I have provided a link to one of my articles that gives quotes from the IPCC,Frontline, and livescience.com so you can check the figures. As noted in the article everything has passed peer review except the excerpts from Frontline.
WWW Link

Sorry paladin77 but if most of the scientists agree and a very small number disagree then that is a consensus.  A general view is a view held by most people, not every person.  

Much like the Global Cooling "crisis" a few decades ago, filled with "hard facts" and agreed upon with a "consensus" of scientists This global warming "crisis" will pass much the same way, just fade into obscurity with a whimper.

Then go to the link it shows the process is on going.I see where people are confused and make the mistake that the people against global warming is under some sort of peer review. The truth is that global warming is under peer review. The full process is that it gets published, and then the data gets challenged by independent review. Other scientists in the field will look at the data and either agree or disagree with is. None of the people involved in the original report can be part of the peer review process. It was not until today did I understand that people think that the peer review process ends with being published in an accredited forum. That is just the first step. It takes years to the pass peer review process and that does not mean that the data was right it just means it has been reviewed by peers and accepted or rejected.



We have been lied to! We were told that there was a consensus among climatologists that man is the cause of global warming. If you have even one person that does not go along with this view then there is not a consensus. Here we have hundreds of scientists publicly doubting the validity of the report. Each organization that has signed on to the global warming has people in that field in disagreement. The people in charge say they agree and everyone else should shut up. To get the IPCC report they needed scientists from different disciplines to provide data. Almost every one of the groups has a substantial amount of its members saying the data is flawed.
This is not a layman’s point of view but the disagreement within the different fields of study. The IPCC report on Global Climate Warming/Change predicts the temperature going up by .05th of a degree as a result of man with the total rise in temperature of 1.4 degrees. Then when they used actual readings to qualify the prediction we find they are off by one full degree. That’s right folks 1.4 degrees was the prediction and the actual result was .4 degrees. So the climate models are off by a bunch. Of the 1.4 degrees .05 of it was man’s fault. This is all part of the peer review process. It has already been published I think in January of this year maybe December because it was published in the end of January for the rest of us to see. So if they are off by a full degree that would mean that man’s part in the global temperature rise would be somewhere around .0005 of a degree over 100 years, this means that in 2000 years we will see a man made rise in temp of one degree.

This is the man made global warming that everyone is all upset about if the IPCC report is correct. Even if you took their flawed data as fact then it will only take 200 years to raise the global temp one degree more than what is normal. Get the sun block Ethel we are in for a heat wave! Anyone reading this plan on being here to see this scorching temperature? This means that 200 years from now our summers will be instead of 95 degrees it will be 96. Now to save the planet from this catastrophe we are told to stop all fuel usage until a replacement fuel can be found. This means everyone who is not working for the government will be mostly out of work. No taxes being paid will mean that all countries that sign on for this will collapse. No food production, because there is no way to get the crops to the market. Now employment because people can’t get to work, or light their homes or have electricity to run their computers. All of this to reduce our global temperature one degree over 200 years.



Just to be fair I have seen some of these reporting stations, other than the wet bulb method where the stations are in boxes and physically read every few hours the ones that are done electronically are placed in some of the least advantageous places because they need access to electricity and cable hook ups. So yes, a bunch of them are on top of buildings and next to air conditioning exhausts. The ones that are in those places show the spikes in temperature while the others don’t show a spike in temp. They add them all together and come out with an average for the city, state, country and world.



I hate to disagree with you MM. this is why they have changed the name from global warming to global climate change. This way when we are in a natural cooling cycle like back in the 40’s and 70’s and in the warming part of the cycle in the 60’s and 90’s will all be covered by the new term. No matter what the facts say they can claim that it is climate change. I remember reading in school about the blizzard of 49 and the worse winter in decades. All that snow helped replenish the ground water getting rid of the dust bowl of the 20’s and 30’s or as people might call it global warming followed by global cooling. Or as scientists call it, the normal climate cycle.



Okay, good point! How do you account for the fact that these gases have been around in fluctuating amounts for the last 5 billion years?
Before the dinosaurs the atmosphere was mostly nitrogen, followed by sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide all the way down to 2% oxygen. As single celled creatures started thriving on sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide they filtered out the air. Trapping the sulfur and carbon and farting oxygen. You can see the results of this filtration when you look at the oceans. It is called coral reefs. The skeletons of coral are made up of calcium carbonate and sulfur carbonate. In breaking down and trapping the sulfur and carbon out of the air oxygen moved up the ranks to being the number two dominant gas in the atmosphere reaching a high of 19% the oxygen level is dropping now and is way down to 18.4% over the last 2 million years.

Carbon dioxide is currently at about 37 parts per billion. This means that out of every billion molecules of air, 37 of them are carbon dioxide. If we continue to pollute as we are right now, in 100 years man will have raised that figure from 37 parts per billion to 38 parts per billion. This is the man made horror you worry about. One more molecule per billion over 100 years. Are you sure man is the cause of global warming?



All we need to do to fix the problem is put a bunch of sponges in the air. 80% of the greenhouse gas is water vapor. So all we have to do is get rid of water in the atmosphere and we will have reduced greenhouse gases by 80 percent. But how do we do that and still live? Even if you go after the smallest part of the greenhouse gas group (carbon dioxide) to eliminate that small group we have to kill all mammals on the planet. We all breathe, each breath you take puts a couple of quarts of CO2, and our breathing is pollution according to the Supreme Court. Save the planet, hold your breath for an hour and reduce CO2.

WWW Link

The above link is to the report that our friend is disregarding. Read it if you want to see how the peer review process is politicized.

Since this is not my article I will only ask that you respect the former vice president of the United States of America and the next president as well as the father of the internet of which we use while paying a tax he created.  

'We have been lied to! We were told that there was a consensus among climatologists that man is the cause of global warming. If you have even one person that does not go along with this view then there is not a consensus'

No, if one person does no along with the view it is not a unanimous view.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consensus

noun, plural -sus·es.

1.	majority of opinion

The irony here is that for as long as the discipline of science has existed, the "consensus" on thousands of scientific phenomena has been subsequently proven to be wrong. Just ask Gallileo. It is the nature of scientific inquiry that nothing is accepted as absolute, that everything is open to question and doubt, that no question is ever settled. Scientific conclusions become "generally accepted" as opposed to absolutely proven.

There is a huge difference between observing the fact that there is a climate cycle and deciding you know not only all the factors influencing it but the relative contribution of each. Proposing remedies without knowing what their effects might be, taking definitive action on the basis of hypothesis alone, is not my idea of "scientific." I note that the APS boldly states "mitigation efforts must be taken immediately" without bothering to demonstrate the scientific basis for implementing "mitigation efforts" - the experiment simply hasn't been done, and can't be done, without risking all of humanity in the process. The hubris involved in such pronouncements is breathtaking.

Very kind of you, Paladin. I've admired your tenacity in combating this craziness.

"Scientific consensus" is nothing more than conventional wisdom cloaked in a false aura of authenticity. What I didn't repeat in #14 is what I've said before in other threads on this topic - the conceit, arrogance and idiocy embodied in the notion that we can control the future, with a degree of calibration so fine and certain as to have no risk, is mind boggling. The Al Gore's who say OMG we have to do something are just fools willing to use their own children to conduct the experiment. That Al is making a mint off this conceit is no accident.

Daiwa-

I agree with you 100% on this. Never have I said anything contrary to it! However, the fact is that ever since the early to mid 90's there has been a consensus in the scientific community at large! That's thousands of scientists from different countries and institutes coming together in agreement. That's why, just recently, the national science organizations of ALL the G8 countries just released another statement confirming their position.

Using Galileo is a poor example- he was killed by the church for espousing beliefs that contradicted official doctrine. For the last 30 years, scientists trying to bring global warming to our attention have been the galileo's out there. After decades of research, however, there was so much information pointing towards man-caused climate change that all of these organizations started getting together and issuing joint statements so they couldn't be ignored. Is every scientist on the planet in agreement? Of course not, nor should they be. Just as an aside, if you happen to be a scientist who produces a paper that questions man-caused climate change you get instant publicity which can be a very good career move. But, for years scientific journals have had valid experiments published that had results supporting the theory of man caused climate change, with little or no coverage in the mass media. Why?

This is the same thing that the tobacco industry tried to do to disprove the link between smoking and cancer. If a study was published that indicated there's a causality between smoking and cancer, they had lobbyists and most importantly, scientists on payroll that would issue statements decrying those studies as 'junk science' or using faulty testing methods. "No discernible link can be found, more studies are needed!" was the word of the day. They then commissioned studies to prove that the link between smoking and cancer was nonexistent and called this 'sound science'. They kept this game up as long as possible, and again, cried that they were the victim.

No one has decided that they know all the factors influencing the climate. No one has decided that climate change is caused solely by man's activity. They have merely stated that they believe, with the information at hand, that there is a good chance we're contributing significantly to climate change. But this issue is bigger than 'global warming'. The root issue at hand here, is that for the first time in human history, governments and industry may have no choice but to acknowledge that man has the ability to affect our entire planet through his actions.

This is the root of the matter- because if that acknowledgement is made, the era of 'consequence free' development comes to an end. Let's talk about what that means. Consequence free development means that the planet is so big and powerful and resilient that we can do anything we want and it's not gonna make a lick of difference. A chemical plant spills benzene into a major river, no biggie! Just a regional slip up, no harm done in the big scheme of things. Coal mining companies deconstruct an entire mountain and contaminate the surrounding water tables, no worries! Mother nature is so great and powerful it won't have any effect on things. If there is anything we should have learned by now, it's that all actions however have consequences. Never before in the history of our world have there been 6 billion human beings walking it's surface, burning 85 million barrels of oil and tens of thousands of tonnes of coal and natural gas each and every day. To think that we can never affect our surroundings through our actions is the height of hubris, I would say.

Just as Galileo proved that we do not sit at the center of the universe, so too does this debate question our place in the bigger picture. Currently we live in a society that's built on the idea of exploiting our surroundings for profit and 'wealth creation'. This is necessary, for our civilization is built on interest. Everything must generate a return. Therefore we must constantly be developing, building widgets and gidgets and gadgets to sell and increase our profit. Food is no longer grown to feed people. It too, has become a commodity for profit. If we grew food to feed people, there would be no starvation on the planet as current food production in the world is more than enough to feed every single person. Same goes for pretty much everything else;

In the past, we grew food and constructed tools and buildings to provide a tangible necessity or function for ourselves and each other. Now, everything that's created is only a means to an end in generating wealth. Wealth, that is indeed artificial. You can't eat money, nor can you use it for much else, other than perhaps burning it as fuel in big bricks. Now, this works great so long as you have endless natural resources to develop AND the development of those resources has no appreciable effect on our environment.

Lo and behold, who could imagine that a century and a half of constant development, we might start to have an impact on our surroundings? The scientific community by and large believe that the data at hand indicate that, surprise surprise, we have had an effect and must deal with the consequences.

Once this admission is made, there is no more free ride, no more unchecked development and exploitation of our resources and environment in the name of profit. Since this would be very bad indeed for profits and the established order of things, of course there is a concerted campaign to discredit and sow misinformation and doubt.

Whod'a thunk it that actions have consequences!

When the first men banded together in a village to defend themselves from other men and beasts, food became a commodity. It is as old as civilization itself.

Ask Ben and Jerry - they dont seem to be wanting, even though their product is the most expensive around.

And I agree with this statement. Nowhere in any of my articles have I "screamed" at people for causing global warming. The first step though, is in getting governments and industry to admit that we have a problem. The solution goes beyond living in cold houses and riding bikes to work, although conservation does have good side effects and saves money. The solutions have to be reached by everyone working together, and in order for that to happen there has to be common agreement as to the issue at hand!



This is true. But thanks to modern technology and economics we've succeeded in pushing the commoditization of food well beyond any reasonable threshold. Look at many developing countries- although they have millions of people who are starving and malnourished, most of their rich, arable land is devoted to cash crops. Coffee beans and pineapples to be exported abroad, meanwhile they're having food riots in the streets as the cost of staples go through the roof!

Another HUGE waste of space and energy is cattle ranching. Now don't get me wrong. I love those double-cheeseburgers and sirloin steaks like nobody else, but when you crunch the numbers on modern cattle ranching we discover that it's one of the most innefficent uses of land, energy and water around. Most folks don't know that in order to get 1 pound of beef at the supermarket that equates into something like 20 lbs of grain, so many gallons of freshwater, petrol, etc (I don't have the exact figures but I've read them previously and they are frightening!) So if cattle ranching is so darn inneficient and land and resources could go to growing so much more food and staples, why do we do it? Because it's so profitable!



Well for one we need to stop believing in the concept of "unlimited development"- every system in nature has peaks and valleys, the all-encompassing sine wave that we see reproduced throughout many different systems as a means of attaining equilibrium. Now we are told that our market works the same way with cylces of boom and bust but it just isn't true. Our civilization is built on the concept of interest, everything must generate a return. Everything must always grow and expand. This simply isn't feasible, economically or practically. Otherwise, we'll have to end up building some spaceships and finding another planet as we'll turn this one into Easter Island eventually. We have 6 billion people on our planet right now. In another 30 years we might have over 9 billion. That's a lot of mouths and assholes, and all of em' are gonna be wanting their slice of the pie. Yes, mother nature is indeed resilient but as a species we are in uncharted water here as to our effects on demands we place on the planet (there have never been this many people alive at one time before, using up so many resources as there are today)

I have no 'lust for seizing control of the choices of others'. I have never said that, and please kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth. This topic is about the one thing that conservatives love to harp on about all day long. Responsibility! It goes beyond the individual level too you know! As a society we need to take responsibility for our collective actions. To say that things will all just work out with the status quo is bunk. To say that the hocus-pocus of the free market will just sort it out is also delusional!