1. 

1. You do understand that the IPCC is a review panel, and rely on scientific papers and evidence to formulate "plain" English reports for policy makers? There are hundreds of scientific references made in the IPCC reports, the IPCC editors/authors are using evidence to support their reports.

2. If the data has been falsified how do we know that temperatures have decreased, surely we can't pick and chose we data we believe is falsified can we??

3. The Earth has been warming since the 1600's, but not in the last 15 years according to your previous statement. Perhaps you should be investigating why after 400 years of warming the Earth has suddenly stopped warming.

4. A scientific theory (which anthropogenic global warming is) only requires ONE piece of evidence to dismiss it. Currently the theory stands. Doesn't matter what an engineer (the majority of those 31,000 scientists) "believes". Can any of those 31,000 scientists provide evidence to dismiss the theory, as yet they have not.

5. Again science doesn't have to agree with a consensus. Is there any evidence to dismiss the theory?? Not yet.

6. Again this is opinion ... any evidence to dismiss the theory? No?

You ignorance is reasons why this topic has turned into a political issue (the basis of 90% of your questions) rather than a scientific issue. I suggest you learn some basic sciences, this video explains some basics in climate science (without talking about emissions, except for a mention in the last 10 seconds).

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3...

I was not going to answer this question because I think it is phrased in a way that is too controversial. Then I looked at the answers and changed my mind. Many of the answers show just why some people have a hard time believing "the consensus".

1. "The ultimate test of whether or not you're right is whether people believe you EN MASSE." How many people believe that? Since when do we vote on science?

2. "Now that is 6000 x 175,000,000 gallons per day!" I make that about 1.5 billion kg.

The mass of the atmosphere is about 5 * 10^18 kg - approximately 3 billion times as much. So if we just use the oxygen we have at the moment we have enough for over 8 million years. That is not going to be a problem before 2100.

3. "The petition project site looks old, dubious and only has 9,000 signatures with PhDs. Don't know how many of them are climate scientists." and "Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree."

So, how many of that 97% are climate scientists, then? The NASA site quites 3 papers, one of them is by Doran et al. If we look at that how many climate scientists do you think it surveys? They sent surveys to 10,257 Earth scientists, received replies from 3146. Their 97.4% figure is based on only 77 scientists. The question they asked was: Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" How many "sceptics" would disagree with that, anyway?

4. "Skeptics also fall into the trap of assuming that CO2 is the only thing that causes warming or cooling. There are between 500 and 1,000 known factors ..." If that is true then why are we so obsessed with carbon exchanges, carbon footprints carbon taxes, cap and trade (of carbon credits), the exceeding of 400 ppm etc etc.

5. "That claim is made by Professor Fred Singer. Previously he was paid by the tobacco industry ..." That is a non sequitur. It is not a rebuttal. There a good many lists supporting the sceptic point of view. The 30,000, the Jame Inhofe list of 400, the scientists who wrote an open letter before the Copenhagen summit, the dissenters who wrote to the RS, the ones who wrote to the AAS, the ex-NASA employees who wrote a letter. There could be more for all I know.

People do not understand the laws of physics, to not realize that gases in the atmosphere settle in layers like different oils, and that these "Greenhouse gases" are thus not affecting the ozone layer because the ozone layer has a lighter specific gravity than the other gases. But the morons here have the idea that the ozone is some kind of shell that can be punctured. It is not. Everything is held down by gravity. There is no shell around the earth holding the air in. But people are morons and they listen to the global warming freaks even though they are completely disproven by a field of their own science. If a hole in the ozone is to occur, it is a fault of the ozone, not a fault of some gas 1,000 feet beneath, which has absolutely no influence on the ozone.

Climatologists are involved with IPCC and they are definitely not the self proclaimed climate scientists in the denier links your ilk puts forth as true

Actually the primary man made warming started around 1750-1780 as coal became a residential as well as an industrial fuel, corresponding to the industrial revolution

The article pertaining to the 15/16/17 year bulllsh*t was a lie started by david rose which was refuted the same day the article was printed by the MET in their blog. This garbage appeared in Oct of 2012

The petition project is more denier guano The real story is here http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/20...

@ 99 % of all scientists are convinced that GW is real. Consensus link above illustrated 97% climatologists are convinced that GW is man made

James is not the godfather of environmentalism however he was one of the first to discover that CFCs were becoming Your hero thinks 80% of the earths population will die by 2100 and the temp will go to 8c More about your hero http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Lovel...

BTW learn to pay attention when you read he didn't say GW was drivel, he said "sustainable development’ … is meaningless drivel "

I suggest you visit http://skepticalscience.com and check out the 173 denier arguments debunked before you post more such arguments that carry no weight like those above

Trevor and others here claiming to be climate scientists should in all respects go back and check their facts. An internet troll to be sure promoting his understand, or lack thereof of data, manipulated data and false MSM reporting. The last decade was not the warmest on record and Trevor should be man enough to discover and report the massaging of the empirical data showing in fact that it wasn't. One only has to look at the 73 climate models and their predictions as it compares to actual measurement from UAH and RSS data to see how wrong they are. Not one of these GCM's were even close to actual measurements. If the data doesn't fit theory, than the theory is wrong. Period.

? We now know the so-called "experts" on the IPCC were almost entirely not involved in climate science with most of them not even being scientists at all.

The IPCC isn’t a scientific organisation and never has been. It doesn’t conduct any research. It collates information from scientists and makes policies based on that. Your point is a moot one.



? We know they falsified data and that temperatures have actually decreased over the last 15 years.

If the data were falsified then they wouldn’t show cooling would they? Skeptics love to claim that data are falsified if it shows warming but rely on it absolutely if it shows level or cooling temperatures.

Skeptics also fall into the trap of assuming that CO2 is the only thing that causes warming or cooling. There are between 500 and 1,000 known factors and if some of them are in a cooling phase, as they are now, they can cancel out the underlying warming.

Furthermore, what you’re looking at is a temperature record that doesn’t take into account the heat exchanged between the atmosphere and ocean. New research shows that the ‘missing heat’ has gone into the oceans.

? We know the Earth has been warming since at least the 1600s

Earth recovered from a period of cooling caused by prolonged decrease in total solar irradiance (heat from the Sun). By about 1900 all of that cooling had been reversed and temperatures should have levelled off. They didn’t. Instead they rose faster than has ever before been known and are now at levels not known since at least the last but one ‘ice-age’.



? We know there is a growing movement among scientists who reject the global warming model (which now numbers 31,000).

The Petition Project is a fraud. All of the signatories are listed on the site, pick some of the names at random and google them and see just how few scientists there are. Anyone who claims to have a PhD can sign the petition, there is no verification procedure in place. You could sign it today by claiming to have a PhD in electrical engineering and you’d be accepted.

? Currently 40% of scientists and growing.

That claim is made by Professor Fred Singer. Previously he was paid by the tobacco industry to deny that smoking was harmful, more recently he’s been paid by the fossil fuel industry to deny that global warming exists. Exxon alone have paid him through 15 different front organisations.

? And the guy who basically created modern environmentalism has called the current theory "drivel" and says environmentalists behave as if they are a religion.

No he hasn’t. What he actually said was that global warming is real, it’s still a threat but it’s not as bad as some people make it out to be and not as bad as he first thought. Quite different to what you’re claiming.

There’s nothing wrong with questioning the theory of global warming, in fact, it should be encouraged. But not by relying on pack of lies spewed forth by the denialist media.

“Why do people still buy into this global warming garbage?” Unlike some people perhaps they understand the science involved. Maybe they have taken a rational and intelligent look at the evidence for themselves rather than being told what to think. Maybe they’re aware that global warming is a consequence of the most powerful and successful of all scientific laws, and that no matter what anyone says or does, these laws can not be changed in any way.

"'That claim is made by Professor Fred Singer. Previously he was paid by the tobacco industry ...' That is a non sequitur. It is not a rebuttal"

Umm, you do not know what "non sequitur" means. You are trying to say "ad hominem".

Despite the term "ad hominem" often being used perjoratively (I hope you know what "perjorative" means) ad hominem arguments are not necessarily totallty invalid. If you heard a claim by Hitler about a Jewish person would you really not be more skeptical of it than if Walter Cronkite made the claim? If you were a member of a jury and a witness had a long history of perjury, would you not find his testimony less influential? I pretty much have been deriding the people who reject differential equations as being mindless Authoritarians, but the other extreme is not good either.

People working for the tobacco industry had a history of lying for money. Even the anti-science "skeptics" have to accept that, being that actual internal documents became public (in trials) that outright showed "scientists" were being bribed. It is just common sense that when people who worked for the tobacco industry denying science are now making bizarre claims while working for the fossil fuel industry that it should be assumed it is probable that they are doing the same thing they did before.

The truth is isn't weather or not the earth is undergoing climactic changes it doesn't really matter, here is my concern it takes 2000 gallons of compressed breathable air to 1gallon of gasoline to run your car, the average driver either directly or indirectly uses around 3 gallons of gasoline per day,in the united stated alone,there are around 175 million cars on the roads. Now that is 6000 x 175,000,000 gallons per day! Will we even have a breathable atmosphere by the time global warming reaches its full effects? Has any one noticed the amount of people you see walking around with an o2 bottle? I know they were smokers? But I don't recall any one in the 70's running around with o2 bottles? Not like today any way? I know that man has been doing a number on mowing down the worlds trees for over 100 years? I do think we are in a great deal of trouble, I believe that green house effect is very real and we are a major contributor? And if we just sit here we will all be needing o2 bottles???? Now you can pull my thoughts apart but it wont change the numbers. And that is a small estimate???

First of all, your statistics about scientists are wrong. Over 90% of them know that it is real.

One thing I think about climate change is that many of the people who don't believe in it are republicans. Many republicans are "Christians." Many "Christians," "worship" that faith just in case it is real. Why can't they be the same about climate change?

I'm looking at your links.

The petition project site looks old, dubious and only has 9,000 signatures with PhDs. Don't know how many of them are climate scientists.

Then I look at your claim that currently 40% of scientists and growing are skeptical about global warming. But it's just an assertion from one skeptic, with no link to where he got that statistic from.

Then you say this in another question: "When you separate the political arguments and he scientific arguments you see the vast majority of those advocating global warming are non-scientists who do so for political reasons."

So I look at NASA's website and I get this:

Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-conse...

Either NASA is lying or you are, which is it?

This is why I find the arguments for global warming way more convincing.

We now know the so-called "experts" on the IPCC were almost entirely not involved in climate science with most of them not even being scientists at all.

http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_numbers.pdf

We know they falsified data and that temperatures have actually decreased over the last 15 years.

http://www.examiner.com/article/global-warming-hypothesis-falsified-by-data-climategate-e-mails-expose-carbon-tax-scam

We know the Earth has been warming since at least the 1600s

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Thomas_Wyke-_Thames_frost_fair.JPG

We know there is a growing movement among scientists who reject the global warming model (which now numbers 31,000).

http://www.petitionproject.org/

Currently 40% of scientists and growing.

http://www.nas.org/articles/Estimated_40_Percent_of_Scientists_Doubt_Manmade_Global_Warming

And the guy who basically created modern environmentalism has called the current theory "drivel" and says environmentalists behave as if they are a religion.

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/06/22/green-drivel

Now that you know everything, you should run for President and see how far you get. The ultimate test of whether or not you're right is whether people believe you EN MASSE. Run for a local office, and start your political career on the "global warming is bunk" platform. Let's see how far you get.

If you really believe all this, and that it's this important, then the only thing to do is put yourself in power so you can run things right.

Well if people judged by your argument, then it's not surprising they buy into it. The signatories of the petition project are mostly not scientists at all, and of those that are, virtually none of them are in relevant fields. of science. The idea that 40% of scientists reject the theory is a lie. You should understand that Fred Singer is a paid liar, and before you rush to defend him, let me say that I have read his work, heard him speak, driven him around, taken him to lunch. I would not trust a word that guy says.

EDIT: I see Starbuck is back to spread his own brand of misinformation. In fact, Starbuck, the last decade WAS the warmest on record. If you don't believe that, then come up with the decade that YOU think was the warmest and we'll compare temperatures. Or it would be easier if you just admitted you were wrong, as usual.

Sea levels are rising little by little. It only comes from 1 source. Melting Ice.

Because it is a self evident fact, only complete idiots maintain otherwise

Global warming is a theory and as yet an unproven theory, and consensus is not proof.

However people (sheeple) will believe if told often enough, an urban myth if told often enough and by enough people, stops being a myth and becomes common knowledge