Is it true there is more of a consensus of scientists against manmade global warming?

Question

The reason i ask is because i have found a list of 17000 scientists who do not believe in manmade global warming, but can not find a list for it.
also this list is fo actual scientists in the climate research field.

http://www.sitewave.net/pproject/listbystate.htm

Answer 1

There is, but you will only hear about them on-line or on Fox News.

One of the scientists, from Great Britain, has made a documentary about it. I doubt it will win any awards, even though it shows the man who actually did the research and created the chart that Gore uses to prove the connection between CO2 and global warming stating he is completely wrong.

Who is he though? I mean, a lot has changed since he went to Antarctica and collected the core samples, moved them to his lab, analyzed the data and created the charts.

Compare that to what Al Gore did. He found the charts, decided for himself what the lines on the chart meant, (No need to bother the jerk who created the chart), and made an award winning movie based on his new and improved ideas.

Sometimes the creators of South park will throw in a stab at the Global Warming scammers but the anti-global warming disaster scientists, although the majority, are largely ignored.

Answer 2

There is no scientific consensus, it is a lie perpetrated by the global warming alarmists because the best way to win an argument is to claim their is no argument.

The original claim came about due to a paper written by Naomi Oreskes which analyzed 928 scientific papers within the field and found all agreed with man made global warming. However when the paper was analyzed by an outside source it was found that of the 928 papers that supposedly claimed man was to blame only a few actually mentioned global warming. It was also discovered that about 11,000 papers on the topic were ignored almost all of which disagreed with the idea of man made global warming. There have been no more studies on the scientific consensus, this the Oreskes paper is taken as proof of consensus even though it has been completely discredited.

That covers individual scientists but what about the claim that all major scientific organizations claim man is to blame? This claim is true, however organizations will not dare speak out against global warming out of fear.

Look at the interview done by Michael Griffins, the head of NASA. He was slightly critical of man made global warming and he was destroyed over it. Less than an hour after the remarks radio stations and TV stations dug up dirt from his background and his history to discredit him. He is a scientist expressing a scientific opinion on a scientific topic and he is attacked over it, this is truly dangerous to science. A scientist should be able to question science and not be attacked personally over it, this is censorship. Another example is Michael Crichton.

Answer 3

The consensus is that global warming is man made, or at least man-enhanced. But it is not unanimous. Most but not all scientists say that human activity is playing an important role in the warming. But there was a time when most scientists said the Sun went around the Earth. So it shouldn't be about majority rule; it should be about learning the truth. Look at the facts as stated by the various scientists and not by politicians and environmental activists. Do not just watch "An Inconvenient Truth" or "The Great Global Warming Swindle" and then make up your mind. Check all the sources. Read the actual scientific reports. Learn some science. Read some text books or at least science web pages. Check out each claim to see if it really holds up. This is not easy to do because most people have a strong opinion and they word their statements to hide evidence that contradicts their opinion. You need to dig. And you need to be willing to change your mind when you learn something new.

Answer 4

The Big Lie is the hardest to disprove...

One of the ways that global warming alarmists build "consensus" is by including in their number every scientist who acknowledges either some man-made contribution or the probability of a measurable contribution, regardless of how small that contribution is. The fact that they want to turn this into an all-black or all-white dilemma is one of the surest signs of the intellectual dishonesty of their efforts.

It is the new religion. The new fascism. And in the end, they may be leaving such a bitter taste with the manner in which they attempt to force their beliefs down our throats, that the environment loses friends it might otherwise have if the issue were handled with a little more honesty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie

Answer 5

No, this is not true. Scientists around the globe are recognizing and acknowledging that human influence on the Earth's biosphere is directly influencing global warming. A classic example of this is the dramatic decrease in the number of trees on Earth. Trees use CO2 and in return give us oxygen. With 75% of the world's rainforests already destroyed, the CO2 ratio has exponentially climbed to unprecedented levels. Visit the site of the Union of Concerned Scientists to learn about how many scientists around the globe know that there is a direct link between human activities and global warming.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

Answer 6

I have been a pretty avid believer that there is a problem (not just global warming but a problem with the planet) and have been supportive of the GW issue.
Another poster put a link on to a video about scientists who are againt the GW (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170&hl=en) and after watching only part of the movie, it really got me wondering. In the video, it talks about how CO2 is supposed to raise the temperatures but during the industrial revolution, temperatures actually dropped. So I looked it up on Wikipedia and found some history on CO2 that was interesting (I don't know if it would help or not)....Charles Thilonier "opened a pressurized container of liquid carbon dioxide, only to find that the cooling produced by the rapid evaporation of the liquid yielded a "snow" of solid CO2." Maybe instead of warming, CO2 causes cooling??? (Are you following my train of thought here?).
Also, something I think EVERYONE needs to keep in mind about this subject is that most of these scientists and research is funded by politics. I think its important for people of both sides to think about.
I definately think there is SOMETHING going on but am not 100% sure on the global warming.

Answer 7

i'm going to record in elementary terms an extremely small extensive type for you... Al'harthi - Awwad Bradley - Rick Crabbe - Philip Delhotal - Casey Eddenhofer - Ottmar Faaij - Andre Gregory - Robert Hare - William Ibitoye - Francis Jepma - Catrinus Kuipers - Lambert Lecocq - Pierre McFarland - Macj Najam - Adil Opschoor - Hans Plotkin - Steven Quinxian - Gao Rayner - Steve Schaeffer - Roberto Tanaka - Kanoka Uchiyama - Yohji Vuori - Seppo Worrel - Ernst Xu - Huaqing Yamba - Francis Zhou - Dadi Compiling that record replaced into basic as I definitely have right here records with the names of many hundreds of scientists who help artifical international warming. I in elementary terms mandatory to seek advice from a minimum of one single rfile to locate the 26 alphabetical names. Your project, do you ought to make your strategies up directly to settle for it, is to come back up with an A to Z record of the two credible scientists who do no longer help international warming.

Answer 8

No, it's not.

"No one in the climate science community is debating whether or not changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations alter the greenhouse effect, or if the current warming trend is outside of the range of natural variability, or if sea levels have risen over the last century.

While theories and viewpoints in conflict with the above do exist, their proponents constitute a very small minority. If we require unanimity before being confident, well, we can't be sure the earth isn't hollow either.

If this is not scientific consensus, what in the world would a consensus look like?"

Answer 9

No. Proof, with references, and some knowledgeable opinions is below.

What you're referring to is the "Oregon "Petition". It was on online petition that was basically a scam. It was designed to look like an official communication from the National Academy of Sciences, who issued a press release denying they had anything to do with it. Just a list of names, no affiliations and uncheckable. Some are obvious fakes. Read this and then decide how it stacks up against the information below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

Back to the solid, verifiable proof.

Every major scientific organization supports manmade solar warming:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

The vast majority of climatologists support it:

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

Even FoxNews says so:

"While evidence suggests fluctuations in solar activity can affect climate on Earth, and that it has done so in the past, the majority of climate scientists and astrophysicists agree that the sun is not to blame for the current and historically sudden uptick in global temperatures on Earth, which seems to be mostly a mess created by our own species."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258342,00.html

These people know, because they attend the scientific conferences on this:

"Regardless of these spats, 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 AGU or EGU meetings, or simply going to talk to scientists (not the famous ones, the ones at your local university or federal lab). I challenge you, if you think there is some un-reported division, show me the hundreds of abstracts at the Fall meeting (the biggest confernce in the US on this topic) 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."

Dr. James Baker - NOAA

"The overwhelming majority of atmospheric scientists around the world and our own National Academy of Sciences are in essential agreement on the facts of global warming and the significant contribution of human activity to that trend."

Russell E. Train, Republican, former environmental official under Presidents Nixon and Ford

"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know - except maybe Newton's second law of dynamics. Global warming is almost a no-brainer at this point,You really can't find intelligent, quantitative arguments to make it go away."

Dr. Jerry Mahlman, NOAA

And these guys would not say so if there was a majority of scientists against it. It goes against their political base.

"Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich challenged fellow conservatives Tuesday to stop resisting scientific evidence of global warming"

"I agree with you (Gore) that the debate over climate change is over."

Rep. Dennis Hastert, Republican, Illinois

Hastert wouldn't agree with Gore on where to go to lunch.

Answer 10

The list you refer to is called the Oregon Petition - Google it to see what a pile of garbage it is. Pick a few names at random and see if they're scientists at all. The signatories include the Spice Girls and others who don't have a clue about global warming.

Thye man behind it is Frederick Seitz (Google him as well). Once you know the truth behind the petition you'll never refer to it again - it's an embarassment.