TRUE or FALSE? There’s no scientist who is CURRENTLY involved in climate research and disputes global warming.

False,

Here is a link with a list of 400 Prominent Scientists that Dispute Man-Made Global Warming. It has been in the news about a month ago.

Or Goggle "Senate Report on Man made Global Warming"

The key word here is "Consensus", there can be no Consensus in science.

Science must be able to be proved and repeated, not just agreed apon.

Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, recently converted from a believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. Patterson noted that the notion of a "consensus" of scientists aligned with the UN IPCC or former Vice President Al Gore is false. "I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority."

Go to Wikipedia and search "The Great Global Warming Swindle".

Here you go, but if you are going to cherry pick your information by who is current or not, or who is a scientist or not or who is funded by the government or not, then you will never be satisfied with any of my answers, so keep your ten points.

Also remember any of your favored current scientists that have a GW consensus are not creditable scientists either.

An MIT meteorologist by the name of Richard Lindsen "last Wednesday dismissed

alarmist fears about human-induced global warming.

False.

Climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux, former professor at Université Jean Moulin and director of the Laboratory of Climatology, Risks, and Environment in Lyon, is a climate skeptic. Leroux wrote a 2005 book titled Global Warming - Myth or Reality? - The Erring Ways of Climatology. "Day after day, the same mantra - that ‘the Earth is warming up' - is churned out in all its forms. As ‘the ice melts' and ‘sea level rises,' the Apocalypse looms ever nearer! Without realizing it, or perhaps without wishing to, the average citizen in bamboozled, lobotomized, lulled into mindless ac­ceptance. ... Non-believers in the greenhouse scenario are in the position of those long ago who doubted the existence of God ... fortunately for them, the Inquisition is no longer with us!"

Czech-born U.S. climatologist Dr. George Kukla, a research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. "The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid," Kukla told Gelf Magazine on April 24, 2007.

Climatologist Robert Durrenberger, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, and one of the climatologists who gathered at Woods Hole to review the National Climate Program Plan in July, 1979: "Al Gore brought me back to the battle and prompted me to do renewed research in the field of climatology. And because of all the misinformation that Gore and his army have been spreading about climate change I have decided that ‘real' climatologists should try to help the public understand the nature of the problem."

IPCC reviewer and climate researcher and scientist Dr. Vincent Gray, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990 and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001: "The [IPCC] ‘Summary for Policymakers' might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this ain't so."

Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw: He called the selection of the pre industrial levels of co2 of 280 ppm a fraud. (He is an expert in determining co2 levels)

Space physicist Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen is the director of the Danish National Space Centre, a member of the space research advisory committee of the Swedish National Space Board, a member of a NASA working group, and a member of the European Space Agency who has authored or co-authored around 100 peer-reviewed papers and chairs the Institute of Space Physics: "The sun is the source of the energy that causes the motion of the atmosphere and thereby controls weather and climate. Any change in the energy from the sun received at the Earth's surface will therefore affect climate." (One can say that climatologists are not experts in determining whether the sun plays a role)

Climate scientist Luc Debontridder of the Belgium Weather Institute's Royal Meteorological Institute (RMI) co-authored a study in August 2007 which dismissed a decisive role of CO2 in global warming: "CO2 is not the big bogeyman of climate change and global warming. "Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It is responsible for at least 75 % of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it."

If you want more let me know.

an excerpt from a post by Jack H

The most recent attempt to imply there was an overwhelming scientific "consensus" in favor of man-made global warming fears came in December 2007 during the UN climate conference in Bali. A letter signed by only 215 scientists urged the UN to mandate deep cuts in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. But absent from the letter were the signatures of these alleged "thousands" of scientists. (See AP article: - LINK )

UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri urged the world at the December 2007 UN climate conference in Bali, Indonesia to "Please listen to the voice of science."

The science has continued to grow loud and clear in 2007. In addition to the growing number of scientists expressing skepticism, an abundance of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast considerable doubt about man-made global warming fears. A November 3, 2007 peer-reviewed study found that "solar changes significantly alter climate." (LINK) A December 2007 peer-reviewed study recalculated and halved the global average surface temperature trend between 1980 - 2002. (LINK) Another new study found the Medieval Warm Period "0.3C warmer than 20th century" (LINK)

A peer-reviewed study by a team of scientists found that "warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence." (LINK) - Another November 2007 peer-reviewed study in the journal Physical Geography found "Long-term climate change is driven by solar insolation changes." (LINK ) These recent studies were in addition to the abundance of peer-reviewed studies earlier in 2007. - See "New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears" (LINK )

With this new report of profiling 400 skeptical scientists, the world can finally hear the voices of the "silent majority" of scientists."

So there you have it

sloegin says

Sacred Mother Earth

Is a no brainer

Recycle humans

Couldn't be plainer

On this gentle Earth

Humans are a cancer

Get rid of them

Is the only answer

False.

Ian Clark is a professor in the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Ottawa. I think some of his recent research can be classified as paleoclimatology:

http://www.science.uottawa.ca/~clark/pubs.html

"That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation - which has a cooling effect."

http://www.nrsp.com/clark_letter_22-03-04.html

Another is Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada.

"There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Of course, neither of these guys is researching current climate change. Geologists have a tendency to be skeptics because they study past climate change, which was obviously not influenced by humans.

Wikipedia has a list of scientists opposing the consensus. If you go through them, most don't fit your criteria (currently involved in climate research), but a few do. It's a small but non-zero number. If you factor out geologists who only study paleoclimatology, the number gets even smaller.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_op...

Curtis - Here is the link to the Geological Society of America (20,500 members) and their position statements. I would like for you to pay special attention to the one labeled "Global Climate Change." If most of their members disagreed with AGW, they wouldn't have the position they do, now would they?

http://www.geosociety.org/positions/index.htm

Also, here is the American Geophysical Union (50,000 members) position statement.

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/positions/climat...

The National Academy of Sciences members (2100) and position...

http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=...

http://dels.nas.edu/basc/Climate-LOW.pdf

By your statement, to support the consensus is supporting the majority view. So even your statement acknowledges that not every climatologist supports the notion of man made global warming.

A consensus is only 50% +1.

Fortunately, consensus has nothing to do with science. Absolutely nothing. Science is not one big group hug.

Science is based on facts. And facts do not rely on a consensus.

If you spit in the ocean, the water level rises, just not very much but it will rise. There are a number of scientists who don't think we affect the climate very much.

When the CO2 content of the atmosphere increases it causes warming - this is a matter of physics, but the best evidence we have available (ie verticle temperature gradients) is that it isn't by much.

If there are no catastrophic consequences than we are really debating an issue that has been blown way out of proportion which is what I believe.