No consensus with in the scientific community. Why do people use this as a real "answer"?

Question

Study after study has disputed global warming. Even the IPCC's own scientist have come out and said the hype around AGW is unfounded. Why do people to continue to use this lame answer as evidence of AGW?
Dr. Madhav L. Khandekar-UN scientist, a retired Environment Canada scientist and an expert IPCC reviewer in 2007. "Has explained the cooling of the Southern Hemisphere" Aug 6,2007
Dr. Jim Renwick-a top UN IPCC scientist. Admits climate models do not account for half the variability in nature, thus are unreliable.
Dr Vincent Gray-IPCC reviewer and expert reviewer on every IPCC report going back to 1990. "The claims of the IPCC are dangerous and unscientific nonsense." April 10,2007
Dr. Hendrick Tennekes-meteoroligist and scientific pioneer in developement of numerical weather prediction and former director of Netherlands Royal Natl Meteorlogical Inst. Compared scientist who promote models to unlicensed "software "engineers" feb 28, 2007.

All the info can be found in this one site.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84E9E44A-802A-23AD-493A-B35D0842FED8

To save you some reading time, here are some summaries also:
Aug 29,2007-Less Than Half of All Published Scientist Endorse GW Theory. Only 1 report predicts catastrophic results, 7% gave explicit endorsement (about 45% if one considers implicit endorsement), 48% take a neutral position, and 6% reject the consensus. This study hardly warrants the "consensus" claims.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/consensus.pdf

Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927B9303-802A-23AD-494B-DCCB00B51A12

Bob,
It is obvious that even those who formed the IPCC documents are not in consensus. Their numbers are not small, and they are growing. Sure the IPCC claims to have thousands of scientist who "buy into" it, but that is a flase statement. They do have scientist in individual fields doing the studies, but the actual published documents are written by a select few. Scientist involved in this process have spoken out about how contrary data is thrown out and never sees the light of day. Other scientist had to practically sue the IPCC to have their names removed because they completely disagreed with the final docs. The IPCC is going to print exactly what it wants, to hell with the data.

As for my definition of consensus, there is no such thing in science. Either the facts back up your theory or they do not. People who confuse consensus with science display there lack of evidence by hiding behind the consensus lie. There is no "consensus" that the earth is round, this is scientifically proven. Even the theory of relativity has been proven. When your best arguement is consensus, then you are really saying, "We have no science to back up our point, there for we shall hide behind the consensus and drown out other views."

Answer 1

You can name individual "skeptics", but their numbers are small.

There is a very powerful consensus on global warming in the scientific community. Proof:

No major scientific organization says global warming is natural. the American Institute of Petroleum Engineers did for a while, but changed after many of their members resigned rather than belong to an organization that denied the truth.

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

Very few scientific papers claim this is a natural thing.

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

You say that all your info comes from Senator Inhofe's site. What makes you believe such a clearly biased political source? He's the chief global warming denier (the term is justified in his case) in the Senate.

The bottom line:

"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."

NASA's Gavin Schmidt

Answer 2

In 1988 newsweek printed a piece of writing asserting international warming is actual, and there grew to become into medical consensus. So earlier the learn of world warming even began the propaganda grew to become into already out on the so talked approximately as consensus. The Oreskes learn says that there is not any disagreement in peer evaluation literature. it relatively is a lie. Now they are asserting ninety% consensus. in the event that they lied with regard to the Oreskes learn, i'm specific they are mendacity now. yet whilst consensus is information, then why do you and others make the declare the 20 th century is the warmest century on record, in line with some analyze? quickly and Balinus(2003) studied over one hundred temperature reconstruction information and concluded: "climate proxy analyze supplies you an mixture, vast attitude on questions concerning the actuality of Little Ice Age, Medieval heat era and the 20 th century floor thermometer international warming. the image emerges from many localities that the two the Little Ice Age and Medieval heat epoch are popular and close to-synchronous phenomena, as conceived by making use of Bryson et al. (1963), Lamb (1965) and various researchers because. frequent, the 20 th century does not incorporate the warmest anomaly of the previous millennium in fairly some the proxy information, that have been sampled international-extensive. previous researchers implied that unusual twentieth century warming potential a international human effect. besides the incontrovertible fact that, the proxies coach that the 20 th century isn't surprisingly heat or severe."

Answer 3

people can never come up with a consensus on anything. with any issue there will always be people who support it, people who oppose it, and people who don't want to take sides. you have to review the evidence and listen to both sides. why are most glaciers dying, having lost half there size in less than a hundred years? on the other hand, why do many scientists say global warming is not happening? i personally believe in global warming, i think the signs are unmistakable, but many people, including some scientists, would disagree. there is evidence to support both sides of the issue but it would be better to play it safe, especially when the whole world is at stake. after all, fossil fuels wont last us forever, and conserving energy is good for the world as a whole.

Answer 4

If the IPCC has said the hype around AGW is unfounded, then I agree with them.

But that is not the same thing as saying it does not exist. It clearly exists, it just isn't going to be the end of all life, or the end of civilization as we know it, or even the #1 problem we have. Not ever. Statements that is is so extremely bad that we have to take extremely drastic action are unfounded, not the warming itself.

Answer 5

Whether or not there is scientific consensus over global warming theory depends on what you mean by consensus. if you define consensus as total unanimity among scientists, then no, there's no consensus at all. However, if you define consensus to mean widespread acceptance from the majority of the scientific community, then a consensus about the issue undoubtedly exists.

Answer 6

Because the media, Al Gore, and the radical environmentalists TELL them that there is! It's the biggest, most obvious lie about the whole thing, I think. Of COURSE there are people disputing global warming. They're just hushed up so fast, that the people who aren't concerned about knowing the truth never hear about it.