Is there really a scientific consensus on AGW, or is "scientific consensus" just an attention-getter?

Consensus depends on who you talk to and what they study. Those who are still pushing AGW are mostly extreme liberals close to full communists in their base philosophy and political view. When you talk to moderate or conservative educators their normal concern currently is rapidly shifting from being concerned over a potential mild warming over the next 200 years to being exceeding concerned about the potential of dropping off into either a minor or worse ice age.

Their biggest concern currently is that we have an exceptionally liberal president that has signed on to the most radical portions of the AGW pogrom. Most of them know that the world has massively cooled in the last 3 years and are shocked at the left wing liberals refusing to acknowledge the climate shift that has already happened in just 3 short years. It is absolutely amazing just how fast the planets lose heat when the sun shuts down completely.

We as a people really need to study and learn what causes the sun to vary its output to the extent we have observed it to do over the last 600 years. Political liberalism is becoming even more of a disaster to the world and nation than I even believed it could ever be.

http://www.deadfishwrapper.com/fish_wrapper_wont_p...

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTlhOTNiOWFlM...

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/nasa-study-show...

The real problem is that those who promote the AGW agenda know very little about science and how things really work. The sun is the source of 98% of the energy that warms the earth.

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

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

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

I fear the money and politics has influenced many of the majority, if a consensus exists -- that is.

The green house effect might not model reality. It might. It might sometimes and not others. With only a modest understanding of a few of the immense elements of the sciences involved, I would say that we had best continue learning, and monitoring of the known pollutants, of which could well threaten us in the future.

In a simplistic assessment, I would say that growing population is such the protagonist, that for all our efforts, no significant mitigation

of the pollutants' harm would be realized. Imagine several more billion mouths to feed and feet to be clad; the third world aspires to have what we enjoy.

Global urbanization, occurring now, coupled with unsustainable population growth will negate our best efforts. Everyone wants a car, and all the nice things. That "everyone" is growing exponentially, even if most national populations are not. More and more will come to pollute more.

As for CO2. It is not necessarily a pollutant. I think of Apollo thirteen's problem of high CO2 Concentrations as a pollutant; I don't think CO2 is currently a pollutant on Earth.

You AGWers talk of consensus and not facts. So as for what Dr. Simpson has said. We know that ice has been decreasing in the Artic, but increasing in the Antartic. We know that the sea levels have been rising, but at the same rate they have for centuries, certainly not enough to flood out nations as has been suggested. We know that the temps have been increasing .12 to .17 degree per decade over the past 30 years and by .6 degrees over the past century. None of this is terribly disturbing news that points to man as the primary cause or impending doom. What do you have beyond the tenuous models that justifies the assertion that no action will results in impending doom?

The hockey stick has been broken, and while you may still have scientists believing that man has an impact, do you have compelling evidence of the impending doom that you have used to scare the public?

You pretend that your scare-mongering tactics are justified to serve a higher purpose. They are not. Ill informed decisions are not good decisions, no matter how you slice it. So if you want to scare the public with overly exagerrated scare-mongering numbers, you'd better expect that we will call you out on it.

An unbiased poll by the University of Illinois at Chicago found that among those actively involved with climat research, 97% answered that yes, "human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures". 97%! This poll was conducted in April 2009.

One of the findings of the poll was the more familiar people are with the research, the more likely they are to believe that man is causing warming, ranging from 97% of those actually involved to 58% of the general public, with "scientists in the middle at 90%. The conclusion is that the more people know, the more certain they are.

All that Senator Inhofe's multiple lists (such as this one) prove is that there are only a handful of scientists who dispute that anthropogenic climate change is real. My favorite person on Inhofe's list is Chris Allen, weather director at WBKO, the ABC affiliate for south-central Kentucky. On his blog, Mr. Allen says this about global warming, and I quote:

“My biggest argument against putting the primary blame on humans for climate change is that it completely takes God out of the picture. It must have slipped these people's minds that God created the heavens and the earth and has control over what's going on. (Dear Lord Jesus...did I just open a new pandora's box?) Yeah, I said it. Do you honestly believe God would allow humans to destroy the earth He created? Of course, if you don't believe in God and creationism then I can see why you would easily buy into the whole global warming fanfare. I think in many ways that's what this movement is ultimately out to do - rid the mere mention of God in any context. What these environmentalists are actually saying is ‘we know more than God - we're bigger than God - God is just a fantasy - science is real...He isn't...listen to US! I have a huge problem with that.”[1]

These comments do cause me to wonder, "What exactly does Senator Inhofe base his public policy on?" Science, or whether anthropogenic climate change "takes God out of the picture".

Very few of these scientists on the list are climatologists, and even fewer have published anything in peer-reviewed journals on the subject of climatology within the past 10 years.

Six hundred fifty people may seem like a lot, but is just a drop in the bucket when considering the total number of scientists with a relevant experience in climate research. For example, the AGU is one organization that has over 50,000 members,[2] the majority of whom hold a Ph.D. in Earth Science. I'm willing to bet that not a single AGU member can be found on Inhofe's list.

Edit, Actually, click on the "Link to the full Senate report" and search the term "TV"; you will find that there are 43 such TV weather personalities on the list.

There is a consensus, and that list of yours is garbage. For example, that's a misleading quote of Dr. Joanne Simpson, which was carefully edited to conceal her true feelings. Here is another quote from her

"What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable"

Deniers consistently try to mislead and lie.

There are about 10,000 climate scientists in the world, of which about 200 are skeptical of AGW. Those 200 are quoted and re-quoted continuously by the denier movement. The other 9,800 are people you never heard of and never will -- unless you actually read peer-reviewed science, which I'm also predicting you never will.

By the way, the author of this bunkum has lifted his "data" directly from a report by Marc Morano, a flunky for Sen. James Inhofe. Unfortunately, Morano can't get his facts right. Among these 650 are dead people, non-scientists, and scientists who support the consensus view.

http://www.desmogblog.com/new-list-climate-quibble...

Generally, if you have ever been thinking about applying hypnosis in order to get a grip on the results of interactions to your benefit, then you'll probably have an interest in what is being shown in Black Ops Hypnosis, an on line program you will find here https://tr.im/bbvtG .

 This system, Black Ops Hypnosis consists in 3 principal patterns. The methods from Black Ops Hypnosis are very sensible and perform very well in reality.

Black Ops Hypnosis is among the most popular secret and conversational hypnosis items and it's offered effectively to the tens of thousands of copies worldwide.

The list is constructed by a politician, Senator Inhofe. It contains a mix of folks who aren't natural scientists (TV weathermen, economists),

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/la...

and some who are flat-out misrepresented...and yet remain on the list.

http://www.grist.org/article/the-inhofe-400-skepti...

When you break it down to those who have published climate-related studies, the end result is a small handful of scientists, as is typically the case with such lists.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/12/650_intern...

It's very similar to lists claiming to show "prominent" scientists who dissent from evolution theory.

http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2008/01/diss...

The scientific consensus can be clearly seen through the major scientific academies, the peer-reviewed literature, and surveys of qualified scientists.

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

But like any issue that has political implications, don't be surprised to see a few dissenters.

Climate change is a reality no matter what some "scholars" will stoop to to get published. Further, i am greatly fatigued by right wing "hangers on" endlessly defending the practices and politics of the global elite, in the hopes that they too will one day be able to arrogantly bully the masses that have done them no harm so, that they can live like kings at the expense of others.

Good day.