Where is the logic in believing the minority of scientists when the vast majority say man made GW is real?

Question

Conservatives point out a handful of INDIVIDUAL scientists who have some doubts (few who say it's a "hoax" though).

However, the vast majority of scientists engaged in climate research support it. Look for the most well established SCIENTIFIC (not political) organizations engaged in climate research and see what they've been saying.

=============================

1) THE AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION, FOUNDED IN 1919, OVER 45,000 MEMBERS

"Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century."

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html

Answer 1

There is no logic to their position.  They try and deny that the consensus exists, but that's clearly wrong.

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/...

Or they try the brilliant 'consensus has been wrong before' argument, which ignores the fact that scientific consensus is usually right, and can only be achieved if there is very strong scientific evidence.

In the end it's just desperation - people trying to find any justification for maintaining their denial about the reality of the situation.

Answer 2

Some people pretend not to believe in man made global warming for two reasons. Because it scares them, or because admitting that it was real would mean that they might have to do something about it. These people are either scared or plain lazy.

Answer 3

They have an ideologically based bias against believing the clear evidence.  They'll climb over mountains of scientific evidence to find a crumb that casts doubt on 1 snippet of data, and declare "see, we really can't know for sure".

Answer 4

The claim that the vast majority of scientists believe in AGW is false..... just a part of the sales pitch attempting to make AGW legit.

Answer 5

Quote from the National Post.  This is not an isolated incident, but one incidence of many:

"...Because of the high importance of this realization, in 1994 Dr. Jaworowski, together with a team from the Norwegian Institute for Energy Technics, proposed a research project on the reliability of trace-gas determinations in the polar ice. The prospective sponsors of the research refused to fund it, claiming the research would be "immoral" if it served to undermine the foundations of climate research.

The refusal did not come as a surprise. Several years earlier, in a peer-reviewed article published by the Norwegian Polar Institute, Dr. Jaworowski criticized the methods by which CO2 levels were ascertained from ice cores, and cast doubt on the global-warming hypothesis. The institute's director, while agreeing to publish his article, also warned Dr. Jaworowski that "this is not the way one gets research projects." Once published, the institute came under fire, especially since the report soon sold out and was reprinted. Said one prominent critic, "this paper puts the Norsk Polarinstitutt in disrepute." Although none of the critics faulted Dr. Jaworowski's science, the institute nevertheless fired him to maintain its access to funding."

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.h...

Evans:

The AGO had a staff of maybe 100, and a budget of about $150 million per year. There were quite a few contractors, and we were well paid— my salary was well into six figures. These were good, interesting, well paid science jobs, which are rare in Australia. These jobs would not exist if we didn’t blame carbon emissions for global warming—I was on the gravy train!

http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/...

Tim Patterson:

  (My) conversion (from believer to skeptic)“probably cost me a lot of grant money."

For more info:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Miller07...

Edit:  Obviously we are seeing the true denialists.  People who are under the delusion that scientists are not pressured to come up with the pre conceived notion that man is responsible for all of the 20th century warming.

Answer 6

There is no logic in believing anyone.  Unless you have taken the raw data (it's available to anyone who wants to go and get it) and done your own quantitative analysis, you have no business debating the cause of global warming or its potential effects.  Accepting something someone else tells you is nothing more than religion, not science.

Answer 7

same minority logic that debunk the consensus that the world wasnt flat.

btw I like how you play with words.  Your, " ... handful of INDIVIDUAL scientists who..."

followed by, "... vast majoirty of scientists..."  

um theyre INDIVIDUALS also.

Answer 8

YOU ARE JUST ANOTHER LIBERAL NUT BAG THAT CHERRY PICKED QUOTES TO HELP YOUR CAUSE. If you studied a little more you would now we have been in a period of cooling for ten years and last year was the coolest.

Answer 9

Quote from Michael Crichton:

"Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus.

"Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus."

Ownage ;3

Answer 10

the vast majority of scientists don't believe AGW is real we are just told they do, any many morons believe it

Answer 11

If we never questioned science because of the number of scientist who believed a theory, we would still believe the Earth was the center of the universe, gravity would effect objects proportionally to their mass, and Divine creation was the reason why man appeared on Earth.

Following others is not the basis for good science, and is hardly ever right.

Answer 12

The people who have disputed the consensus by citing a few scientists have proved nothing.  This is still true.

"The fact that the community overwhelmingly supports the consensus is evidenced by picking up any copy of Journal of Climate or similar, any scientific program at the meetings, or simply going to talk to scientists. I challenge you, if you think there is some un-reported division, show me the hundreds of abstracts that support your view - you won't be able to. You can argue whether the consensus is correct, or what it really implies, but you can't credibly argue it doesn't exist."

NASA's Gavin Schmidt

And those who cite early ideas that the Earth was flat or that the Sun revolved around it, simply prove that the scientific consensus is right and "skeptics" wrong.

Eratosthenes measure the diameter of the Earth 2000 years ago.  Once the data was in there was a scientific consensus that the Earth was round.

Only ignorant "skeptics" who ignored the data and the science still said it was flat.

When Galileo showed the phases of Venus, the data was in, and there was a scientific consensus that the Earth revolved around the Sun.

Only ignorant "skeptics" who ignored the data and the science still said the Sun revolved around the Earth.

The same is true of global warming.  Ony ignorant "skeptics" who ignore the data and the science think man made global warming is not real.

Answer 13

The vast majority. Get real.

Answer 14

# 10 rebuttle

Carbon dioxide is an important greenhouse gas because it transmits visible light but absorbs strongly in the infrared.   (which can truly harm you)

Carbon dioxide is produced by all animals, plants, fungi and microorganisms during respiration and is used by plants during photosynthesis to make sugars which may either be consumed again in respiration or used as the raw material for plant growth. It is, therefore, a major component of the carbon cycle. Carbon dioxide is generated as a byproduct of the combustion of fossil fuels or vegetable matter, among other chemical processes. Inorganic carbon dioxide is output by volcanoes and other geothermal processes such as hot springs.

if you wanna decrease carbon dioxide kill off the rainforests and all plant life, friggin treehuggers wanna protect it all. carbon dioxide is a necessary component of life. if you all wanna really help, kill yourselves, and make the world a better place for those of us who realize that until the world reaches an unlivable temperature, carbon dioxide has to stay

Answer 15

I can't do anything but agree with you. And still so many seem to believe this is only an idea from Al Gore!

Answer 16

Guys,

The issue with the global warming crowd is that as soon as you want to debate it, you are labeled a kook or a neo con.

The fact that the debate is just not allowed is the problem.

There is as much scientifc evidence out there that suggests we are in a cooling cycle!!

The facts are not indeed conclusive, or even suggestive of global warming, especially caused by CO2!

Why have we stopped teaching our kids in school to question what the so called experts say?..instead we are now taught in schools that GW isa fact and caused primarily by big bad USA.

I'm not saying that there is for a fact no global warming, but indeed, especially kids, question the so called facts and the sources that the come from.  And also question the motives behind them.

And question, especially, why if Al and the crew think Global warming is so terrible, why they have created a money making scheme to make billions selling "get out jail cards" to bigbusiness so that they can still pollute?  This is the Carbon credit plan.  Again, think motive here,  GW or not, this carbon credit plan is the largest money making scam on the planet, and check out who owns most of the stock in the company that set it up.....

Just the facts, please!

Answer 17

Good question. Even though the majority of the world's climate scientists agree that man made global warming is happening, people manage to find the few scientists who believe its not. As someone else said, people don't want to believe it as then it means they might have to do something about it. There was a programme on channel 4- 'the great global warming swindle' or something, with many un-heard of scientists saying global warming was being invented to make money etc etc.. and a few scientists said afterwards that the way the documentary was cut made what they were saying look worse that it was. The programme was full of mistakes and half-truths, yet people still clung on to it and quoted it in global warming arguments. As there are no immediate direct effects of, say.. driving everywhere, eating food from half way across the world, leaving lights on all the time, people continue to go about their daily lives. People who refuse to accept the fact that we have to do something about climate change are people who put their own convenience above the planet, and of future generations.

PS. LYON.. 'if you wanna decrease carbon dioxide kill off the rainforests and all plant life'- Plants TAKE IN carbon dioxide in a thing called photosynthesis, and give out oxygen. Deforestation is a large contributary factor to global warming. Yes some carbon dioxide is needed for the plants and carbon cycle etc. but the point is we are producing too much. It's ozone that keeps out harmful UV rays, not carbon dioxide. Also, 'if you wanna help, kill yourselves'- yes very good point, why has no-one thought of this yet?!?!? The amount of carbon dioxide we produce in respiration is minute compared to the amount we produce from factories, cars, planes and producing energy. It's ignorant people like you that are the real problem here.

Ccud.. OMG i can't believe you people. A period of cooling? Where did you get that one from? the daily mail maybe.. or that channel 4 programme. Then why are global temperatures rising, why are the ice caps and glaciers retreating at an alarming rate, why are forest fires increasing, why are sea levels rising??

Answer 18

The unanimity of major scientific organisations makes one think, that if it were not for the conclusion that we should be taking action to ameliorate the problem NOW, there would be very little controversy.  Unfortunately there is a market for dissent whatever shred of evidence, shallow thinking or disreputable debating point that can be mustered.  This market is driven by fear or concern about possible changes that are required to our lifestyle.