With 400 scientists opposing Global Warming what happened to the consensus Algore claimed?

Question

The Climate did not get warmer this year either, so where is the evidence?

Answer 1

It will take these "environmental bloggers" a day or two to come up with their new story (and by a day or two, I mean they will have to wait for "realclimate.org" to try and refute the new story. Then they will cut and paste.)

The consensus is useless and manipulated NASA data should be thrown out right away.

Yeah! all 20,000. HAHAHAHA!! That's funny. Provide a link with all 20,000 who support it.

So when the 200 scientists supported the GW theory, it was a consensus. When over 400 don't support it, 100's of millions of scientists are factored in. Just like the IPCC data, flawed and manipulated. Basically, the original consensus should be thrown out because 200 is not a big enough number when factoring 100's of millions.

Answer 2

First of all, that BS about 400 scientists is jsut tha t--BS. What you have is one of the right-wing senators putting someoil company propaganda intothe Congressional Record. Andmost of them aren't even climate scientists.

Further--global warming has NOT stalled--it continues to increase. The rate is not even--nothing that complex ever is. Of course, the skeptics don't have enough basic sciennce to understand that. The climate chnges resulting from global warming continue to intensify, however--as witness the rapid increase in the rate of polar ice melting.

As to the scientific consensus--what the skeptics don't understand is tha tAlGore has nothing to do with that, one way or the other--all he's done is report that the consensus was there. Which it is. The skeptics think this means that "some scientists got together and decided what the consensus waas." Which only shows their total ignorance of science. A scientific consensus is simply a shorthand term meaning that a given hypothesis ( in this case, that global warming exists and is man-made) has overwhelming evidence to support it--in other words, its a proven fact.

Answer 3

I have no brief to defend Al Gore or to claim there is a concensus but please read the disclaimer at the top of the report:

[Disclaimer: The following scientists named in this report have expressed a range of views from skepticism to outright rejection of predictions of catastrophic man-made global warming. As in all science, there is no lock step single view.]

Note carefully what is being claimed: skepticism of predictions of catastrophic man-made global warming. Most of the contributors accept that there is warning. What is being doubted in the main is the mechanism and whether we can do anything about it.

Now check the following:"
One of India's leading geologists, B.P. Radhakrishna, President of the Geological Society of India, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. "There is some evidence to show that our planet Earth is becoming warmer and that human action is probably partly responsible, especially in the matter of greenhouse gas emissions. What is in doubt, however, is whether the steps that are proposed to be taken to reduce carbon emission will really bring down the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere and whether such attempts, even carried out on a global scale, will produce the desired effect."

In other words this gentleman is saying that there is warming, it is partially man made but we are too late to do anything about it.

I don't have a figure for this year and am suprised that you do. The graph is at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recenttc_triad.html

The very best that I think which can be said is that the steep rise which has lasted for thirty years my at last have paused.

Hope this helps.

Answer 4

You can't "oppose" global warming. It is either happening or it is not. It is not a political issue, and it cannot be decided by a vote of scientists (even though probably 99% of scientists agree that the theory is valid). It actually does not matter how many scientists are skeptical of the theory. What matters is whether the theory is sound or not. If you want evidence, you should really read Science magazine, or some of the many, many studies that are done on this subject.

Answer 5

Wait isnt that the same guy who travels via priavet jet has a house 4x the average american and an electric bill got 1500 a month? That Al Gore. Who cares hes nuts

Answer 6

If you're not going to learn what "consensus" means in terms of a scientific issue, why bother to ask questions like this? It just gives more ammunition to those who would claim that most skeptics are technical illiterates who are at best sock puppets for the right-wing media combine.

Answer 7

Notice how Inhofe is just a politician with no credibility in global warming, but Algore is a genius who's awarded the Noble Peace Prize even though he's just a politician who's family's wealth comes from their holdings in a big oil corporation?

This just shows how contorted warmers have to get to justify what they believe. It's more like a religion than science.

Answer 8

Most of you people need to spend a day or two to do your own research. If you blindly accept one position or the other, how do you know what to believe? It is so easy to see your blind bias. I say blind because of the drivel you spew.

Wake up and open your mind. Search for the truth. It is out there.

Answer 9

Even a brief glance at the actual "report" reveals clearly that the a large percentage of the contributors are speaking off the cuff, making reckless comments far outside their field of expertise.

Read through it for yourself, and note the degrees of the people quoted:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report.

And those are the "best" "experts" they could find to debate global warming, among the millions of scientists worldwide? Pretty pathetic. I've seen more convincing spam emails for fake Viagra. I'm not that gullible.

The Oregon Petition claimed to have 19,000 scientists who did not believe in anthropogenic global warming. What happened to the other 18,600? (I almost signed it myself until I spent 5 minutes looking into the facts.) When you lift the covers, both lists mean nothing.

Anyone who is even mildly skeptical about the oil industry's "skeptical" propaganda isn't going to be fooled by the "400 skeptical scientists" report published by the Republicans on the EPW committee. The deceptive nature of the language of the "report" is an embarrassing low point for all Republicans, and crap like this has led me to rethink having anything whatsoever to do with the Republican Party in the future.

More relevant to the discussion of so-called "skeptics":

Several skeptical scientists—Fred Singer, Fred Seitz and Patrick Michaels—have been linked to organizations funded by ExxonMobil and Philip Morris for the purpose of promoting global warming skepticism (see section: Risks of passive smoking). Similarly, groups employing global warming skeptics, such as the George C. Marshall Institute, have been criticized for their ties to fossil fuel companies.

On February 2, 2007, The Guardian statedthat Kenneth Green, a Visiting Scholar with AEI, had sent letters to scientists in the UK and the U.S., offering US$10,000 plus travel expenses and other incidental payments in return for essays with the purpose of "highlight[ing] the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC process," specifically regarding the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.

A furor was raised when it was revealed that the Intermountain Rural Electric Association (an energy cooperative that draws a significant portion of its electricity from coal-burning plants) donated $100,000 to Patrick Michaels and his group, New Hope Environmental Services, and solicited additional private donations from its members.

The Union of Concerned Scientists have produced a report titled 'Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air', that criticizes ExxonMobil for "[underwriting] the most sophisticated and most successful disinformation campaign since the tobacco industry" and for "[funnelling] about $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of ideological and advocacy organizations that manufacture uncertainty on the issue." In 2006 Exxon claimed that it was no longer going to fund these groups though that claim has been challenged by Greenpeace.

The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, a skeptic group, when confronted about the funding of a video they put together ($250,000 for "The Greening of Planet Earth" from an oil company) stated, "We applaud Western Fuels for their willingness to publicize a side of the story that we believe to be far more correct than what at one time was 'generally accepted.' But does this mean that they fund The Center? Maybe it means that we fund them!"

Donald Kennedy, editor-in-chief of Science, has said that skeptics such as Michaels are lobbyists more than researchers, and that "I don't think it's unethical any more than most lobbying is unethical," he said. He said donations to skeptics amounts to "trying to get a political message across."

Global warming does not mean that the climate will get warmer every year, it's about the trend, and most of the last dozen years are among the hottest on record. The graph of five year averages shows the warming trend very clearly. Why do you suppose that is?

Of course Singer and Michaels figure prominently in the report... it notes that "Michaels is a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute," which accepts funding from Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell Oil and Tenneco Gas, and the American Petroleum Institute.

Answer 10

The climate didn't get warmer this year? That's funny, last I checked 2007 was being ranked the 7th warmest year on record.

Nice try. Perhaps you should look at the evidence instead of relying on your opinion alone...