WHAT Global Warming "Consensus??"

Abstract

It is often said that there is a scientific “consensus” to the effect that climate change will be “catastrophic” and that, on this question, “the debate is over”. The present paper will demonstrate that the claim of unanimous scientific “consensus” was false, and known to be false, when it was first made; that the trend of opinion in the peer-reviewed journals and even in the UN’s reports on climate is moving rapidly away from alarmism; that, among climate scientists, the debate on the causes and extent of climate change is by no means over; and that the evidence in the peer-reviewed literature conclusively

demonstrates that, to the extent that there is a “consensus”, that “consensus” does not endorse the notion of “catastrophic” climate change.

Here's a summary of the article:

Brenchley’s paper goes on to cite the origin of the claim that global warming has universal consensus among the scientific community, when in fact, there never was consensus. His paper also addresses a more serious issue at hand here. The issue of fraud being perpetuated by some in the scientific community and by the journal Science specifically.

The claim of “consensus” can be traced back to an article in the journal Science entitled “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change” by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian who lacked qualifications in climatology. In her essay (not a scientific peer-reviewed paper) published in 2004, she analyzed 928 abstracts published in peer-reviewed science journals between 1993 and 2003, using the key words “climate change”.

She concluded that 75% of the papers either explicitly or implicitly accepted the “consensus” view; 25% took no position, being concerned with palaeoclimate rather than today’s climate; and –“Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. … This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect. … Our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it. … There is a consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.”

A lot of heavy stuff coming from one essay, however, when true scientific scrutiny was applied to her essay, it turns out it was bunk. After all, replication of scientific findings is the hallmark of science.

Benchley goes on to cite an attempt to replicate Oreskes study by Dr Benny Peiser, of Liverpool John Moores University in the UK. He found that using the search words “climate change” in the ISI Web of Science database, there were over 12,000 papers (from 1993 to 2003) not the 928 as Oreskes claimed. When he notified Science of his findings, the editors backpedaled and said that her search was based on “global climate change” not “climate change”.

Peiser then changed his search to “global climate change” which yielded 1117 documents, 929 articles and 905 abstracts. Among the many conflicting conclusions Peiser found was that fewer than 33% of the articles either explicitly or implicitly endorsed the “consensus” as defined by Oreskes (not the 75% that she claimed), and that more than HALF of the 905 abstracts didn’t mention anthropogenic climate change at all! Only 13 of the 1117 documents explicitly agreed with Oreskes own definition of “consensus.” That’s only 1%!

Dr Peiser wrote Science with his findings pointing out the many holes in Oreskes findings, only to have Science return a letter requesting a shortened version, when he did, they refused to publish it anyway! The editors of Science refused to publish any of the letters they received pointing out the deficiencies in the Oreskes analysis.

Heh, from the perspective of anyone trying to approach this issue rationally, you global warming/climate change deniers pretty much exactly resemble any other population in denial.

For instance the morbidly obese. Every pound of the way these fatties found a way to ignore and deny, as they stuffed their faces.

"Looking good, slimmer than most of the chicks at my office", as they bore down on 30 pounds overweight.

"The *average* American woman is size 14-16, so I'm obviously not *fat*," at +50.

"I'll diet next month after the holiday season" at +85.

"Skinny runners are physically and emotionally unhealthy and compulsive, never able to relax and enjoy life," +125.

"Size doesn't matter - that's for shallow assholes - it's what's inside that counts."

"Life's short and you should enjoy it with good food, not suffer and starve yourself and live on celery and Slimfast."

Blah blah blah etc.

That's how someone gets to be just hugely fat: she's initially f'd up in some painful way and finds eating makes her feel better. Her need to feel better is so strong that - though we like to think modern humans are rational and generally able to make choices after weighing the facts - her mind/brain just about completely shields her from the dangerous thought "I'm getting fat and should stop cramming my piehole" which would threaten the only way she's found to consistently feel OK for a while. You can scream it in her face or put up a mirror where she'll walk by, and she'll feel very uncomfortable for the moment she faces the truth before the feeling-good-protector circuits take over and pretty much banish that thought.

Addiction: that is more or less how it works.

So now it's finally clearer to me that y'all who keep ignoring simple stuff that the clearheaded layman easily understands like like polar ice melting, glaciers disappearing, etc. as well as overwhelming scientific data and near-100% consensus of the scientists who study this stuff - you're like the fatty on the road from chubby to obscenely obese. No matter what the evidence, you won't and probably in a sense can't even hold it there in your mind and consider it rationally for ten minutes.

You'll lash out and "argue" with the sane levelheaded fact-based crowd, but obviously you have little to no rational basis. So instead you'll make fun of Al Gore as if mocking one spokesmodel of a cause instantly evaporates the mountains of factual evidence supporting the rational position.

By the way, you do realize do you not, that even the sources in this dubious looking document from Lord Discount Fancybriefs or whoever the hell he is say things like "global warming is real, and some portion of it is caused by human activity" - the only part these maverick scientists, whoever they are, disagree with is what percent is natural vs. caused by man. Let me repeat, not that it'll sink in: that's where the radicals of science deviate from the mainstream - even these dissenters agree it's a real phenomenon and humans are part of the cause, they're just arguing the numbers.

In his article, "Global warming hysteria serves as excuse for world government", Daniel Taylor outlines how the exploitation of the natural phenomenon of "global warming" was a pet project of the Club of Rome and the CFR.

"In a report titled "The First Global Revolution" (1991) published by the Club of Rome, a globalist think tank, we find the following statement: "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.... All these dangers are caused by human intervention... The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."

"Richard Haass, the current president of the Council on Foreign Relations, stated in his article "State sovereignty must be altered in globalized era," that a system of world government must be created and sovereignty eliminated in order to fight global warming, as well as terrorism. "Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function," says Haass. "Globalization thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves..."

To all the socialists: your utopia is coming into focus.

addiction finger-pointer wrote:

So now it's finally clearer to me that y'all who keep ignoring simple stuff that the clearheaded layman easily understands like like polar ice melting, glaciers disappearing, etc. as well as overwhelming scientific data and near-100% consensus of the scientists who study this stuff -

You didn't even bother to read the article, which proves that there is, and never was a consensus on global warming. Not 100%, or 75%, or even 33%. The article shows that the study which originally purported consensus was not peer-reviewed itself (sweet irony) and was full of factual and logical holes.

A layman's understanding that glaciers are melting (not) and the polar ice is melting (not significant) ignores the fact that the interior Greenland glaciers are increasing and the Antarctic glaciers (90% of the worlds glaciers) are increasing. "Facts" presented by GW hysterics like AL Gore (the seas is going to rise 20 feet!) have been proven wrong by the IPCC report itself.

Of course, you silly layman can't process facts can you?

Global warming hysteria is a religious witch hunt that has been exposed.

Keith, thanks for brining up old data.http://www.letsrun.com/forum/forum.php?board=1Winter 2007/2008 Arctic ice growthExtremely cold temperatures for the Northern Hemisphere in the Winter of 2007/2008 helped the Arctic ice pack to grow to near normal levels.[15] The ice was also found to be 10 to 20 centimeters thicker than the previous year.Recent cold snap helping Arctic sea ice, scientists findhttp://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/02/15/arctic-ice.html*To go from record low ice, to near normal coverage in such a short amount of time is indeed incredible isn't it Keith?

Keith Stone wrote:

Yup, this shows cooling alright...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/09/070917-northwest-passage.html

Why are people stupid?

Why do they assume that our climate should never changed?

Why do they assume that because in theory, one CO2 molecule warms the earth, we should seriously inhibit our society to prevent it. Even when natural causes of warming and cooling are far more significant.

Ever heard of the Medieval Warm Period? The greatest prosperity in history up to that point in time. Good crops, population growth, science and exploration, the arts. All flourished.

Climate change is nothing new. Mankind is insignificant with regard to the climate.

And there you have it. Rationally, describing and quantifying this stuff belongs in the scientific domain. But when nearly every scientist on the planet is in basic agreement with each other and not with you, you make it about politics and conspiracies and world government and what someone's gonna force you to do... which is not the issue at hand. By even going there, you demonstrate how your reaction has absolutely nothing to do with rationality.

And you make sure to mention Al Gore.

Do you drop his name when four guys finish ahead of you in a 5k? You're like 25 seconds back, and you whine "...but Al Gore!" and everyone agrees, "of course, Gore's a hypocritical ass-clown and that's enough to totally contradict the fact that everyone (even the video) agrees those other four crossed the line first. If Al Gore thinks they finished ahead of you, it can't possibly be true. We'll make you the winner. Hell, we're all winners!"

That, and some paper by Count Stinkybutt where a few people say "Consensus??? No way is there a consensus - some people say human activity = 80% of global warming and others say 55%!" is about all you seem to be able to come up with.

Like 400 pound fatties, it'd be funnier if it weren't so sick and pathetic.

addiction finger-pointer wrote:

That, and some paper by Count Stinkybutt where a few people say "Consensus??? No way is there a consensus - some people say human activity = 80% of global warming and others say 55%!" is about all you seem to be able to come up with..

The problem is Count Stinkybutt's paper is out there for anyone to blow holes through IF THEY COULD. Alas, they can't. Stinkybutt's paper debunked the popular notion, now proven scientifically false, that there is a consensus on global warming by citing the Oreskes verification study by Dr Peiser. Dr Peiser's study paper specifically addressed the Oreskes study via the scientific method (replicating the original study) and the conclusions were damning.

No need to mention the buffoon Al gore at all, as we know, he's no scientist.

The disturbing thing about this is that the global warming alarmists are shouting "consensus" and "peer-reviewed papers" on the basis of the Oreskes study, yet when scientific scrutiny (peer review) is applied to their source of "consensus" their case crumbles to the ground. The scientific method wins over alchemy.

Keep trying to shout down science at work, you alarmists are all frauds!

As with all these threads started by global warming deniers: they are either lazy, lying, or incredibly dense.

For all of the rest of you, know this: everything they put on these threads for evidence has, in fact, been debunked already. And they either know it (because it's been pointed out to them over and over), or they don't know it - which means they're incapable of understanding things that don't match their preconceived ideology.

And rest assured that everything they tell you about the consensus being a fraud is equally a lie. Every single national science academy of every single industrialized nation is in agreement on this - and that's just for starters.

These anti-science buffoons think they can fool you because you think you'll be too lazy to check on their claims.

But be forewarned: if you do check their claims, then come back here to call them out, they won't blink. They'll just tell another lie.

Because see, this is what they know: eventually people who actually do all the work involved in actually investigating this subject will get tired. Because real research takes effort. But what they do takes no effort at all, because all they have to do is make stuff up.

They're under the illusion (delusion) that because everyone is entitled to an opinion, all opinions are equal. But they're not.

So if you're really interested in your planet, in your country, and in your and your children's future, then investigate - really investigate - this huge problem facing us all.

Don't believe me. Certainly don't believe these anti-warming jerks (and they are jerks, because they're asking you to put your future at stake based upon what they know to be lies). Do some research yourself. Be a good citizen. Be a good person.

Could you resort to MORE name-calling SoCalPete? I can play that game too: You're a f***ing idiot, Pete.

Oreskes’ essay is now outdated. Since it was published, more than 8,000 further

papers on climate change have been published in the learned journals. In these

papers, there is a discernible and accelerating trend away from unanimity even on her

limited definition of “consensus”.

Schulte (2007: submitted) has brought Oreskes’ essay up to date by examining the 539

abstracts found using her search phrase “global climate change” between 2004 (her

search had ended in 2003) and mid-February 2007. Even if Oreskes’ commentary in

Science were true, the “consensus” has moved very considerably away from the

unanimity she says she found.

Dr. Schulte’s results show that about 1.5% of the papers (just 9 out of 539) explicitly

endorse the “consensus”, even in the limited sense defined by Oreskes. Though Oreskes

found that 75% of the papers she reviewed explicitly or implicitly endorsed the

“consensus”, Dr. Schulte’s review of subsequent papers shows that fewer than half now

give some degree of endorsement to the “consensus”. The abstract of his paper is worth

quoting in full:

“Fear of anthropogenic ‘global warming’ can adversely affect patients’

well-being. Accordingly, the state of the scientific consensus about

climate change was studied by a review of the 539 papers on “global

climate change” found on the Web of Science database from January 2004

to mid-February 2007, updating research by Oreskes (2004), who had

reported that between 1993 and 2003 none of 928 scientific papers on

“global climate change” had rejected the consensus that more than half of

the warming of the past 50 years was likely to have been anthropogenic. In

the present review, 32 papers (6% of the sample) explicitly or implicitly

reject the consensus. Though Oreskes said that 75% of the papers in her

sample endorsed the consensus, fewer than half now endorse it. Only 7%

do so explicitly. Only one paper refers to “catastrophic” climate change,

but without offering evidence. There appears to be little evidence in the

learned journals to justify the climate-change alarm that now harms

patients.”

Schulte’s table of results is also worthy of reproduction –

____________________

______________________________________________________________________________

Abstracts on ISI Web of Science Oreskes (2004) Schulte’s review

Period under review: 1993 to 2003 2004 to 2007

Quantity of documents reviewed: 928 documents 539 papers

Mean annual publication rate: 84.3 documents.yr –1 254.6 (+201%)

Explicit endorsement of the consensus: Not stated 7% (38 papers)

Explicit or implicit endorsement: 75% 45% (244 papers)

Explicit rejection of the consensus 0% 1.3% (7 papers)

Explicit or implicit rejection: 0% 6% (32 papers)

New data / observations on climate change: Not stated 24% (127 papers)

New research on the consensus question: Not stated 2% (13 papers)

Quantitative evidence for the consensus: Not stated 0% (no papers)

Mention of “catastrophic” climate change: Not stated 0% (one paper)

______________________________________________________________________________

____________________

Unlike Oreskes, who does not quote even one of the 928 papers upon which her analysis

was based, Schulte cites some of the counter-consensual papers from his sample –

Cao et al. (2005) point out that, without the ability to quantify variations in the terrestrial

carbon sink both regionally and over time, climate projections are unreliable –

“To predict global climate change and to implement the Kyoto Protocol

for stabilizing atmospheric greenhouse gases concentrations require

quantifying spatio-temporal variations in the terrestrial carbon sink

accurately. During the past decade multi-scale ecological experiment and

observation networks have been established using various new

technologies (e.g. controlled environmental facilities, eddy covariance

techniques and quantitative remote sensing), and have obtained a large

amount of data about terrestrial ecosystem carbon cycle. However,

uncertainties in the magnitude and spatio-temporal variations of the

terrestrial carbon sink and in understanding the underlying mechanisms

have not been reduced significantly.”

Gerhard (2004), discussing the conflict between observation, theory, and politics, says –

“Debate over whether human activity causes Earth climate change

obscures the immensity of the dynamic systems that create and maintain

climate on the planet. Anthropocentric debate leads people to believe that

they can alter these planetary dynamic systems to prevent what they

perceive as negative climate impacts on human civilization. Although

politicians offer simplistic remedies, such as the Kyoto Protocol, global

climate continues to change naturally.”

Leiserowitz (2005) reports –

“results from a national study (2003) that examined the risk perceptions

and connotative meanings of global warming in the American mind and

found that Americans perceived climate change as a moderate risk that

will predominantly impact geographically and temporally distant people

and places. This research also identified several distinct interpretive

communities, including naysayers and alarmists, with widely divergent

perceptions of climate change risks. Thus, ‘dangerous’ climate change is a

concept contested not only among scientists and policymakers, but among

the American public as well.”

Lai et al. (2005) offer an entirely new hypothesis to explain recent warming of the

climate –

“The impacts of global warming on the environment, economy and society

are presently receiving much attention by the international community.

However, the extent to which anthropogenic factors are the main cause of

global warming, is still being debated. … This research invokes some new

concepts: (i) certain biochemical processes which strongly interact with

geophysical processes in climate system: (ii) a hypothesis that internal

processes in the oceans rather than in the atmosphere are at the center of

global warming; (iii) chemical energy stored in biochemical processes call

significantly affect ocean dynamics and therefore the climate system.

Based on those concepts, we propose a new hypothesis for global

warming.”

Moser (2005) explores the assessment of rising sea levels and in state-level managerial

and policy responses to climate change impacts such as sea-level rise in three US states –

“Uncertainties in the human dimensions of global change deeply affect the

assessment and responses to climate change impacts such as sea-level

rise.”

Shaviv (2006) considers the cosmic-ray forcing posited by Svensmark et al. (2006), and

concludes that, if the effect is real, natural climate variability rather than anthropogenic

enhancement of the greenhouse effect has contributed more than half of the warming

over the past century – “The cosmic-ray forcing / climate link … implies that the increased solar

luminosity and reduced cosmic-ray forcing over the previous century

should have contributed a warming of ~0.47K, while the rest should be

mainly attributed to anthropogenic causes.”

Zhen-Shan and Xian (2007) say that CO2 forcing contributes less to temperature change

than natural climate variability, that the anthropogenic enhancement of the greenhouse

effect –

“could have been excessively exaggerated” … Therefore, if CO2

concentration remains constant at present, the CO2 greenhouse effect will

be deficient in counterchecking the natural cooling of global climate in the

following 20 years. Even though the CO2 greenhouse effect on global

climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively

exaggerated. It is high time to re-consider the trend of global climate

changes.”

Whatever “unanimity” may have been thought or claimed to exist before 2004 in the

peer-reviewed literature, there is certainly none in the peer-reviewed journals that have

been published since.

Is there a scientific “consensus” wider than that defined by Oreskes?

e have established that Oreskes’ essay does not really lend any scientific

credibility to the panicky predictions of a small minority of scientists many of

whom have Left-leaning political opinions or connections.

The outright scaremongers are led by James Hansen, a donor of thousands of dollars to

the re-election campaigns of Al Gore and John Kerry. He showed Congress a graph in

1988 that set the trend for wildly-exaggerated projections of future global temperature.

The graph presented three scenarios, the most extreme of which had no basis in the

scientific literature or in previously-observed trends.

Politicians at that time treated the graph with respect because it had been generated by a

computer. Yet the model which generated the graph, still in use by Hansen and the UN

today, continues to contain “flux adjustments” – i.e. fudge-factors – many times greater

than the very small perturbations which the model is supposed to predicting.

Hansen’s model is discredited by the observed temperatures since 1988 –

Hansen’s graph, updated to depict observed temperature to end 2006 overlaid in red,

shows that the temperature trend projected by the GISS model used by Hansen is nearidentical

to that which the model had projected on the assumption that atmospheric CO2

concentrations had been substantially reduced from 1989 onward and stabilized by 2000.

On this evidence (and this is the evidence that launched the “global warming” scare), it

would be legitimate to conclude that the additional CO2 that has entered the atmosphere

since Hansen’s graph was published has had no climatic influence whatsoever.

Yet Hansen’s computer model, and others very like it, are the chief reason offered by the

alarmists for claiming a “consensus” for an extreme version of climate change that even

goes so far as to predict the eventual eradication of more than half the world’s species

(State of the Wild:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/~jhansen/preprints/Wild.070410.pdf

).

This broader and more frankly alarmist definition of “consensus” that is presented by

Hansen, Al Gore, and the BBC has even less warrant in the peer-reviewed literature than

the “consensus” to the effect that humankind has caused most of the slight warming of

the past half-century. On this definition of “consensus”, we are led to believe that all

serious scientists are agreed on the imminence of catastrophe and on the urgent need for,

and the likely effectiveness of, costly and extreme mitigative or remedial measures.

It is crucial to appreciate that Oreskes’ paper does not lend any scientific credibility to the

alarmists’ extreme views on climate change. The more honest among them recognize

how careful she was to constrain the scope of her definition so that at least it bore some

relation, however threadbare, to the peer-reviewed literature that she had analyzed. The

alarmists, therefore, now find themselves compelled to fall back upon some additional

mantras which, if recited often enough, come to seem true.

“2,500 scientists can’t be wrong”

First among these is that the UN’s latest report on climate change (IPCC, 2007) was

written by 2,500 scientists – and “2,500 scientists can’t be wrong”. In fact, however,

the scientific chapters were contributed by a far smaller number than this. Furthermore,

we are now able to offer proof that the UN cannot have obtained the approval of as many

as 2,500 scientists to the text before it was published.

Look, SoCal Pete---more reality for you to scoff at--hot off the proverbial presses:

Aquabirds & Aquabouys

The latest satellite data could suggest that CO2-driven increases in water vapor actually cool the earth, not magnify warming, and equally interesting, the lastest float bouy data could suggest the ocean is cooling - at least since 2003 when they became operational. It is almost impossible to find any of this in the mainstream media, but given how quickly they dropped their favorite green hobbyhorse, biofuel, there is reason to hope. Media is fickle, and that is perhaps a strength as much as it is a weakness. Here’s the data:

Aquabirds: In a report (click “view transcript) posted on Australia’s ABC National on March 17th entitled “Climate Change,” Jennifer Marohasy of the Australian Environment Foundation comments on the possibility, based on data from NASA’s Aqua satellite, that increased water vapor actually lowers global temperatures, which is exactly opposite to what current climate models predict:

“The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that when you’ve got warming from additional carbon dioxide this will result in increased water vapour, so you’re going to get a positive feedback. That’s what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite…and the first time this data has been able to be collected is 2002 so we’ve got a little bit of data now, it’s actually showing just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they’re actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you’re actually getting a negative rather than a positive feedback.”

Aquabouys: On March 24th in the National Post, author Lorne Gunter posted a story entitled “Perhaps The Climate Change Models Are Wrong,” where he reports on an NPR interview with Josh Willis at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a scientist who keeps close watch on the Argo findings:

“When they were first deployed in 2003, the Argos were hailed for their ability to collect information on ocean conditions more precisely, at more places and greater depths and in more conditions than ever before. No longer would scientists have to rely on measurements mostly at the surface from older scientific buoys or inconsistent shipboard monitors. So why are some scientists now beginning to question the buoys’ findings? Because in five years, the little blighters have failed to detect any global warming. They are not reinforcing the scientific orthodoxy of the day, namely that man is causing the planet to warm dangerously. They are not proving the predetermined conclusions of their human masters. Therefore they, and not their masters’ hypotheses, must be wrong.”

We recommend you read both of these articles, of course, but here’s the summary: From the airless heights of outer space to the depths of the sea, the best sensors we’ve got, recently deployed, are now casting doubt onto the entire global warming paradigm. Media - perhaps it is time to point your fickle finger at the alarm industry?

Hmmm ... be a good citizen ... hmmm ... this sounds really bad to me. Perhaps the OP should be sent off for "re-education"?

SoCal Pete wrote:

Be a good citizen. Be a good person.

I'm pretty sure that this has been posted on this forum before, so I will not claim it as my own idea. All of the debate about global warming is somewhat misguided and usually degenerates into unresolvable debates about whether the data supports a warming trend or whether or not humans are causing the warming. The real problem is that our society is entirely dependent on fossil fuels. You can argue about whether the release of large amounts of CO2 is causing global warming, but it is much harder to argue that it is a good thing that we are dependent on a small number of countries for our economic and national security (unless you consider Iran, Russia, and Saudi Arabia good friends and allies). Most of the oil in the world is in countries that we are not on good terms with or countries where we should not really be involved. Russia, Iran, and Venezuela are not exactly friendly towards America, and the American presence in Saudi Arabia was one of the reasons cited by bin Laden in justifying the attacks on 9/11. If someone in one of those countries decided to turn off the tap, this country would be screwed on so many levels that the Great Depression would look pretty good. It is extremely detrimental to both our national and economic security to have so much power concentrated in the hands of foreign powers, even if the current government is friendly towards us. The connection to global warming is that if you eliminate the need to burn fossil fuels, you are going to significantly reduce CO2 emissions, which may or may not be causing an increase in global temperature.

Those who believe that global warming is happening have spent large amounts of money trying to mobilize the populace to care about the issue, but have only set themselves up for unwinnable debates with global warming foes that only cause the issue to be thoroughly confused. Framing the issue in terms of oil addiction and the dangers caused by that addiction would appeal to people on all sides of the political spectrum. The liberals would be sated as action would be taken against global warming, and the conservatives would be sated because our national security would be strengthened. The constant debate over whether or not global warming is happening and if so the extent to which humans are causing it is a complete waste of time and only distracts people from the real problem. Recognizing that our country is addicted to oil does not require further study, is not affected by natural trends, and cannot be contradicted by incomplete data sets and shoddy analysis. Just walk out your front door.

outside the wire wrote:

The consensus is smart people believe global warming is real and dumb people do not.

Guess these guys must be very, very dumb:

Dr. Edward Wegman--former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences--demolishes the famous "hockey stick" graph that launched the global warming panic.

Dr. David Bromwich--president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology--says "it's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now."

Prof. Paul Reiter--Chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute--says "no major scientist with any long record in this field" accepts Al Gore's claim that global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases.

Prof. Hendrik Tennekes--director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute--states "there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies" used for global warming forecasts.

Dr. Christopher Landsea--past chairman of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones--says "there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity."

Dr. Antonino Zichichi--one of the world's foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter--calls global warming models "incoherent and invalid."

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski--world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research--says the U.N. "based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false."

Prof. Tom V. Segalstad--head of the Geological Museum, University of Oslo--says "most leading geologists" know the U.N.'s views "of Earth processes are implausible."

Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu--founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the "1,000 Most Cited Scientists," says much "Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change."

Dr. Claude Allegre--member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science, he was among the first to sound the alarm on the dangers of global warming. His view now: "The cause of this climate change is unknown."

Dr. Richard Lindzen--Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists "are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right."

Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov--head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science's Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station's Astrometria project says "the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."

Dr. Richard Tol--Principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University, calls the most influential global warming report of all time "preposterous . . . alarmist and incompetent."

Dr. Sami Solanki--director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, who argues that changes in the Sun's state, not human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming: "The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures."

Prof. Freeman Dyson--one of the world's most eminent physicists says the models used to justify global warming alarmism are "full of fudge factors" and "do not begin to describe the real world."

Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen--director of the Danish National Space Centre, vice-president of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, who argues that changes in the Sun's behavior could account for most of the warming attributed by the UN to man-made CO2.

Like what do they know? Do any of them have a Nobel Prize like Al Gore does?

PHD wrote:

Like what do they know? Do any of them have a Nobel Prize like Al Gore does?

And did any of them invent the internets like my husband did?

outside the wire wrote: The consensus is smart people believe global warming is real and dumb people do not

Oh Rilly wrote: Guess these guys must be very, very dumb:

If you're one iota serious in suggesting most of them said "global warming is not real" you're no paragon of intelligence.

Again, even the small handful of references you people can muster almost unanimously believe in global warming, most acknowledge humanity's contribution to it, and they're arguing about some little details like percentages or individual graphs or how the (acknowledged) climate change affects mosquitos.

HA- Nice try. The funny/incredibly incorrect thing about your post, of course, is that the same people that are for the legalization of pot will be the ones that believe in Global Warming...not the other way around.