It would not matter to him, but it does to me and others, cite please.
I could have sworn I sited a list. As I said, I wasn’t keeping a track of it’s update. I’ve still got my officlal global warming alter up, I just don’t know how many times a days I have to look left and worship.
Well this just adds a whole heap more :rolleyes: to your post in the thread discussing Atlas Shrugged, a book you have apparently not read.
Hook, line, and sinker. Damn, but I’m good!
As I’ve noted in other threads, I have yet to see a convincing case made that some super majority of scientists accepts that hypothesis that the increases in CO2 levels which are taking place will cause dangerous levels of warming, i.e. warming which is likely to have signifiacant negative effects.
Most or all of the statements I have seen contain plenty of weasel language. Not only that, but most or all of the organizations involved are not consensus organizations, i.e. their statements do not necessarily represent the views of their members.
In short, 20 years down the road, there will be plenty of ammunition for people to argue that there was no consensus about global warming just as today it is being argued that there was no consensus about an impending ice age.
. . . and the inevitable “I was just joiking” explanation. Not buying it.
Did you **cite **a list? And you’re not keeping track of **its **update? And you have an **altar **set up? Am I being wooshed or are we supposed to take your opinion on a scientific issue like climate change seriously when you have such searing deficits in your education?
Just because you want global warming to be false doesn’t make it so. Believing a few crackpots when the vast majority of working climate scientists from different countries, organizations and political stripes find the case for global warming to be compelling is simply stupidity.
Not to get bogged down, but do you think Gore should have walked to his talks around the world?
After reading the cite of jshore this statement makes no sense.
The wikipedia entry on climate change consensus has cites, and it should be read before anyone comes still claiming that there is no consensus, this item is relevant IMO:
I guess it depends on your definition of “significant.”
Although a lot of people much more qualified than you find the case compelling.
Doesn’t the sentence preceding this one contain weasel language?
Nonsense. It’s the majority view now. Global cooling never was.
Uh huh. Not sure why the original link didn’t work but which of the scientists in this cite are you dismissing and why?
Have you ever asked yourself why the focus of this life or death crisis rests on the elimination of fossil fuels? No discussion of the best financial solution is ever mentioned except to stop the burning of natural resources?
Well a bunch of them are geographers, geologists, physicists or chemists. Do you consult a script writer when you want to build a bridge? Shouldn’t climate scientists be the ones to judge this very complex issue? Why don’t any of these people publish work in peer reviewed journals crushing AGW? Could it be because they can’t, because their knowledge of the issues is superficial. Never mind that that page has what, twenty or thirty names? You can find thirty people who think Atlantis was real.
You do realize that the burning of fossil fuels is the main cause, right? If you were bleeding to death I wouldn’t brush your hair. I’d stop the blood loss. Which is the problem.
Get it? They call that a metaphor. 
You haven’t answered the question other than to make a blanket dismissal. You are virtually incapable of hearing anything they say.
You can put out a fire by dumping 3 tons of sand on it or you could use a fire extinquisher. Most people would use a fire extinquisher. Where’s the discussion about fire extinquishers? Wouldn’t it make sense to spend the least amount of money to fix the problem?
I see your problem. Al Gore isn’t a scientist; pay no attention to what Al Gore says on AGW. For that matter, pay little attention to the popular press. I’d go straight to the scientists.
Global Warming or new ice age.
The two are not contradictory. You can have hotter average temperatures over the the globe as a whole, while individual parts become colder. You can therefore have global warming AND a new ice age at the same time.
The theory goes like this:
-
UK and northern Europe are heated by the Gulf Stream.
-
Global Warming causes Arctic ice to melt.
-
cold, unsalted water drifts southward.
-
cold water may affect the Gulf Stream.
-
bye bye warm weather in Northern Europe.
How Global Warming May Cause the Next Ice Age…
I don’t know how widely accepted this theory is. I understand that it is regarded as a possibility, rather than a certainty, with the variables being too complex to say for certain.
As the other cite shows, the ones in your cite are not as impressive or convincing, one clue why is what **Lobohan **pointed at, but the big clue is in the title of the cite:
“List of scientists opposing **the mainstream scientific assessment **of global warming.”
(bolding mine)
As I can see from previous discussions, it is actually the consensus view that has grown, while the still minority view is shrinking.
Incidentally, does anyone know of any prominent names that have publicly switched sides in either direction in the past few years? Both sides claim to be gaining support, but I haven’t seen any evidence that either has lost any support among its vocal proponents. Has there been anything along these lines?
One thing that is missed often is that this was a process that took a long time, many deniers just choose to ignore the history of how this came to be; in essence, just look at the cite for the Scientific opinion on climate change consensus already posted, then read the history of The Discovery of Global Warming:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
And then you will realize that **all **the groups and the majority of scientists mentioned in the cite had to be convinced with the evidence that CO2 and other man made gasses were becoming a problem.
IMHO the remaining groups that deny this are beginning to resemble creationists in relation to biological science, the methods used by the deniers in recent discussions are reaching underhanded levels.
I don’t know how major he is, but Minnesota’s state climatologist Mark Seeley was once a global warming skeptic, but he now holds the position that the evidence for global warming is overwhelming.
Your last paragraph there is so egregiously false it makes my head spin. Can you demonstrate that the global cooling "craze"generated even 1% of the scientific publications and and concern that global warming has spawned? I saw an episode of In Search Of… once that dealt with the subject. As far as I know that was not a peer-reviewed publication, however. At any rate, Nessie and the Bermuda Triangle got tons more pub than the approaching ice age back in those days.
Just out of curiosity, what were the weasel words you found in the University of Illinois survey?