Why would anyone believe a few undistinguished "skeptics" instead of the National Academy of Sciences?

1. Not having to want to be responsible which means being inconvenienced enough to have to change ones lifestyle.

2. Work directly or indirectly for the fossil fuel companies or gain financial benefit from such companies.

3. Believe the have to hold to certain associative ideologies (i.e. can't be gay and be pro-life, can't be republican and be an environmentalist). There are exceptions but people often fall into these associative camps and others without giving each issue full consideration.

4. People with a contrary personality. Some people just like to stir up the crapola. It makes them feel alive to have a good argument, maybe even with some outright insults thrown in there that makes them feel superior to others.

5. Natural skeptics: Some people will not believe anything unless there is an unsurmountable amount of evidence to support otherwise. I believe this evidence level has already been reached but because certain people feel compelled to portray this issue still in the arena of doubt some skeptics are still taking an honest but nevertheless unnecessary third forth and fifth look. What we have to remember is even in todays world there is still the World is Flat Society.

Bob: I agree that global warming is an issue as is pollution and the rapid use of the world's resources. I tend to be a skeptic of skeptics and these organizations are not necessarily working in our best interest. I think regardless of whatever evidence (either pro or con) we should try to do our best to consume less and pollute less. Also, I believe that there should be population control (by what means, I do not know. Nothing violent... encourage ppl to have only one or no children and pay them for this agreement). It is quite possible that the earth's heating and cooling cycles are not in correlation with our actions. However, we all can argue that human activity has caused desertification and pollution. We need to win the environmental argument based on what we can prove, and not focus so strongly on this "global warming" topic. There has to be some sort of behavioral shift where ppl want to recycle, live more simply, and find alternative energy solutions because it's the right thing to do. When anyone figures out how to accomplish this, please let me know. I cannot even influence the culture in my company to stop using Styrofoam in the cafeteria. Sorry! Another topic!

"Proponents of man-made global warming like to note how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements endorsing the so-called "consensus" view that man is driving global warming. But both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the "consensus" statements." "Rank-and-file scientists are now openly rebelling. James Spann, a certified meteorologist with the AMS, openly defied the organization when he said in January that he does "not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype." In February a panel of meteorologists expressed unanimous climate skepticism, and one panelist estimated that 95% of his profession rejects global warming fears." In August 2007, a comprehensive survey of peer-reviewed scientific literature from 2004-2007 revealed "Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory." "Of 539 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers 'implicit' endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no 'consensus,'" according to an August 29, 2007 article in Daily Tech. In addition, a September 26, 2007 report from the international group Institute of Physics' finds no "consensus" on global warming. Here is an excerpt: "As world leaders gathered in New York for a high-level UN meeting on climate change, a new report by some of the world's most renowned scientists urges policymakers to keep their eyes on the "science grapevine", arguing that their understanding of global warming is still far from complete." The Institute of Physics is also urging world leaders "to remain alert to the latest scientific thought on climate change." Dr. Frederick Seitz, former president of the National Academy of Sciences, was a highly honored physicist who won the 1973 National Medal of Science for his earlier contributions to the modern quantum theory of the solid state of matter, was an outspoken skeptic of global warming. Richard Lindzen--professor of meteorology at MIT, highly respected atmospheric physicist, and member of the National Academy of Sciences as well as the special NAS panel on global warming--said in a recent commentary, "I cannot stress this enough--we [cannot] confidently attribute past climate change to carbon dioxide."

Because it's more convenient to believe the skeptics. Believing the scientists would be too expensive and difficult. Furthermore, the oil companies have more PR budget than the environmentalists, so they control people's minds a lot better.

Most people aren't going to bother (or aren't capable) of learning the science. Since both sides have experts they will just pick the side they like. Very few will even bother to read the credentials of "skeptics" and compare them to the credentials of the "pro-AGW" people. If you want to drive a Range Rover with only one passenger around the suburbs without feeling guilty, it helps to be a skeptic. If you want to feel better than the person in a Range Rover without really doing anything that takes effort, it helps to believe man-made climate climate change is occuring.

In The Great Global Warming Swindle documentary, Christy is quoted as saying, "I've often heard it said that there's a consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue and that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system. Well I am one scientist, and there are many that simply think that is not true."[6]

Bob, Christy does believe in GLobal Warming and that we do have some affect, however he is skeptical on the results and that is the heart of the matter. I do not deny global warming or that we have some affect on the climate. However I do not agree that the results will be as bad as being projected, and many scientist agree. I only quoted one, the more I point out does not validate anything.

For any group to impose thier will on others based upon what might happen is just wrong.

[edit] Awards

1991: NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal (with Roy Spencer)[1]

1996: AMS Special Award "for developing a global, precise record of earth's temperature from operational polar-orbiting satellites, fundamentally advancing our ability to monitor climate.\

Is this scientist undistinguished? You seem to think majority rule applies to science it in fact does not. The consensus at the time of Einstein was he was wrong, so therefore his theory was wrong? If history proves anything it proves the majority is not always correct and that we do not learn from our mistakes.

There is one thing I have observed about AGW issue, both side have demonstrated the ability to insult each other.

If all you watch is Fox News, you will be fed an awful lot of misinformation and outright lies. However, some people would rather listen to some idiot pundit smirking and shouting than to take a sober look at scientific discoveries based on accumulated facts.

I'm not altogether convinced of everything I hear about global warming, but you don't have to tell me twice that pollution is harmful and that using fewer fossil fuels is a smart idea. Some people are so caught up in the FOX conservative conspiracy, though, that they will even refute common sense issues (for example, the fact that breathing car exhaust is bad for your health). Unbelievably arrogant; like teenagers who think they know everything because their friends tell them so.

The scientists and the skeptics have the same education and the important thing to remember is that academia considers temperature in calculators. Temperature is critical in science except we can't see it, we calculate it with the greatest of accuracy. Everyone thinks that everyone else is doing their job so the argument on global warming exists.

Meteorologists assume that development is absorbing heat and not generating heat because buildings are believed to be code compliant. Did you know the entire building and development industry is signed off as compliant but never verified?

We did work over several seasons showing the temperatures associated with buildings and development. We documented generated heat close to boiling temperature because of solar radiation and the same UV that burns us. Go to http://www.thermoguy.com/globalwarming-heatgain.ht... to see examples.

We are generating heat on the surface of the planet close to boiling temperature while science argues about C02 trapping heat. We are responding to the heat symptoms with ozone depleting refrigerants, massive GHG emissions including mercury, massive electrical waste while we blame economy. California is being knocked off the electrical grid treating symptoms.

Fo the skeptics, go to http://www.thermoguy.com/globalwarming-heatloss to see what WE are causing. We are supposed to blend with nature so we don't impact our lives negatively. Look around and we can hardly see development nestled in amongst trees.

Al Gore is right about the urgency, he doesn't have a background designing and creating emissions, I do. Go to http://www.thermoguy.com/ and scroll down to the picture of the fetus. Click on the link to the study on babies having mercury, fire retardents, banned pesticides, incinerated garbage, Teflon, etc before they take their first breath.

The toxicity ratio in newborns is 100% and they have reproductive problems because of the toxins. The babies don't have the immune system to protect themselves. 100% of it is manmade and unnatural.

The majority of intellectuals also used to think that the sun revolved around the earth until a few skeptics proved them wrong.

Why??? Well, because the "distinguished club" have backed themselves into the wrong corner by blindly accepting "Man-did-it" as a sound theory. They assumed .....because of 'assurances' by 'credentialed' bureaucrats..... that the base-data used to develop the whole 'man-did-it' theory.....was accurate, when....IN FACT.... the data is seriously FLAWED.

The ever-shrinking believer group needs to step back and DEMAND that the data issue be clearly and positively cleared up and DEMAND that no more smoke and mirrors be used by embarrassed fellow 'experts' to legitimize the bad data!!

Good grief...... the bad data situation wasn't even acknowledged until a group of volunteers surveyed the data collection equipment and pointed it out to the government. That's when the bureaucratic 'scramble & spin' began.