Global warming 'scientific consensus'...how real is it?

I agree with you all the way.

Its just that Al Gore makes such a big deal out of it that it seems as if all scientists support it.

Sorry, (I am a skeptic) most scientists support the fact that man made CO2 will warm the atmosphere. Everything left equal about 1 deg C +/- .5 deg C. In polls scientists asked about alarmists posisitions range from 1/3 to 2/3 the best I can research. Meaning yes man is warming the earth is true. It is the end of time, 50-50.

That's just the thing, there isn't a consensus, at all. Consensus means that everyone agrees, or at least the vast majority. As much as Dana, Al Gore, and all the other idiot wack-jobs in Hollywood would love to convince you that there is one, that's simply false. There are prominent scientists all over the world that refute this. The recent release of the 31,000 skeptics is pretty compelling, don't you think? I think it's got Dana and other believers rattled because their foundation is beginning to crumble. There's dissent in the ranks and they can't stand that someone dare take an opposing stance that makes sense.

There is no scientific consensus when it comes to global warming. Personally I think it's a myth and a way for politicians to get money for various programs.

Evidence of this is Governor AHNOLD. When there was potential money in the budget (and he was in front of the cameras) he was adamant about the problems and how money had to be spent. Now that CA is between $15 and 20 BILLION in debt, GW isn't an important issue because he's not even talking about it.

I heard yesterday that one of the biggest proponents about the theory that GW caused hurricanes changed his mind and stated that GW has no affect on hurricanes.

Is your view based on evidence?

The best way to determine the view of real climate scientists, is to read what they (not economists, electrical engineers, former mining executives, political pundits, or other non-climate related scientists) actually write in the peer reviewed scientific literature. I'll give you 3 options:

1) Look at this study (published in Science Volume 306) that was done on a sampling of over 900 scientific journal articles on the subject:

http://historyweb.ucsd.edu/oreskes/Papers/Scientif...

http://www.ametsoc.org/atmospolicy/Presentations/O...

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/09/schulte_re...

2) Look at this list of the 25 most frequently sited scientists in the field and see how many of them don't think AGW is real:

http://esi-topics.com/gwarm/authors/b1a.html

3) Look at a random sampling (only some are free, but all should provide abstracts) of peer reviewed scientific journal articles yourself and see how many assume or say AGW is real:

http://www.pnas.org/

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/index.html

http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-ar...

If you accept this challenge, what you will find is an abundance of scientific journal articles that agree AGW is real and very few (if any) that say AGW is false. There is much debate on some of the details, but the consensus view (CO2 increasing, from human activities, will cause additional warming 1 - 4C, etc.) is quite evident.

"The fact that the community overwhelmingly supports the consensus is evidenced by picking up any copy of Journal of Climate or similar, any scientific program at the meetings, or simply going to talk to scientists. I challenge you, if you think there is some un-reported division, show me the hundreds of abstracts that support your view - you won't be able to. You can argue whether the consensus is correct, or what it really implies, but you can't credibly argue it doesn't exist."

NASA's Gavin Schmidt

Well since in the 80s TIME magazine made a huge fuss out of global cooling idk what to believe anymore alot of it could be just hype to boost sales of a friends company or just wont to be able to say that we said it first if the event comes true.

So your hearing it now in 2012 the earth will grow. Now ill be the first to have said that

what's an 8 athiest mormon?? i'm guessing an inside joke, but it's got my curiousity!!

oh, and if global warming is caused by man, i believe it is a small part and that it's mostly natural- if at all.

STOP GLOBAL WHINING!!

PS- scientists always act like they know everything because they've "researched" it. but they know squat (in the grand scheme of things).. everytime they think they've figured something out, 50 years later new light is shed on it and they realize they weren't "quite" right.

The news reported yesterday that a group of 44,000 scientists sign a document that stated their doubts about the subject. that's hardly any... huh.

You are incorrect. As studies have shown, a simple search of the scientific literature confirms the scientific consensus on man-made global warming. See the links below.

http://www.norvig.com/oreskes.html

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensus....

The only qualification for the 31,000 "scientists" who signed the Oregon Petition was to have any sort of scientific college degree. So you could have a guy who got a BS in biology 40 years ago sign the thing. Who cares? Even the PhDs have degrees in things like nephrology (the study of the function and diseases of the kidney) instead of climate science.

http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1654/73/

If you put any stock in the Oregon Petition, you might as well go see a chemist when you need open heart surgery. It's the exact same thing. I don't care how many chemists you line up - I'm going to find a qualified surgeon to operate on me. When it comes to climate science, I'm going to listen to climate scientists, not kidney doctors.

*edit* typical denier - ignore the study and engage in ad hominem attacks on the source. I've come to expect no better.