Why do cons think the fact that the vast majority of scientists support man made global warming?

Question

means nothing?

When the vast majority of scientists make official statements supporting it, it DEFINITELY means something. It's not like a vote from the general population. It is a scientific consensus (from guys with Phds on the subject) based on the evidence.

Scientists do their research. They publish their work in scientific journals. Other scientists read those journals and try to replicate the results. If they cannot replicate the results, the theory is debunked or modified. If they can, it is strengthened.

This is called PEER REVIEW. It is a major component of the scientific process.

So again, when a theory stands the test of time, through years of peer review, it DEFINITELY does mean something.

HERE'S MY LIST OF OFFICIAL STATEMENTS FROM SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS SUPPORTING MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AgVWq7MGwPS5ht0Z9neLWYjY7BR.?qid=20070619060241AAoOEhM

geraflop,

Scientists never gathered all the evidence and came to the conclusion that the earth was flat or that the sun revolved around the earth.

Modern science didn't come about until the 1500s or so. It was created by men like Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Tyche, and Newton. These were the first scientists.

Back then, nobody was stupid enough to believe the earth was flat. The catholic church, however, believed the universe revolved around the earth. Those people that I mentioned above did not.

The nobody believed the earth was round but Columbus story is a myth. Most people knew it was round. They figured it out since greek times. They just didn't know how big it was. Look it up. It's true.

Answer 1

"So again, when a theory stands the test of time, through years of peer review,"

So...why do man-made global warming proponents (i.e. Al Gore) run from debates?

Why do you and all other scientists that you adore run from peer review, the three big challenges?

1 - what percentage of current climate change is man made, and what percent is natural variation of the sun?

2 - How are temperature estimates pre-1700 validated?

3 - Why do global climate models predict future warming, even when *RANDOM* data are input for past temperatures?

Or do you just spew "I read that scientists had consensus?"

You've changed your tune. Past posts of yours claimed that consensus was enough. Science is not consensus. Science is reproducible results that stand up to scrutiny.

Go ahead, Troovee...prove me wrong...show that your theory can stand up to scrutiny.

Answer 2

a million) human beings in easy terms make a contribution approximately .3% to 5% of all greenhouse gasoline emissions (something take place certainly). So especially not likely human beings are inflicting it. 2) the present warming type began interior the mid-to-previous due 1800's, nicely till now super scale industrialization and autos. 3) The earth has warmed and cooled approximately each and every 1500 years over the final thousands and thousands of years (till now autos and factories). all the information is below (i be attentive to liberals and environmentalists hate information and technology, yet supply it a try)

Answer 3

Read the text of those reports carefully. It's all rhetoric. They never clearly state that this or that is happening to the planet. They always fight over the wording, because pro-global warming scientists want it to sound like impending danger is coming, without specifically saying how or when (this is very un-scientific too, btw).

A lot of the global warming experiments cannot be accurately reproduced, because climate science is so noisy. There is so much data, and a vast majority of it is misunderstood. I think GW is real, but it's not a 50 year deadline for us to save the planet, as some would have us believe.

Answer 4

Well for the simple fact that 90% of the worlds leading scientists DO believe there is warming of the globe, but only 17% of those believe at this time it is man-made.
If man-made global warming was such a serious issue, how come there is talk about circumventing it by just buying some carbon credits.
Once sales of Al Gores DVD's drop low enough, the whole issue will fade away like the global cooling of the 70's.

Answer 5

because there was a time when the vast majority of scientists believed the sun revolved around the earth, and the earth was flat, just because people support man-made global warming does not make it true.

Answer 6

it's amazing that the real Scientists are never heard from....
http://www.just-boilers.com/Earth_recovering_from_LIA.pdf
Is the Earth still recovering from the “Little Ice Age”?
""A possible cause of global warming
Syun-Ichi Akasofu
International Arctic Research Center
University of Alaska Fairbanks
Abstract
There seems to be a roughly linear increase of the temperature from about 1800, or even much earlier, to
the present. This warming trend is likely to be a natural change; a rapid increase of CO2 began in about
1940. This trend should be subtracted from the temperature data during the last 100 years. Thus, there is a
possibility that only a fraction of the present warming trend may be attributed to the greenhouse effect
resulting from human activities. This conclusion is contrary to the IPCC (2007) Report, which states that
“most” of the present warming is due to the greenhouse effect. One possible cause of the linear increase
may be that the Earth is still recovering from the Little Ice Age. It is urgent that natural changes be
correctly identified and removed accurately from the presently on-going changes in order to find the
contribution of the greenhouse effect.""

Do you think that the UN is telling the whole truth or has an agenda? Why would they erase the Medieval Warming period???? Maybe to make the more gullible be taken in...
http://www.just-boilers.com/ungraph.jpg
"Water vapour was responsible for 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect, an effect which was vital to keep the world warm, he explained.

"If we didn't have the greenhouse effect the planet would be at minus 18 deg C but because we do have the greenhouse effect it is plus 15 deg C, all the time."

The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others including CFCs, contributed only five per cent of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the greatest contributor at 3.6 per cent.

However, carbon dioxide as a result of man's activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total. Human-related methane, nitrogen dioxide and CFCs etc made similarly minuscule contributions to the effect: 0.066, 0.047 and 0.046 per cent respectively. ""
For that link from New Zealand go here...
http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaruherald/4064691a6571.html

Answer 7

I haven't heard that it means nothing...what I have heard is Cons saying they have not been convinced that it is man made...most say it never hurts to be a little more responsible with the planet but they have gotten tired of your group blaming it on "SUV driving Republicans" As if we are the only group that has member's that drive SUV's. I drive a small car, I recycle, I buy the right kind of light bulbs, and turn them off frequently etc.., I didn't start this because some morally bankrupt hypocrite in Washington said I should, I've been doing it for years...

And yet I come on here and I'm still accused and blamed by your group...

Answer 8

Your entire question is totally wrong.

a. A majority of scientists do NOT support man-made global warming.

b. Your so-called process of peer review has yet to accurately duplicate both the cause as well as the future effects of the current climate process.

The only thing we know for certain is that the climate is changing (gee, it pretty much has always been changing).

Answer 9

There is no scientist that says that man is the sole cause of global warming.

People who think that anyone is making that claim are seriously uneducated about the issues.

There are things we do (consumption of fuels, for example) that contribute to the greenhouse effect. That contribution is comparatively small, I suppose, but it is a contribution that accelerates the process. All people are saying is that we only have one earth and we ought to be a little more careful how we treat it.

Somehow, this has turned into this huge debate about whether or not man is the sole cause of global warming; yet I have NEVER heard ONE notable person say that man is the only cause.

Not one.

Only shrieking, hysterical harpies who can't stand to think that yes, they are doing something that has a negative impact on the planet. Can't be THEIR fault. Must be God's fault.

Or it must not exist at all - totally made up.

Because humans are perfect, right? We don't do anything at all to damage our environment.

Nope. We're great. It's the planet that's wrong.

Answer 10

Just their typical unhinged hysteria, believing that somehow there is a vast liberal conspiracy whereby Al Gore tells eminent scientists around the world what their research findings should be.

The related point is that lobotomized cons take great comfort from the fact that there is some evidence of a "natural" trend in global warming. It's as if it gives them the excuse not to do anything about the human factor. Sort of like a co-dependent transferring of the blame: "It's Mother Nature's fault too". Pathetic slugs.