Global warming skeptics if there is no consensus then what about this?

Question

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Answer 1

There is no consensus that it is man caused or something that is actually harmful.  They only get money from the government if they hype the negative and make a crisis which is exactly the POLITICAL goal desired.  It is astonishing how a warmer climate, longer growing seasons is going to be the end of the world.  Only in the hysterical liberal mind.

Answer 2

The term consensus does not exist in science, only in politics.

Oreskes study is nothing other than a piece of propaganda.  Do you really want me to believe that senator Inhofe's list of 400 skeptical scientists got their theories from reading some right wing blog on the Internet?

Of course not.  Needless to say, Oreskes study has been totally rebuffed.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckt...

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images...

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?ne...

Then you have complains from skeptical scientists who cannot get their work published:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?F...

I will leave the final word on peer review on the government sponsored Wegman report:

Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent. Moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that this community can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility.

http://img.scoop.co.nz/media/pdfs/0607/0...

Answer 3

Great link! I don't know just what kind of 'proof' those ignorant deniers would accept. Would it it take a 200 mile wide tornado,traveling through ten states? Or would it take red snow,or blue rain? They all are of the "flat earth" way of thinking. From where they sit,their scope of understanding causes them to 'believe' the Earth is flat. From there point on the Earth, and with their lack of scientific understanding, all weather is the same!  Pay them no mind!  Forget about them, and focus on the rapidly approaching 'tipping point'!  This time,let them be the ones on the roof tops begging for help that never comes!

Answer 4

It's a shame that science has degraded into a scheme where science, (knowledge) is voted on and agreed to be true by a majority vote.

It's disgusting that schools teach theory as absolute fact, and facts as just theories.  How many times on this board have we read that gravity is just a theory?  Yet, when I drop an object, I know how fast it's going at any point of time because I have the math to back me up, warmers have no idea if it will be warmer or colder any time in the future, and there is no math to show any relation between ghg's and temps.  This relation is just accepted by faith alone.

The believers are like those who accepted the Geocentric theory of the solar system.  The consensus accepted that the Earth was at the center of the solar system, the models showed that the theory worked, and the gvmts of the time (the church) stated that the debate was over.  And when a few skeptics came out with the mathematical proof that they were wrong they were lambasted and arrested by the believers.  Much like today.

[Edit] You need to read the defination of the word consensus.  It's a majority opinion, ie 50% + 1 of a group of people.  So a vote must be taken to determine if in fact there is a majority or consensus of opinion.

Answer 5

None of the sintist are brave enough to do anything or say anything that there are doing it but say that they will and that never is right

Answer 6

The Oreskes study showed the high level of AGW consensus among scientists actively researching the subject, which is the most expert group of people in the world.  Linked below is a further summary of the consensus.

Answer 7

There IS a consensus among scientists with political aspirations.  That says very little about the validity of the AGW hypothesis.

Answer 8

There was a consensus that the king had on beautiful clothes how amazing was it that one small child said look mom the king has no clothes.

Answer 9

Wow, you pasted a link to other like-minded people's writings.  Im impressed.  Think for yourself.

Answer 10

If we were to use some proper scientific methods here, we would look at polls rather than rants.

If we take a look at the poll below, perhaps not surprisingly most climate scientists don't feel that the IPCC is particuarly exagerating (although it seems a significant percentage do).  

I wouldn'r read too much into that.  Why would someone become a climate scientist if they didn't have a hand on their heart preconcieved belief in significant AGW?  It's like asking why would someone study the bible if they didn't believe in god, or why would someone get involved in SETI if they though the whole project was a waste of time.  

What climate scientists have failed to do is to convince scientists and technical people outside their own field that AGW is real.  If it's real (or even probable) show us the proof.  Well there is no proof.  The consensus is the proof - trouble is that consensus was formed a long time ago before there was much research done.

Answer 11

I believe this paragraph says it all.

"The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position."

In other words most to all peer reviewed research agrees that anthropogenic global warming is occurring.