Why do people who think man made global warming is real always say "99% of scientists say it is real"?

It isn't much about the facts and truth.

It's more about getting people to believe in what they're pushing so they can move forward with their agenda.

Ask yourself.. Who has profited from the global warming claims?

The whole issue is extremely complicated. The problem is that politicians want to solve a problem we're not completely sure exists, so they pay scientists and public servants to make the public accept it so that they can get onto fixing the "problem". The train of thought is that "fixing" it could only help the economy, whereas not doing anything would be catastrophic if it turns out that it is in fact real. From what I've studied on the topic, most scientists follow the "heck if i know" approach, and simply try to not only please the people funding them, but also do some research as well.

Quick Facts:

- some glaciers are melting, others are getting bigger, a growing glacier could also be mere miles away from a melting one.

- melting glaciers don't neccessarily turn to water, they can also simply evaporate, sort of like dry ice. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimation_(phase_tr...

- temperature fluctuations have very little impact on the melting glaciers issue, the reason is because if the temperature changes a few celsious, it's most likely still well below the freezing threshold. The cause of receding glaciers can almost always be blamed on local factors like weather, humidity,what the surrounding area is like (cities,lakes,rivers,forests), and also the amount of radiation the sun gives off

- as far as the whole greenhouse effect, its not a simple equation if more CO2=more heat. The more CO2 packed into the atmosphere, the less each molecule of CO2 affects the atmosphere, because the molecules are competing with each other. The effect is understood as a logarithmic equation rather than a linear one.

- atmospheric CO2 does not equal the amount of CO2 we emit. Contrary to popular belief, while we continue to emit more and more carbon dioxide, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't always increase, the levels fluctuate and are fairly stable. The reason is because more CO2 = more carbon sink holes. Plants like CO2, so more CO2 equals faster growing plants, which equals less CO2 because plants eat CO2.

- climate models are always innacurate, because we don't properly understand how climate functions at this point in time.

- Al Gore lies, or presents innacurate information, usually intentionally. He's pretty much full of crap.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7037671.stm

Peter Dorn @ U Ill Chicago did a survey of 1300 scientists.

Two questions were key: have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

So, from this study, it seems the answer is closer to 82%. I see all sorts of surveys and all sorts of spurious information.

Maybe global warming isn't man-made, it's just a natural occurrence of a cycle the Earth goes through. Global warming-global cooling-warming-cooling-warming-so on and so forth.

But what if it IS our fault? What if we can do something about it? Shouldn't we try to do what we can just for the sake of a better tomorrow? I won't take the chance that it's "normal" for the Earth to, much faster than normal, suddenly melt polar ice and generate holes in our ozone so I'm doing the smart thing and giving Gore the benefit of the doubt.

I believe Global Warming is real and it's foolish to shrug it off.

They mean that 99% of the 2400 scientist picked by Al Gore agree with man made global warming. BUT the other 37,000.00 say it's a farce. I think the Al Gore church of the man made glottal warming is even more violent than the Obama -bots. They sit in their parents basement just WAITING for someone to disagree with them . Then they ALL pounce and remove any thing they disagree with. Very narrow minded ( which should tell you something about their theories ) people

I doubt there even were scientists in the1400's and our understanding of the earth and beyond has come along way since then.

Ultimately we shouldn't simply pick and choose when we believe scientists simply because it suits us. If there are a large majority in the scientific community who believe something is occurring and they have evidence or at least solid theory to back it up then we should treat it as fact until proved otherwise.

Those 99% of scientists that thought the earth was flat weren't even real scientists because they never explored the world to begin with.

If I were a scientist who made a living on investigating climate change and kept said job based on propagating the specter of rising ocean levels, bad weather and so forth, would you never for a moment question my findings?

I really don't claim a position on the whole debate, but If you think all scientists are pure in their motives when interpreting research, you're mistaken.

IT IS NIGH ON IMPOSSIBLE TO GET SCIENTISTS TO THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX BECAUSE THEY ALL HAVE MASTERS TO ANSWER TO..LOOK WHAT HAPPENED TO THE RUSSIAN COMMISSIONED TO RESEARCH THE SAFETY OF GM PRODUCTS.HE WAS ATTACKED AFTER EXPOSING THE SERIOUS DANGERS TO MANKIND BY INTRODUCING GM PRODUCTS TO THE FOOD CHAIN AND THE MAN THAT ATTACKED HIM WAS MR BLAIR ON ORDERS FROM THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.AS FOR THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IT'S ANY-ONES GUESS IF GLOBAL WARMING IS IN AFFECT AND EVEN IF IT IS IT DID NOT HARM THE DINOSAURS HAVING NO ICE AGE DID IT.

This is the 21st century. Predicting the future is not the same as recognizing facts.

Satellite photos and extensive monitoring of conditions all over the world verify climate change. Those are verifiable facts that we are experiencing today.

why do 99% of scientists even think about global warming? Biochemical engineers, computer engineers, oceanographers, pharmacists, etc. are all scientists, and they shouldn't even care for the most part