Having read the article they don’t seem to list these climate scientists. Following the link they offered in that article only led me to another article on the same blog, I did not see any other names attached to that article.

The one thing I did notice is that this consensus that I have been hearing about for the last few years seems to be false. If there are a “small number of scientists that disagree” then there is no consensus. Consensus: a general or widespread agreement among all the members of a group. If climatologists are the group and some disagree then there is no consensus.



I am so glad they agree to what has been a known scientific belief for 40 years. What they omit is that man is the cause. They imply that man is the cause.

There has never been a dispute as to global warming being true, the dispute is that some claim that man it the cause of this warming and others say there is no proof of this. In parsing their statement they try to suggest that man is the cause, rather than saying the truth. This is political spin.

On another blog I quoted from the IPCC report where they say that what man has produced in the form of pollution was negligible. I also pointed out from Livescience.com that they have found out that their climate models are off by about a full degree. If I remember correctly the models predicted a raise in temperature of 1.34 degrees and after measuring the actual results the temperature only went up .34th of a degree.

I have not read this article by Christopher Monckton so I am not concerned by it, but it seems that there is another accredited scientist that disagrees with the man made global warming hoax.

I have provided a link to one of my articles that gives quotes from the IPCC,Frontline, and livescience.com so you can check the figures. As noted in the article everything has passed peer review except the excerpts from Frontline.
WWW Link

I still wait for the link that shows us the "peer review"

Sorry paladin77 but if most of the scientists agree and a very small number disagree then that is a consensus.  A general view is a view held by most people, not every person.  

I loved the whole 'Island Heat' theory, saying that weather stations located in cities were the cause of our instruments reporting global warming. It's ridiculous notions such as this that are leveraging the arguement against cutting emissions, when in essence these are simply misinformed trumpet blowers wanting to make a name for themselves.

Much like the Global Cooling "crisis" a few decades ago, filled with "hard facts" and agreed upon with a "consensus" of scientists This global warming "crisis" will pass much the same way, just fade into obscurity with a whimper.

As per the website of the American Physical Society, who were founded in 1899 and have over 46,000 members, most of whom are credentialled scientists. Clearly a fringe group not at all indicative of most real scientists as supposedly this is all one big scam supported by a small number of politically motivated pawns!!!

"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases"

Then go to the link it shows the process is on going.I see where people are confused and make the mistake that the people against global warming is under some sort of peer review. The truth is that global warming is under peer review. The full process is that it gets published, and then the data gets challenged by independent review. Other scientists in the field will look at the data and either agree or disagree with is. None of the people involved in the original report can be part of the peer review process. It was not until today did I understand that people think that the peer review process ends with being published in an accredited forum. That is just the first step. It takes years to the pass peer review process and that does not mean that the data was right it just means it has been reviewed by peers and accepted or rejected.



We have been lied to! We were told that there was a consensus among climatologists that man is the cause of global warming. If you have even one person that does not go along with this view then there is not a consensus. Here we have hundreds of scientists publicly doubting the validity of the report. Each organization that has signed on to the global warming has people in that field in disagreement. The people in charge say they agree and everyone else should shut up. To get the IPCC report they needed scientists from different disciplines to provide data. Almost every one of the groups has a substantial amount of its members saying the data is flawed.
This is not a layman’s point of view but the disagreement within the different fields of study. The IPCC report on Global Climate Warming/Change predicts the temperature going up by .05th of a degree as a result of man with the total rise in temperature of 1.4 degrees. Then when they used actual readings to qualify the prediction we find they are off by one full degree. That’s right folks 1.4 degrees was the prediction and the actual result was .4 degrees. So the climate models are off by a bunch. Of the 1.4 degrees .05 of it was man’s fault. This is all part of the peer review process. It has already been published I think in January of this year maybe December because it was published in the end of January for the rest of us to see. So if they are off by a full degree that would mean that man’s part in the global temperature rise would be somewhere around .0005 of a degree over 100 years, this means that in 2000 years we will see a man made rise in temp of one degree.

This is the man made global warming that everyone is all upset about if the IPCC report is correct. Even if you took their flawed data as fact then it will only take 200 years to raise the global temp one degree more than what is normal. Get the sun block Ethel we are in for a heat wave! Anyone reading this plan on being here to see this scorching temperature? This means that 200 years from now our summers will be instead of 95 degrees it will be 96. Now to save the planet from this catastrophe we are told to stop all fuel usage until a replacement fuel can be found. This means everyone who is not working for the government will be mostly out of work. No taxes being paid will mean that all countries that sign on for this will collapse. No food production, because there is no way to get the crops to the market. Now employment because people can’t get to work, or light their homes or have electricity to run their computers. All of this to reduce our global temperature one degree over 200 years.



Just to be fair I have seen some of these reporting stations, other than the wet bulb method where the stations are in boxes and physically read every few hours the ones that are done electronically are placed in some of the least advantageous places because they need access to electricity and cable hook ups. So yes, a bunch of them are on top of buildings and next to air conditioning exhausts. The ones that are in those places show the spikes in temperature while the others don’t show a spike in temp. They add them all together and come out with an average for the city, state, country and world.



I hate to disagree with you MM. this is why they have changed the name from global warming to global climate change. This way when we are in a natural cooling cycle like back in the 40’s and 70’s and in the warming part of the cycle in the 60’s and 90’s will all be covered by the new term. No matter what the facts say they can claim that it is climate change. I remember reading in school about the blizzard of 49 and the worse winter in decades. All that snow helped replenish the ground water getting rid of the dust bowl of the 20’s and 30’s or as people might call it global warming followed by global cooling. Or as scientists call it, the normal climate cycle.



Okay, good point! How do you account for the fact that these gases have been around in fluctuating amounts for the last 5 billion years?
Before the dinosaurs the atmosphere was mostly nitrogen, followed by sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide all the way down to 2% oxygen. As single celled creatures started thriving on sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide they filtered out the air. Trapping the sulfur and carbon and farting oxygen. You can see the results of this filtration when you look at the oceans. It is called coral reefs. The skeletons of coral are made up of calcium carbonate and sulfur carbonate. In breaking down and trapping the sulfur and carbon out of the air oxygen moved up the ranks to being the number two dominant gas in the atmosphere reaching a high of 19% the oxygen level is dropping now and is way down to 18.4% over the last 2 million years.

Carbon dioxide is currently at about 37 parts per billion. This means that out of every billion molecules of air, 37 of them are carbon dioxide. If we continue to pollute as we are right now, in 100 years man will have raised that figure from 37 parts per billion to 38 parts per billion. This is the man made horror you worry about. One more molecule per billion over 100 years. Are you sure man is the cause of global warming?



All we need to do to fix the problem is put a bunch of sponges in the air. 80% of the greenhouse gas is water vapor. So all we have to do is get rid of water in the atmosphere and we will have reduced greenhouse gases by 80 percent. But how do we do that and still live? Even if you go after the smallest part of the greenhouse gas group (carbon dioxide) to eliminate that small group we have to kill all mammals on the planet. We all breathe, each breath you take puts a couple of quarts of CO2, and our breathing is pollution according to the Supreme Court. Save the planet, hold your breath for an hour and reduce CO2.

WWW Link

The above link is to the report that our friend is disregarding. Read it if you want to see how the peer review process is politicized.

While I did not go into all the facts and whys and where fores, this is what I was saying, the whole global warming sthick is nothing more than the natural way of things, been happening since the beginning of time, the planet has hotter and cooler times period, a couple decades ago all the chicken littles were running around screaming the sky is falling, the sky is falling {global cooling} now the same chicken little are running around screaming the sky is falling, the sky is falling {global warming}. Only this time the Chickens have a gelded rooster {Al Whore} leading them around.

Since this is not my article I will only ask that you respect the former vice president of the United States of America and the next president as well as the father of the internet of which we use while paying a tax he created.  

This is a red herring. As the article clearly states:



THAT is the main contention of the skeptics. And no science journal yet has been able to conclusively separate out effectively the effect of the sun (which accounts for 99.99% of the earths temperature) and what man has done. Simply put, there is insufficient data, inadequate models, and only speculation that man is having an impact. Speculation is not hypothesis (although I am sure one exists), theory or fact.

'We have been lied to! We were told that there was a consensus among climatologists that man is the cause of global warming. If you have even one person that does not go along with this view then there is not a consensus'

No, if one person does no along with the view it is not a unanimous view.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consensus

noun, plural -sus·es.

1.	majority of opinion

A consensus is the next step down from a unanimous view. In a consensus all parties either agree or agree to go along with the view or conclusion. They don’t have to all agree with the view but they have to agree to abide by the view or decision. This allows people to disagree with parts but on the whole agree with the conclusion. In this case you have people in the field that are choosing not to go along with the conclusions and are openly disputing them. At that point the consensus fails.
It is a matter of semantics, not everyone will agree so we will say that we all agree for the most part and all involved in the consensus will abide by the group decision to accept it with reservations. When you have people of that accredited group say that it is a hoax, a lie, a fabrication, highly misleading, that is not going along with the decision and since the disputers are accredited, respected members of the group, you can’t have a consensus.

The irony here is that for as long as the discipline of science has existed, the "consensus" on thousands of scientific phenomena has been subsequently proven to be wrong. Just ask Gallileo. It is the nature of scientific inquiry that nothing is accepted as absolute, that everything is open to question and doubt, that no question is ever settled. Scientific conclusions become "generally accepted" as opposed to absolutely proven.

There is a huge difference between observing the fact that there is a climate cycle and deciding you know not only all the factors influencing it but the relative contribution of each. Proposing remedies without knowing what their effects might be, taking definitive action on the basis of hypothesis alone, is not my idea of "scientific." I note that the APS boldly states "mitigation efforts must be taken immediately" without bothering to demonstrate the scientific basis for implementing "mitigation efforts" - the experiment simply hasn't been done, and can't be done, without risking all of humanity in the process. The hubris involved in such pronouncements is breathtaking.

Daiwa, I could shoot you!
That paragraph was masterfully concise and the most eloquently stated view on the topic. I have been trying to say this in thousands of words and you cut right down to the heart of the topic. Thank YOU!