It appears there is %26quot;no ACTUAL consensus%26quot; on MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING? http://www.populartechnology.net/2007/10...

Additional Details

5 days ago

Ok people read and comprehend. MAN MADE global warming. Most people will agree that there is a natural phenomina occuring, that the earth is in a warming cycle....IT IS NOT MAN MADE

5 days ago

Gee, guess you can%26#039;t click and follow the links at the bottom of the piece to %26quot;actual scientists%26quot; that disagree that Global Warming is man made? Need to be spoon fed do we?

Here are some more actual scientists...you will have to click the links and not be illiterate though!

http://landshape.org/enm/agw-where-the-e...

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/commen...

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/sto...
http://web.archive.org/web/2006052912273...
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?F...

Note: Ice cores are not considered valid for co2 reconstruction by many as co2 is abosrbed by water within the ice. http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm for example. Stomatal data shows higher co2 in the past and further backs up the scientists concerns that ice cores are not valid.

Bob: the question is how many scientists agree with the AGW theory, not climate change, everyone accepts the climate changes so there will definetly be a concensus there as that is based on fact not theory. AGW is an unproven theory so there will not be a concensus as most skeptical scientists will require evidence before accepting such a theory.

EVERY major scientific organization has issued an official statement that global warming is real, and mostly caused by us.

You can argue whether the consensus is correct, or what it really implies, but you can%26#039;t credibly argue it doesn%26#039;t exist.

I could print off loads of those petitions, hand them out to all my friends and get them to send them in as: Britney Spears (BS Geoscience), Santa Clause (PhD Paleoclimatology), Homer Simpson (M.S nuclear physics) etc.

I think that accounts for most of those signatures.


Re. The 3 links you posted,

The first one refers to the article in the third one:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/sto...

That guy has a PhD in electrical engineering (I%26#039;ve come across this article before), sure that%26#039;s impressive, but it isn%26#039;t an earth science... I think the hot spot he is referring to is stratospheric cooling. I frequently come across people pushing stratospheric cooling actually as disproof of a CO2 induced warming trend, but actually you would expect the stratosphere to cool, not warm, if the warming trend is cause by CO2, because: with a strengthening greenhouse effect, the absorption of infra red radiation in the lower atmosphere increases, allowing less radiation to higher atmospheric layers where the rate at which CO2 emits radiations back into space will become greater then the rate at which infra red radiation is absorbed

Ice cores show CO2 increase only after the warming trend began
Yes of course, that is because CO2 did not cause past warming, it was a %26#039;positive feedback%26#039; response to other factors (such as changes in the earths movement and increasing solar irradiance) that intensified warming effects.

The 2nd article is pure junk science designed to deceive

This guys argument include ‘Natural effects have been and continue to be important contributors to variations in the earth%26#039;s climate, especially solar variability and decadal and multidecadal ocean cycles.’

Basically, the sun is still shining (and a solar intensity cycle still exists) and la Nina and el Ninõ still exist.

Ther eis absolutely NO consensus. The AGW proponents use this tactic as a means of stifling debate. It seems every time there has been a debate they lose. So, as to not have to enter into debates, the yclaim a scientific consensus.

WOW thanks for enlightening me. I will disregard the numerous interviews i%26#039;ve heard with actual scientists and climatologists and instead listen to some guy on Y.A. who gave me a link to some crapola paid for by exxon!

The reason there is no consesus is because there is no such thing as global warming. OwlGore is a scam artist along with the rest of them.

Causation remains unproven but is becoming a moot point as the summer that never really happened draws to a close.