What do you think of the %26quot;consensus%26quot; after reading this? I have heard about how %26quot;all scientists%26quot; agree, which I find absurd. All scientists do not even agree on E=MC^2. (believe it or not) I have found an interesting article that explains a little bit more about the %26quot;science%26quot; of Global Warming. It is a little bit long, but I would like opinions from both sides as to their take on this article.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?F...

Additional Details

5 months ago

All real scientist do NOT agree to E=MC^2. This just proves that you are making an assumption and not researching. I believe it, and you believe it, but I am an Engineer, not a physicist.

5 months ago

So Tuba, what you are saying is that you can quote an article from a politician that is quoting a clerk who works for other politicians who claim to be reporting works of scientists and that is good, but if you quote a scientist who disagrees with you, it is bad because he is not the %26quot;actual%26quot; scientist that did the research????

5 months ago

Gary Novak, MB
Michael Strauss, ME
Jo-o Magueijo, PhD

I am not saying that I agree, but these three scientists say that E=MC^2 is not entirely accurate.

5 months ago

Of course, like all who taste the Kool-Aid, I am sure that these three will not be %26quot;respected enough%26quot; to count. I didn%26#039;t say that I agree with them, I don%26#039;t, but they ARE scientists, and the do have a different opinion, but then the original question wasn%26#039;t about Physics anyway. http://www.thedailygreen.com/environment...
http://blog.techfun.org/400-skeptical-sc...
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/12...
http://energysmart.wordpress.com/2007/12...

You%26#039;re taking Senator %26quot;petroleum%26quot; Inhofe%26#039;s word over mainstream science?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHH...

Sorry I couldn%26#039;t help...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH...

Someone will always doubt, so complete agreement will never happen. Back in physics class we learned that not everyone agreed on what gravity was or that it was a constant. This did not mean that gravity as we know it is not real, just that the specifics aren%26#039;t worked out perfectly. Then you probably have one or two nuts that say there is no such thing as gravity. That doesn%26#039;t mean we should go back to the beginning and re-prove everything from step one. Its there responsibility to prove a generally accepted principle wrong, not everyone elses to prove it right.

All real scientists are confident in e=mc2.
That article is NOT about the science of GW, it%26#039;s about the politics of it. If you want an answer, read the work of real climate physicists, not just any %26#039;ol scientist. For example, some dissenting scientists are cell biologists... what do they know about the climate?

A big reason that some scientists are ignored is that they are in the pocket of the petroleum industry, or other industries that might be harmed by anti-GW tactics (such as moving to sustainable technology).

Edit: I stand by my claim that. Provide the name of a respected scientists who refutes e=mc2. It%26#039;s been confirmed by multiple experiments over and over. It%26#039;s rock solid.

You are right, I started out interested, but I got bored fast.

Sooo, there seems to be a lot of argument on if Global Warming is man made or not. THUS, they are mostly agreeing that it is happening. The only difference is some think we might be able to do something about it (if it is man made, then maybe man can unmake it) and some think we are doomed (if it is not man made and is happening)

I stopped reading when they said that Alberta Engineers disagree. Obviously the disagree, the Alberta Economy is booming because they are Oil rich. ALL these people work for OIL companies. How many of them think twice on the future of their job when they responded? When the tobacco companies scientists stand up and say there is no proof, or smoking is good for you, is it the first source you run to for the facts? Not me. So, that%26#039;s when I stopped reading.

Where did you hear %26quot;all scientists agree%26quot; - except in this article that%26#039;s nothing more than a rant against man caused G/W. I%26#039;m sure most people know there is disagreement over whether G/W is man made or a natural cycle. I would like to know which %26quot;scientists%26quot; were surveyed to get only 26% believe g/w is man made.

It%26#039;s a basic scientific fact that more CO2 causes more warming and fossil fuels are increasing CO2 from a historic max of 300 ppm to over 500 ppm now. Including data from antarctic ice core samples going back 600,000 years.

I wouldn%26#039;t doubt if what most scientists said was taken out of context for this article. Most scientists do agree finally that global warming is a fact - some are still in denial as to the evidence for it being caused by fossil fuels.

This guy%26#039;s blog has been posted here about a million times. He%26#039;s an Oil Company paid lobbyist. He says %26quot;Global Warming, BAD! Me GOOD!%26quot; What did you expect?

I think it%26#039;s a bunch of bologna