if man made global warming is real, then why are more scientists saying it is not?

Question

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,176495.shtml

Answer 1

Because many people (including scientists) are more concerened with brainwashing other people to think in their crazy-conservative mindset. Global warming is real no matter who or what created it. Politicians are so good into turning real pressing issues into political propaganda to help with ratings and to establishing a following. I don't care what party it is. Politicians can work any issue into becoming something to use as a political tool. The truth is Global Warming is happening. It might not be as severe as Mr. Gore tells us it is and it might not be as natural as talk radio says it is-but it still IS. My source does not come from some website or an arctile some scientist wrote about...it comes from COMMON SENSE. We are growing in population-more factories, more cars, more production left and right. The earth is getting older-more volcanoes, more natural cycles...key word: MORE. So if some conservative scientist says "no way" and some liberal scientist says "yes way" who are you going to believe? It's no longer world issue, a human issue, a natural issue-it's become a political issue. And that is the last place in the world for it.

Answer 2

Your article is not from a trustworthy source - there is a lot of conjecture in the article (which does not actually refute the claims when you read closely) and there are no links to outside sources.

In short, it is propaganda.

The AAPG is disguising itself as all these "earth" sites all over the internet.

You have to understand that information on Global Warming is highly political.

The IPCC (or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is the REAL source of all the information on Global Warming...

Over 250 teams of independant scientists and meteorologists from all over the world came to exactly the same conclusions.

1. The atmosphere globally is getting hotter on average. (by about 1 degree every 8 years)

2. The major causes of Global Warming are anthropogenic (means human-caused).

Now - For the politics... There is a group of pseudo-scientists (their studies are not peer-reviewed because they have no peers) called the AAPG (American Association of Petroleum Geologists) that denies the claims of the IPCC.

Anyone with half a brain can figure out that the "petroleum geologists" are a lobbying group for the oil companies and they have a vested interest in your NOT believing in Global Warming.

Now - How NASA comes into play - NASA recieves and gives Government contracts with our Republican President and Lockheed Martin. These two entities have been working in close cooperation with the Oil industry for over 2 decades.... so the information from NASA on Global Warming *could be* incomplete or biased within reason.

Answer 3

NOTE:Statements by idological environmentalists that thousands of IPCC scientists agree on anything is simply untrue and misrepresents the process. None of the 122 lead authors of the latest IPCC report, released in August 2001, ha the opportunity to place a stamp of approval on every statement. Though drafted by a small group of IPCC scientists, the brief account of the main points used by the media and called the Summary for Policymakers, was actually edited and approved by a political body.

Given this bit of background, it is somewhat of an overstatement when the IPCC 2001 says that "the increase in Northern Hemisphere temperature in the 20th century is likely to have been the largest of any century during the past 1,000 years." ONE SHOULD BE AWARE THAT THE PAST CENTURY REPRESENTS THE ONLY PERIORD OF EXTENDED WARMING TO HAVE OCCURRED IN THE PREVIOUS 1,000 YEARS, WHICH WERE GENERALLY DOMINATED BY A COOLING TREND... YES, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE RECORD SAYS- A COOLING TREND!

Here are some words of wisdom for those willing to listen to truth and reason, and put aside modern myths, at least for a moment. There’s nothing new under the sun, and certainly the present debate about man made global warming (this is the real issue here, man made, not if the earth has warmed before or is warming now) is an old debate with a new twist. Thirty years ago it was about global cooling. Today, more than anything else, man made global warming is a huge political issue. Some of you may be passionate about this issue, however you must keep in mind that passion does not equal truth. This is what should matter to all- what is really the truth concerning this issue. I will say that you will not find it in the mainstream media, or in most of the liberal colleges and universities in America today, where most tenured professors live in their ivory towers, isolated from reality and truth.

Before any of you goes on with your passionate debate (whether you believe in man made global warming or not) do yourself a great favor: read the following books. These are the most serious and the best on the subject (believe me, I have been around and read many books, reports and articles on global climate change) of climate change and related subjects. Now, if you are already committed politically to the environmental ideology, it would do you a great deal of good to know that true “tolerance” is respecting other peoples opinions, even if you don’t agree with them. It does not mean though that every opinion has the same value or that you should accept it (that is political correctness, and is one of the great moral cancers affecting modern America today. Remember: ideologies are almost invariably wrong. The truth on any subject is almost invariably in the middle. Finally, know the difference between convictions and opinions: If you are willing to die for it, it's a conviction, if not, it's just an opinion. And remember, opinions are like the belly button: we all have one and it isn’t good for anything. Global warming may be real, however what most likely is not is that we humans are causing it or that we can do much about it. I just hope the readers are not willing to die for a conviction based on lies. Here are the books.

Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years by Dennis T. Avery and S. Fred Singer (Paperback - Feb 1, 2007)

Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media by Patrick J. Michaels

Global Warming and Other Eco Myths: How the Environmental Movement Uses False Science to Scare Us to Death, Ronald Bailey (Hardcover)

The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World by Bjorn Lomborg

Answer 4

Thousands of scientists including many who contributed to the vaunted IPCC report state that man made global warming is a farce. Even a lead author of the report left because the summary which is quoted bt the left is a document written by politicians and in most cases runs contrary to what the report actually says.
It is just another way for the far left to gain control of every aspect of your life and redistribute wealth.

Answer 5

Peter Dorn @ U Ill Chicago did a survey of 1300 scientists. Two questions have been key: have imply worldwide temperatures risen in comparison to pre-1800s stages, and has human pastime been a colossal aspect in replacing imply worldwide temperatures. About ninety percentage of the scientists agreed with the primary query and eighty two percentage the moment. So, from this research, it sort of feels the reply is towards eighty two%. I see all kinds of surveys and all kinds of spurious know-how.

Answer 6

Paraphrasing, the article states 500 scientists don't concur with every notion of anthropogenic GW.

If 500 represents the majority of scientists then by definition there's less than 1000 scientists on the planet. There's actually more than 30 million of them.

In real terms 500 scientists means 1 in 60,000 - a miniscule proportion. To qualify for inclusion in the 500 they only have to question one element of AGW, that means they could concur with more than 99% of the theory of AGW.

This is nothing more than an irresponsible attempt to dupe gullible people by playing with numbers, it's the sort of behaviour we've come to expect from Singer and Avery - the people behind the report.

If you want to get your science from someone who still disputes the harmful effects of smoking and another who believes pesticides are the solution to the world's problems that's fine. Personally I think you'd get a more sensible response from Mickey Mouse.

Answer 7

That study is bogus.

They consider any paper that questions some small detail of (mostly) man made global warming to be "against" it, even though the paper itself supports (mostly) man made global warming.

Key sentence:

""Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics"

That's because they aren't. And I expect many of them to object to being on a list with people who actually reject science.

Here's the truth:

"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."

Dr. James Baker - NOAA

Answer 8

You just have to look at who wrote the article you pointed to for that answer.
Hudson institute or Hudson.org
here's what the whois lookup on the site says about them

"Hudson.org, Internationally recognized think tank and public policy research organization that forecasts trends and develops solutions for governments, businesses and the public."

Look deeper at the author. When research doesn't make sense like this you just have to look at who paid them to do the study. There're two types of research in this world 1) kind that is funded by third parties who really care about getting the facts and 2) research funded by an interested party paying for the researchers to come to their conclusions and calling it "research"

Here's a quote about hudson.org from a supporter David N. Parker, President and CEO, American Gas Association

“For many years the Hudson Institute has stood as a beacon of insightful thought and creative solutions to our most pressing public policy challenges, both domestic and foreign. May it continue to help influence and shape the future of our great nation.”

if there's one industry that would want to produce a bogus study on global warming it's the American Gas association!

conversely pretend a solar panel company funded a study that said the world was going to end because of global warming? would you believe it? You'd be an idiot to because the study would be biased from the start.... I guarentee you can not find 1 unbiased study claiming global warming isn't real. Unbiased meaning wasn't funded by somebody who stood to profit from the result.

Answer 9

The article you give was put out by the Hudson Institute, an ultra-conservative think tank. This fact alone doesn't tell us much, but given that it doesn't cite a single one of its sources, and make several highly misleading, and at times outright false, claims, one can only assume that it is nothing more than propaganda.

dpj5, I don't think that there's anything at all wrong with linking to a Blog in this case. The author simply did I better job of discussing the article than I could have. If you object to anything he said why don't you tell him about it? The Blog allows comments, you know.

Also, if you doubt my claims as to what James's article is or who wrote it, feel free to look up the Hudson Institute. Nobody's stopping you.

Answer 10

"More scientists" than what? Zero?

Read the claims made in your "article". Look at all the subjective terms used in their 5 categories:

1) "similar"
2) "linked strongly"
3) "importantly"
4) This one is just wrong.
5) This one is just retarded. I mean seriously, hotter is better? No matter what? That's mind-bogglingly stupid. Yes if it's 500°F there will be fewer cold-related deaths. That's terrific!

The blog linked by EnragedParrot does a good job explaining why the main claim is completely misleading. It's easy to make it sound like scientists are on your side, as long as you're dishonest about what they're really researching.