------------------------------
Gary K - Pretty funny #s. The science reviews its own science. They call that "peer-review". Now I know where some of the "hype" comes from. Exaggerating the #s seems to be an alarmist's main selling point. If there is 1729 reviewers of climate science papers, then there has to be 1729 climate scientists who are considered "peers". Bottom line is that it is a two-faced science where they wash and watch each other's backside.
BTW - Many of the reviewers are cohorts (partners in climate change propaganda) of the 700 self-proclaimed climate experts. Anyone who participates in a particular profession can proclaim themselves as a professional. That's easy. Proving beyond a reasonable doubt that you are truly an outstanding professional is simply up to human discretion.
So you talk of the "media" when it is science, I can see why you would not want to talk about the position of science on climate change, their position is clear and it is, that it is happening, a position deniers have tried in vain to counter, but they have no real counter.
Given that the entire denier case is built on a set of over 170 different theories from blogs I find it funny you even try to use the media as a scapegoat.
But then that's why this question was shut down so quickly you where not looking for a real answer, like most deniers.
There are a lot of people who for legit reasons do not believe that HIV causes AIDS. But they find it impossible to discuss this with anyone except those also part of the same community on the subject because the prevailing theory is HIV causes AIDS. And yet it is still only a theory that HIV causes AIDS for reasons of morals has never been proven. After all in the history of AIDS no scientist has been able to track a virus from an uninfected person to an infected person and then observe it causing AIDS. There has always been people who have tested positive and never gotten sick. And people who test negative and become similarly sick. Like all viral tests the test become worthless in the presence of many conditions.
The reason we accept that HIV causes AIDS is two fold. 1) Scientist say that although they can't prove it, it is the most likely explanation despite the cases that don't seem to fit the theory. 2) Companies, organizations, and politics spend huge amounts of time and money making it unacceptable to look at any alternative. Hell, anyone who looks at alternative approaches to treating mainstream theory on AIDS finds themselves in hot water. Even people who have been just fine for a decade without drugs and treatment feel pressured to start taking drugs despite there being no justification.
It is not the mainstream media that is important, it is the thousands of studies published in the science journals.
If you don't read the science journals -- few of us do and few of us could understand them -- then you can read the summaries written by our greatest scientists. The organization where America's greatest scientists come together to advise the nation is our National Academy of Sciences.
You don't have to be "told" what the best scientists believe, you can read for yourself.
http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoi...
If you have the necessary education and you want to read the science yourself, subscribe to one or more of the science journal. The leading journal for environmental research is Nature, and the publishers have spun off a specialized journal, Nature Climate Change.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/index.htm...
When something is repeated enough times from several different familiar sources, many people will accept it as fact. It's a lot easier to be told the answer than to figure it out on your own. And unfortunately this method of psychological manipulation has a very high success rate. Once a person has established an opinion about something it becomes tough to change their minds. To get someone to even be open to other possibilities, their ego has to be overcome. And the ego is guarded heavily as a persons whole self worth is at stake.
The vast majority of scientists believe in it. Scientists are smart, and smart people are usually right.
If global warming isn't real, then why is the West Antarctic ice Sheet sliding into the ocean?
Scientists say it's real. The major worldwide droughts say it's real. The melting glaciers say it's real. The unusual weather says it's real. The only people who don't say it's real are on faux "news".
Evidence. Global warming is happening
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010...
And we are causing it
http://c1planetsavecom.wpengine.netdna-c...
The ten warmest years in the instrumental record are 2010, 2005, 2009, 2007, 2002, 1998, 2006, 2003, 2011 and 2012.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp
What the media reports has no effect on reality.
When you have overwhelming international scientific consensus and a report developed over 5 years by more than 700 of the world's top climate scientists and 1,729 expert reviewers from more than 70 countries concluding that human caused climate change is real and happening now, the level of denial required to reject that goes way beyond rational.
-------
EDIT: @Zippy: "Bottom line is that it is a two-faced science where they wash and watch each other's backside." - How do you know this? Are you a climate scientist? Were you involved in the IPCC report? What's your background in peer review? Or where do you get your insider information from?
People that have learned science believe it; people that don't know any science believe all sorts of garbage.
It is supported by a vast amount of empirical evidence, by physical theory, and computer simulations.
The only reason I can think of is because it is heavily pushed by the mainstream media which can be propaganda.
And because the general public is told that the best scientists concluded that Global Warming is real.
It is a scientific fact, so those with a head for science and those who have the ability to read and comprehend what they have read are aware it is real
Those who don't have any comprehension and let themselves be led around by their noses will continue to deny the reality of AGW
Well, I don't really follow much media, but the evidence for the scenario itself is overwhelming and easily traceable. I'm more curious as to where people are hearing it is false, as there is no evidence to support that.
Global Warming is real. The reason people have begun to think that it is a hoax or is not real is because of all the negativity surrounding the subject due to Al Gore. I am majoring in environmental science and as students we are advised to refer to the subject as climate change, because that is what it is. The climate change is having a dramatic effect all over the planet. You can feel and see the change. If you really are interested about the subject there is an abundance of information about climate change and the effects it having on the earth. A major reason why it has a "hoax" label is because major billion dollar corporations make their money off exploiting earth resources and speeding up the process of climate change. Climate change happens regardless of greenhouse effects, and studies have shown that. However, the greenhouse gases speed up the process thus making the climate change increase at a non-normal rate.
Its like the snake oil salesmen from the past . Bad back or Eyesight drink this radium drink . The cure is taxes and high prices on everything .
Global warming and global cooling is real. It's been occurring naturally in cycles for billions of years. AGW is a fraud.
Not many really believe it, you would have to be pretty brainwashed to believe that man is causing the entire globe to warm in any significant way. But there are a huge number of people that don't get a paycheck unless they keep on stoking the propaganda.
It's been cooling for at least 12 years.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...
Top climate scientists say there is no man-made Global Warming.
The Great Global Warming Swindle
wHEW....you are on the right track.
1. There are a number of issue positions upon which the vast majority of Americans subscribe..despite the absence of scentific data to support it. In some of these, the arguments are very like cult-based dogma...with an appeal to emotion and to authority.
2. AIDS decidedly is NOT = HIV. Please see, e.g., the work of virology expert Peter Duesberg..who explains that if HIV even exists (!!), it is merely a harmless retrovirus. As a matter of fact, if you have and grounding in the biological sciences, please remember Koch's rules for establishing the connection between a pathogen and a disease, which mandates that the pathogen must be found, isolated, then injected into an organism...and the disease reproduced...and this standard has NEVER been satisfied with HIV.
It is a hoax that has snowballed out of control. It is perpetuated by those who are weak of mind.
Because they are not as stupid as you
