Is there really a scientific consensus on man-made global warming?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...
Please don't answer unless tou have seen it.
Answer:
The real question is how did Willie Su know where to get the requested document?
In answering your question, the only real consensus is among the politicians. They want to use the global warming lie to increase their coffers by enacting "Carbon taxes".
Among scientist, the consensus is man has little or no effect on global warming. There is even a website with over 17,000 signatures denying man made global warming. (link provided)
Why do you think it would be scientific?
Yes, I've seen it. More bad science from a (very) few skeptics.
Here's more about the main scientists in that movie:
"A few months afterward, 13 of the authors of the papers Baliunas and Soon cited refuted her interpretation of their work.[11]
Half of the editorial board of Climate Research, the journal that published the [Baliunas and Soon] paper, resigned in protest against what they felt was a failure of the peer review process on the part of the journal."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/sallie_bali...
Yes, there's a consensus, minus a few skeptics, whose work is suspect.
Contrary to the movie. the temperature now is warmer than it has been in the last 2000 years. Ten peer reviewed studies, using different methodologies, with references:
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/ima...
These are corrected versions of the "hockey stick" diagram, that address the criticisms shown in the movie. They are well accepted by scientists (minus those few skeptics).
Hey Bob. According to your hockey stick, the temperature right now is higher than it's been in the last two thousand years. Do you got any better graphs. Cause we all know that ain't true.
Only because the scientists that don't agree are told to shut up, therefore the ones that believe in man-made global warming form the consensus.
Naw- the southern hemisphere or antartica are not cooperating- cooling. Anyways from 1300 to the 1860's was the little ice age- disease and famine rampet (See Little Ice Age & Long Hot Summer by Fallen. Warming to 1940's- warm than today- cooling to 70's- warming to 90's- cooling since then. Also what envirofreaks won't tell you- CO2 buildup lags behind warming by a couple hundred years. Source of warming is sun- no thermostat to control.
The real problem is global cooling. Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe solar cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth.
Beginning to plan for adaptation to such a cool period, one which may continue well beyond one 11-year cycle, as did the Little Ice Age, should be a priority for governments. It is global cooling, not warming, that is the major climate threat to the world, especially Canada. As a country at the northern limit to agriculture in the world, it would take very little cooling to destroy Canadian food crops.
Who announces scientific "consensus"?
Falling back on consensus is the weak argument when you have an overwhelming amount of data and variables, complex interrelationships, and you just can't reach a conclusion.
What exactly is there a consensus on? Global warming is not a scientific theory. It is a loose collection of hypotheses. There is not a scientist worth his or her salt to agree to an entire set of these hypotheses. It flies directly in the face of the questioning mind required of the scientific method.
Good job, Larry!
Yes there is a scientific consensus. And FYI: propaganda funded by the oil companies is not science. Which is all that fake "documentary" is.
LMAO.
CrazyConservative that fake petition, that you refer to, which have no background check of these acclaimed 'scientists' can easily be made up in one hour, by a single person, using scripting, and accessing name data bases. Show some real scientists next time.
3DM, there is no 'falling back' when it comes to the consensus, it simply means that all those scientists Hce reviewed the very same material that you mention and have reached the conclusion that GHG's are a significant cause of global warming. They have all reached a conclusion, that you don't seem to want to hear.
Okay, I sat through the whole thing.
Yes, there really is a consensus on man-made global warming. Consensus does not mean unanimity; it means consensus. This "documentary" interviewed a total of six skeptical scientists, and zero consensus scientists. There are hundreds (yes, hundreds) of climate scientists who subscribe to the consensus view that global warming is man-made. If the producers couldn't find any on the consensus side, they must have made a deliberate effort not to do so.
I should also point this film was made in 2004. The following year, in 2005, John Christy's satellite time record was shown to have serious flaws -- flaws which Christy himself has admitted. When corrected, the satellite data show that the lower atmosphere has been warming just as climate models predict it should.
Also since this film was made, the National Council of Sciences has confirmed Michael Mann's "hockey stick" analysis, as have no fewer than nine subsequent analyses of world climate based on proxy indicators. This is exactly the way science is supposed to work: when a controversial finding is published, others rush to confirm it (or falsify it). Mann's analysis passed that test with flying colors. Christy's didn't.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FunQA.com does not guarantee the right.
More Questions and Answers: