Do you think the scientific "consensus" on global warming is BS?

Question

If so, what do you say to the following evidence otherwise?

Prof. Naomi Oreskes surveyed 928 scientific journal articles...of these, according to Oreskes, 75% agreed with the consensus view, 25% took no stand one way or the other, and none rejected the consensus.

http://www.norvig.com/oreskes.html

Dr. Lockwood: "The evidence, quite honestly, among the scientific community that recent warming is predominantly driven by greenhouse gases is actually overwhelming. There's more debate in the public arena. The impression is often given there is a big scientific debate going on between scientists but I'm afraid it's not, it's a major consensus of greenhouse gas and a few mavericks on the outside. But mavericks are good, scepticism is fine. Somebody said about the program you're talking about, 'Scepticism is fine falsification is a completely different thing'."

Falsification refers to 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2007/1974497.ht

Answer 1

Great Link Dana!
I think I have found the problem with "deniers"(not same as skeptics) misunderstanding of man-made climate change, and that would be their equally disturbing lack of understanding simple math and the ability to distinguish the difference between millions and billions.

Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006). Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)

Not to mention their sad understanding of what happened 30 years ago when media was hyping something only a few scientists made speculations on. Even the scientists that suggested "Global Cooling" decades ago, stated that more studies needed to be done, which led to current understanding of global warming. There was no consensus of "Global Cooling"! Most scientists said it was impossible, and later found it(global cooling) to be less than accurate. "global cooling" was all media hype, and continued to be driven by media, even after the few scientists changed their views based on more research.

Then you have to love their willingness to support opinions of people who aren't even scientists, such as executives, financial writers, and/or journalists screaming a disproven hypothesis as more credible than climate scientists, atmospheric scientists, or phsyicists.

Now, I am no climatologist, but i do have a certain knack for realizing propaganda when I see it, and i can say for sure that "The Great Global Warming Swindle" is a well made piece of marketing at the very least. It is almost as good, as those before and after photos to support the results of weight loss pills.

Answer 2

I do not believe in this crap. If you will take time to research history you will find that back in the 1970's these scientist were calling for an ice age. This issue was taken to congress, and someone came up with the brilliant idea of spraying some type of black heat absorbing material all over the polar ice caps. Now the government may have just done that, and it could be due to the Carter administration that all this is happening......ROFL, another conspiracy theory...rofl.

Any how if you will do some research you will find that our earth goes through this cycle, of getting colder, and then hotter...If they will actually tell you the truth, the earth is actually 1 degree cool than it was 10-20 years ago. Plus we have has some very much cooler summers that in the past, and our winters are no worse than they have been in the past.

PFFT....Global Warming....ROFL

Answer 3

I really don't remember ever hearing that term in the 70s. But, we barely had the ability to take measurements of global temperature then. We didn't have the computer power to use predictive climate models. I think the science has improved markedly since then because of improvements in technology. And of course the issue is about us, not the planet. A billion years from now there will be no evidence that humans ever walked the Earth, but the planet will be fine. As you say, the planet will survive, but we might not and isn't that what matters.

Answer 4

The popular opinion of most scientific minds is that global warming is the direct result of green house gasses.

I have a graduate degree in biotechnology, which has absolutely nothing to do with global warming, however I do fully understand the amount of study, research and work that goes into the formulation of a theory. I also understand that when a theory is recognized by a larger number in the scientific community it is revered as the accepted set of circumstances.

That being said, I put my faith in the people who have devoted their life to the study of climate, geology, meteorology etc. and do believe that their opinion should certainly outweigh that of the laymen.

Answer 5

Lawrence Solomon, a financial writer at the Canadian National Post is looking into the dissenters from the so-called consensus on global warming, and has experienced some surprises.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=c47c1209-233b-412c-b6d1-5c755457a8af&p=1

In what has now turned into a multi- part series titled "The Deniers."
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=22003a0d-37cc-4399-8bcc-39cd20bed2f6&k=0

Solomon writes in the latest installment,

"More than six months ago, I began writing this series, The Deniers. When I began, I accepted the prevailing view that scientists overwhelmingly believe that climate change threatens the planet. I doubted only claims that the dissenters were either kooks on the margins of science or sell-outs in the pockets of the oil companies.
Solomon explained his methodology,

"My series set out to profile the dissenters... To demonstrate that dissent is credible, I chose high-ranking scientists at the world's premier scientific establishments."
Solomon added,

"Somewhere along the way, I stopped believing that a scientific consensus exists on climate change. Certainly there is no consensus at the very top echelons of scientists" -- (where he drew his subjects) -- and certainly there is no consensus among astrophysicists and other solar scientists...If anything, the majority view among these subsets of the scientific community may run in the opposite direction"
To date, Solomon has written 20 profiles and says he doesn't know when it will end. He says he keeps receiving emails from more scientists who express gratitude for his series.


This series is turning into a powerful counter-weight to the ridiculous, but often made claim of scientific consensus. I keep getting this image in my minds eye of these global warming monkeys in the media swinging around merrily out on this big limb that's about to get lopped off. Did Al Gore perjure himself?


Read the whole series, its filled with incredible information that undercut the basic premise of global warming. Like this one,

"...we hear over and over again, that 2,000 or 2,500 of the world's top scientists endorse the IPCC position? I asked the IPCC for their names, to gauge their views. IPCC Secretariat responded. "The list with their names and contacts will be attached to future IPCC publications..."

Answer 6

There is no consensus. There certainly isn't any credible scientific research that *proves* global warming because climate science doesn't have a "control" for use when conducting experiments.

One large volcanic eruption would result in a drop in average global temperature. I wonder which volcano the alarmists would like to erupt?

Answer 7

"There is NO consensus on what is causing it....plenty of reputable scientist dispute the impact of man on this normal warming and cooling cycle."

There are a few mavericks, that does not equal plenty. So how about: This conclusion is endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences, The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union and its parent organization, the American Institute of Physics, the national science academies of the G8 nations, Brazil, China, and India. and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

"These same morons in the 70's were worrying about global Cooling.... "

No scientist ever predicted imminent global cooling in the 70's. This was a gross misinterpretation of what scientists were saying by the mass media.

Answer 8

Okay, then, what about say, 30 years ago when Scientists thought we were heading for another ice age? Or how about the Earth naturally cooling and warming? Or how about Mars' "global warming"?

Answer 9

There is NO consensus on what is causing it....plenty of reputable scientist dispute the impact of man on this normal warming and cooling cycle. These same morons in the 70's were worrying about global Cooling....

Answer 10

A single volcanic eruption will put more greenhouse gasses in the air than we could put in the air in a century.

Without an eruption? Volcanoes STILL put a hell of a lot more greenhouse gasses in the air than we do each year.

And that's just volcanoes.