Where is the logic in trusting a minority over the vast majority of scientists who say man made global warming

Question

is real?

Here is the difference between my sources and cons. Cons will give you links to EDITORIALS from INDIVIDUAL scientists on political and amatuer websites like CATO, Heritage, and junkscience.com.

I'm showing you the OFFICIAL STATEMENTS made by the most well established SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS (REPRESENTING TENS OF THOUSANDS) who engange in geologic, climatic, and meteorologic research.

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

2) THE U.S. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE (ALONG WITH THE NAS OF THE G8 NATIONS), FOUNDED IN 1863, OVER 2,000 MEMBERS, OVER 200 NOBEL PRIZE MEMBERS
"There is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities. The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action.
http://www.academie-sciences.fr/actualites/textes/G8_gb.pdf

3) THE GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA, FOUNDED IN 1888, OVER 20,500 MEMBERS
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries.
http://www.geosociety.org/aboutus/position10.htm

4) THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY, FOUNDED IN 1876, OVER 160,000 MEMBERS
"There is now general agreement among scientific experts that the recent warming trend is real (and particularly strong within the past 20 years), that most of the observed warming is likely due to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and that climate change could have serious adverse effects by the end of this century."
http://www.chemistry.org/portal/resources/ACS/ACSContent/government/statements/2004_statements/2004_07_global_climate_chg_env.pdf

5) THE AMERICAN METEOROLOGY SOCIETY, FOUNDED IN 1919, OVER 11,000 MEMBERS
"Despite the uncertainties noted above, there is adequate evidence from observations and interpretations of climate simulations to conclude that the atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; that humans have significantly contributed to this change; and that further climate change will continue to have important impacts on human societies, on economies, on ecosystems, and on wildlife through the 21st century and beyond."
http://www.ametsoc.org/POLICY/2007climatechange.html

6) THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE, CREATED IN 1988, HUNDREDS OF SCIENTISTS FROM OVER 130 NATIONS
"Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (defined in footnotes as greater then 90% likelyhood) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. Discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns"
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

7) THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE, FOUNDED IN 1848, SERVES 262 AFFILIATED SOCIETIES AND ACADEMIES OF SCIENCE FOR A TOTAL OF 10 MILLION INDIVIDUALS
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society. Accumulating data from across the globe reveal a wide array of effects: rapidly melting glaciers, destabilization of major ice sheets, increases in extreme weather, rising sea level, shifts in species ranges, and more. The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now."
http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/mtg_200702/aaas_climate_statement.pdf

8) THE NOAA'S NATIONAL CLIMATIC DATA CENTER PALEOCLIMATOLOGY PROGRAM, FOUNDED IN 1992, HAS THE LARGEST ARCHIVE OF CLIMATE AND PALEOCLIMATE DATA
"Many scientists have now concluded that global warming can be explained by a human-caused enhancement of the greenhouse effect. It is important to remember both that the greenhouse effect occurs naturally, and that it has been intensified by humankind's input of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/what.html

9) THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH, FOUNDED IN 1960, OVER 120 MEMBERS, SERVES OVER 62 PARTNER ORGANIZATIONS INCLUDING UNIVERSITIES AND RESEARCH CENTERS
"Together, these data show that Earth's surface air temperature has risen more than 1.1°F (0.7°C) since the late 1800s. This warming of the average temperature around the globe has been especially sharp since the 1970s. Global models at NCAR have simulated 20th century climate and found three main factors at work:
1) Solar activity contributed to a warming trend in global average temperature from the 1910s through 1930s.
2) As industrial activity increased following World War II, sun-blocking sulfates and other aerosol emissions helped lead to a slight global cooling from the 1940s to 1970s.
3) Since 1980, the rise in greenhouse gas emissions from human activity has overwhelmed the aerosol effect to produce overall global warming."
http://www.ucar.edu/research/climate/warming.jsp

10) THE NASA'S GODDARD INSTITUTE FOR SPACE STUDIES, FOUNDED IN 1961, SPECIALIZES IN SPACECRAFT OBSERVATIONS AND GLOBAL CLIMATE MODELS
"A new NASA-funded study used a computer climate model to simulate the last 50 years of climate changes, projects warming over the next 50 years regardless of whether or not nations curb their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions soon. If no emission reductions are made and they continue to increase at the current rate, global temperatures may increase by 1-2º Celsius (1.8º-3.6º Fahrenheit). But if the growth rate of carbon dioxide does not exceed its current rate and if the growth of true air pollutants (things that are harmful to human health) is reversed, temperatures may rise by only 0.75C (1.35F)."
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20020919/

Answer 1

Don't forget the Oreskes study:

In 2004 an article in Science magazine discussed a study by Prof. Naomi Oreskes in which she surveyed 928 scientific journal articles that matched the search [global climate change] at the ISI Web of Science. Of these, according to Oreskes, 75% agreed with the consensus view (either implicitly or explicitly), 25% took no stand one way or the other, and none rejected the consensus.

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

Global warming deniers are just that - deniers. They don't care about the expert opinion or the scientific evidence. They just want someone to tell them what they want to hear (that humans are not responsible for global warming), and then regardless of the credibility of that person or how often the claims have been disproven, they'll repeat them like a mantra.

We've all seen them: 'ALL the planets are warming', 'one volcano eruption emits more CO2 than humans do in 5,000 years', 'the sun is getting hotter', 'scientists are making it up for the funding', 'carbonation in soda pop is the culprit', 'cow farts are to blame', 'global warming doesn't exist', 'thousands of scientists disagree with the consensus', 'there is no consensus', 'global warming is all a magical natural cycle', etc. etc.

Any of these claims takes 5 minutes tops to refute with scientific evidence, and has been refuted countless times. That won't stop global warming deniers from repeating them anyway. People are amazingly good at finding ways to believe what they want to believe.

Answer 2

There was also a 'consensus' that the Sun orbited the Earth, does that make it right? The fact is that these scientists (I use the term loosely) have made Global Warming their bread and butter. If it were ever proved that it doesn't exist, or isn't man-made, these scientists would be out on the street begging for scraps. It's in their best interest to keep the fervor built up to a crescendo, with people screaming to dump more money in their pockets.

Many prominent figures at NASA (a source you seem to hold in high regard) have openly stated that their studies seem to indicate the entire solar system is in a state of climate fluctuation. We are seeing temperatures rise on nearly every celestial body in the solar system, are you going to say that we're polluting them too?

I implore you all to look at history, and realize that this planet was a great deal warmer than it is today as recently as 2000 years ago, when England sported expansive vineyards and agricultural products that can't possibly survive the chilly climate of today.

Answer 3

Again, we are presented with a question in which the supposition is wrong. I've answered this question so many times it's boring.

Do you know from where most scientists get their research grant money, without which they'd be pumping gas in Oregon? From the government...ours or others.

How do they keep the grant money rolling in? Selectively cook the facts to promote an unsubstantiable theory, requiring more research, of a problem whose only solution can only further empower those in government who give the grants to the scientists. It's called symbiosis.

It is among true scientists, those who are above political posturing, that you will find fact-based counter arguments for man-caused global warming ("MCGW").

MCGW is the new religion of those who are unhappy living in a world of unalterable physical laws and where laws of human nature apply; a society requiring a person to fend and take responsibility for himself. Such persons look to leftist ideals to undermine or destroy such free-markets, capitalist societies to promote Socialism and even outright Communism.

Keep it up everyone and someday you'll all be lighting your apartments with candles (you won't be owning your own homes) giving up all your freedoms, and Florida, still, will not be underwater.

Answer 4

Why is Al Gore a bad daddy? His son was driving 100 miles per hour. That uses a lot of fossil fuel, certainly more than is necessary to get from point A to point B. The increased speed and fuel consumption increases the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and increases Global Warming. At least the whole GW theory is based upon this idea that is taught by none other than Al Gore himself. Al wants everyone in America to decrease and to stop GW before it raises temperatures to terrible levels and bakes us in our skin. Al wants us to avoid ice melts that increase water levels and drown all the coastal dwellers.

Al has been preaching these things to us and it has been a hard sell to people with a brain. Al himself does not believe this hooey given that his house uses more energy in a month than most houses use in a year. But for his son to go out and increase greenhouse gases after all the preaching poppa Al did about Global Warming is just beyond real.

If Al Gore is unable to persuade his kid to take Global Warming seriously, why should the rest of us believe what he has to say? A kid going 100 miles per hour and increasing our risk of burning to death. That is just the result of bad parenting on Al Gore’s part.

Well Al, at least the car was environmentally friendly. Of course it kind of defeats the purpose when it is driven that fast…

Answer 5

This is such a stupid argument. The earth warms and cools. Just the way it is. We have had hot streaks and we have had ice ages. Notheing we can do to stop it. The tiny tiny change in temerature is not somthing that we can influence.

You know in the 70s all the scientists were worried about another ice age, right? Now its warming?

Hmmmm.

Answer 6

The vast majority used to believe the Earth is flat. Just because the majority believe something does not make it true. This science is too new and there is too little reliable data.

That having been said, as a Christian I believe it is our duty to be good stewards of the earth's resources.

Answer 7

Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930's the media peddled a coming ice age. From the late 1920's until the 1960's they warned of global warming. From the 1950's until the 1970's they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth estate's fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years.

The National Academy of Sciences report reaffirmed the existence of the Medieval Warm Period from about 900 AD to 1300 AD and the Little Ice Age from about 1500 to 1850. Both of these periods occurred long before the invention of the SUV or human industrial activity could have possibly impacted the Earth's climate. In fact, scientists believe the Earth was warmer than today during the Medieval Warm Period, when the Vikings grew crops in Greenland.

What the climate alarmists and their advocates in the media have continued to ignore is the fact that the Little Ice Age, which resulted in harsh winters which froze New York Harbor and caused untold deaths, ended about 1850. So trying to prove man-made global warming by comparing the well-known fact that today's temperatures are warmer than during the Little Ice Age is akin to comparing summer to winter to show a catastrophic temperature trend.

Something that the media almost never addresses are the holes in the theory that C02 has been the driving force in global warming. Alarmists fail to adequately explain why temperatures began warming at the end of the Little Ice Age in about 1850, long before man-made CO2 emissions could have impacted the climate. Then about 1940, just as man-made CO2 emissions rose sharply, the temperatures began a decline that lasted until the 1970's, prompting the media and many scientists to fear a coming ice age.

A letter sent to the Canadian Prime Minister on April 6, 2006 by 60 prominent scientists who question the basis for climate alarmism, clearly explains the current state of scientific knowledge on global warming. The 60 scientists wrote: "If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary." The letter also noted: "‘Climate change is real' is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes occur all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural ‘noise."

In 2006, the director of the International Arctic Research Center in Fairbanks Alaska, testified to Congress that highly publicized climate models showing a disappearing Arctic were nothing more than "science fiction."

"Geologists Think the World May be Frozen Up Again." That sentence appeared over 100 years ago in the February 24, 1895 edition of the New York Times.

A front page article in the October 7, 1912 New York Times, just a few months after the Titanic struck an iceberg and sank, declared that a prominent professor "Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age." The very same day in 1912, the Los Angeles Times ran an article warning that the "Human race will have to fight for its existence against cold." An August 10, 1923 Washington Post article declared: "Ice Age Coming Here."

By the 1930's, the media took a break from reporting on the coming ice age and instead switched gears to promoting global warming: "America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-year Rise" stated an article in the New York Times on March 27, 1933.

The media of yesteryear was also not above injecting large amounts of fear and alarmism into their climate articles. An August 9, 1923 front page article in the Chicago Tribune declared: "Scientist Says Arctic Ice Will Wipe Out Canada." The article quoted a Yale University professor who predicted that large parts of Europe and Asia would be "wiped out" and Switzerland would be "entirely obliterated."

A December 29, 1974 New York Times article on global cooling reported that climatologists believed "the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure in a decade." The article also warned that unless government officials reacted to the coming catastrophe, "mass deaths by starvation and probably in anarchy and violence" would result. In 1975, the New York Times reported that "A major cooling [was] widely considered to be inevitable."

On February 19, 2006, CBS News's "60 Minutes" produced a segment on the North Pole. The segment was a completely one-sided report, alleging rapid and unprecedented melting at the polar cap. It even featured correspondent Scott Pelley claiming that the ice in Greenland was melting so fast, that he barely got off an ice-berg before it collapsed into the water. "60 Minutes" failed to inform its viewers that a 2005 study by a scientist named Ola Johannessen and his colleagues showing that the interior of Greenland is gaining ice and mass and that according to scientists, the Arctic was warmer in the 1930's than today.

According to data released on July 14, 2006 from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the January through June Alaska statewide average temperature was "0.55F (0.30C) cooler than the 1971-2000 average."

In August 2006, Khabibullo Abdusamatov, a scientist who heads the space research sector for the Russian Academy of Sciences, predicted long-term global cooling may be on the horizon due to a projected decrease in the sun's output.

Answer 8

I was just watching a guy on c-span. I can't remember his name but he was trying to debunk global warming as something that was imagined. But I agree with your point; it seems utterly foolish to ignore the overwhelming majority of scientists around the world in order to take the advice of someone trying to sell a book.

Answer 9

you do remember the majority of scientist said in 1974 we were heading for an ice age...short term memory...besides is science based on facts...or majority rules...many of the scientist believed the earth was flat...until proven otherwise...i guess you were a flat believing guy...because the majority must be right...

Answer 10

Global warming is real...a real boondoggle for liberal gov't trolls..who will carve a life's career by running around imitating Chicken Little