming.