What consensus?

[Ignignokt]

Ron Paul doesn't believe in global warming
--

[xrayzebra]

Our friend Elpimpo4cc:



He kinda reminds me of Dan sometimes.

[DarrinS]

Research the "hockey stick" graph and you'll definitely start to wonder how much of a "crisis" global warming really is.

[RandomGuy]

Well, the below list of threads have responses from me in them. I may of missed some. I tried to sort them by relevance, with the more informative ones first:

"Global Warming" or not? Doesn't matter.

Damn Climate Change

Thank God for Global Warming...

Recent Results on Solar Variability and Climate Change

It’s the Sun Dammit

The U.S. is Burning...

So much for Global Warming

The Science of Gore's Nobel

"No Sun link" to climate change

Calling out Global-Warming Deniers

Thanks for that list, BTW.

Interesting reading.

[Wild Cobra]

Here's anoher interesting article:

22,000 Scientists Disagree With UN Global Warming Push
Analyzing Global-warming Science

The consensus is growing for the deniers. Part of the article:

We have more than 22,000 scientist signers of our global-warming pe ion who’ve looked at the issue and concluded essentially the opposite of these United Nations people. This says nothing about the science. Science does not depend on polling. Just because we have 22,000, and the UN may have 600, does not matter. The only thing our pe ion demonstrates is that there is no consensus among scientists in support of the UN claims.

Scientific questions are never settled in this way. Science is about natural truth. The truth doesn’t require any advocate. It stands by itself.

In science, a scientist may discover the truth about something. Then he develops a hypothesis, and the hypothesis is tested by various means. So long as the hypothesis passes experimental tests, it becomes stronger and is further relied upon — unless it fails an experimental test. If it is a very fine hypothesis with wide utility, it may spread throughout the entire scientific community and become part of the basis of scientific knowledge. The process by which this is done is not what is important. The truth is important. Scientific truth is not determined by polling or by convening meetings.

The articlce also brings out some great points. In my words:

Sure, we have been warming for the last 250 years, but we have been warming for the last 400 year too... before industrialization...

Solar activity is a primary driver

The UN's IPCC has a political interest to control the world's allotment of energy.

For the exact words, read the article.

[Wild Cobra]

Here's another good piece:

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007. Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"