Search Efforts - Is science the enemy of the global warming denier?

Is science the enemy of the global warming denier?

I recently posed a question for global warming deniers - if humans are not the primary cause of the recent acceleration of global warming, then what is? I provided evidence that it's not the sun, cosmic rays, volcanoes, or water vapor. I was provided with not a single valid alternative scientific explanation. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070711133901AAvvAXX&r=w Also, the scientific consensus is against global warming deniers. In 2004 an article in Science magazine discussed a study by Prof. Naomi Oreskes in which she surveyed 928 scientific journal articles that matched the search [global climate change] at the ISI Web of Science. Of these, according to Oreskes, 75% agreed with the consensus view (either implicitly or explicitly), 25% took no stand one way or the other, and none rejected the consensus. http://www.norvig.com/oreskes.html Is science the arch enemy of global warming deniers? How can anyone be in such denial as to ignore all evidence?

Public Comments

Only fuzzy science
global warming is cyclic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png
Big oil offers $10000 for scientific reports contradicting global warming. Why? Because it's not in their corporate profit making scheme to let the world know the truth: Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today. Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.
. Science, August 26, (2005); Science Feb. 28 (1997) pp1267; Science News, Feb3, (2007) Vol. 171, pp67; Science Vol. 312, June 9 (2006) pp1485-89. http://www.Skymetrics.US/background/glossey.php -21k 2. Science, June 6, (2006) pp1454; A.V. Federov, P.S. Dekens et al, The Pliocene Paradox, Science, Vol. 312, June 9, (2006) pp1485-89; D.R. MacAyeal, Dept. Geophysical Sciences, Univ. of Chicago, http://www.Geosci.uchicago.edu 3. Kenneth Clark, Civilization, Harper and Row, (1969), pp33; Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, Science (1996); L.D. Keigwin, The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period in the Sargasso Sea, Science, Vol. 274, Nov. 29, (1996) pp 5292; 4. The End of Angkor, Science, Vol. 311, March 10, (2006). 5. Gerald Dickens, A Methane Trigger for Rapid Warming?, Science, Vol 299, Feb. 14, (2003); Seth Borebstein, Methane A New Climate Threat, Nature, www.nature.com/nature ; C. Frankenberg, J.F. Meirink et al. Assessing Methane ; C. Frankenberg, J.F. Meirink et al. Assessing Methane Emissions From Global Space-Borne Observations, Science, Vol. 308, May 13, (2005). 6. Charles Higham, Civilization of Angkor; pp14-16 7. Methane Since 1684, Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Inst of Bern, Sidlerstrassa 5, Switzerland. 8. Hudson Canyon Map: http://www.pubs.usgs.gov/of%202004/1441/index/.htm; Wallace Broeker et al. Earth Observatory, Columbia Univ. Lecture at Amer Geographic Society, Baltimore, Spring 1999. 9. Severinghouse, Science, Vol. 286, Oct. 29 (1999) pp 930-4. 10. D.F. Ferretti, J.B. Miller et al, Unexpected Changes to the Global Methane Budget over the Past 2000 Years, Science, Vol. 309, Sept. 9 (2005). 11. Mysterious Stabilization of Atmospheric Methane May Buy Time in Race to Stop Global Warming, Geophysical Research Letters, Nov. 23 (2006). Mysterious Stabilization of Methane, Scientific American, Nov. 21 (2006). 12. C&EN, Aug 8, (2005) pp16 13. Science, Feb 28 (1997) pp1267; Geothermal Geophysical, Geosystems Vol. 10 (2001) pp1029. 14. I.S.A. Isakreacta, et al, Radiation Forcing of Climate, Inter-Government Panel on Climate Change (2003). 15. Urban Renaissance Inst., http://www. Urban-renaissance.org; Eva Bauer, Martin Clausen, V. Broukin, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 30, No. 6 (2003) pp127 16. Milankovitch Cycles - Wikipedia Encyclopedia 17. Richard Mueller, Gordon MacDonald (1977) Glacial Cycles and Astronomical Forcing 18. J. Howard Maccabee, http://www.nuc.berkely.edu, (colloquium)
'Scuse me Poncho, but pull it back a step. If it's NOT the sun, then how do you and all your 'scientists' (AKA people who are living of Global Warming grants and need to produce 'results') explain the fact that every terrestrial body in the solar system is rising in temperature? Why are the martian icecaps melting? Why are three of Jupiter's moons openly venting atmosphere as they thaw? I guess we're polluting all of them too now? Man made Global Warming's days are numbered, and you could see it in Gore's concert's abysmal turnout. People are opening their eyes.
Its the same as religion . When you show people that God did not create the world in Seven days ,that a virgin birth is impossible ,that religion is man made and Abraham is the same profit of Islam and Christianity . People like to believe what they like to believe . People hate change and accepting that global warming is real and we are having an effect on our planet is not going to happen easily . Science has always been attacked by religion and it still is today . Religion teaches that science is wrong unless it agrees with creation . Evolution is wrong and so is global warming . If science is always right like it is basically then religion is wrong and we can not have that happen .
Again, I ask the question: presuming global warming is occurring as many claim that it is, what is the worst that would happen? Extra beachfront property in Antarctica? **************************** My problem with global warming alarmists is that they are alarmists--I highly doubt things would be as bad as they claim...even if global warming were happening.
I think Mr. Gore hit the nail on the head in "An Inconvenient Truth" when he compared opposition to recognizing that global climate change is occurring to the tobacco company's denial of the correlation between smoking and disease. The tactics appear to be the same (dubious studies, the big lie, obfuscation of the truth, constantly raising the burden of proof, etc.) but hopefully the argument doesn't drag on for 50 years after the scientific evidence has already proved the point the way it has with tobacco.
these idiots who are trying to supress science such as global warming are the same people who believe the earth is 6k years old and that Jesus is coming back
YES!!! More & more scientists are coming out saying that Global Warming Being Caused By Humans is a big giant HOAX!!! Al Gore, and gang, need these little kids that they are brainwashing, to pull off the Hoax of the Century. Gore and Gang take advantage of the young, the ignorant, and the gullible.
Those who deny the phenomenon as it's happened so far, certainly. Those who question predictions for the future, not so much. Those who question whether it's human-caused, even less so. But, scientific consensus is a tricky thing, sometimes it bows to political preasure or group-think, sometimes it doesn't...
So you deny the sun has anything to do on how the earth is warmed? Doesn't sound like science to me... I, for one, welcome global warming... it just means cold drinks and hot women. If that's not your cup of tea then I suggest organic/conflict/trade free espresso and boys.
no. its the enemy of the global warming zealot. Scientific consensus is irrelevant. Scientists once believed the world was flat. Science isnt determined by consensus. Science either is or it isnt. The mere fact that you are trying to argue science because "everyone agrees on it" demonstrates that you don't understand science.
dude you need some unbiased information to guide you.visit globalwarmingheartland.org
The global warming advocates are politically $$$$ oriented. Their arguments for global warming follow the EXACT same path as the holocaust deniers. It's just another "back door" attempt at people control, same as with the smoking ban issue, gun control issue & the list goes on & on. Do your self a favor partner, quit being led around by your gullibility & the "groupie" mentality. Causes are "feel good" for the follower types of folks. If ya want a global tax on people, at least be HONEST about it & just state it out right. No use fibbing or sneaking around in the shadows to try to hood wink folks.
Everyone of your "sources" is a left wing shill site... Come on dude...Can't you post something from a truly neutral source? Global warming is caused by natural cycles. Dont tell me any different because you do not know either. If you did we would all be listening to you on TV instead of YA Question for you big boy...Why is Greenland called GREENland? Is it because ICE is GREEN? Or was it a farming nation only a few undred years ago? To the dunce above me: Abe Lincoln FREED the slaves you ignorant sycophant
I would just like to know where they get the idea that every celestial body is rising in temperature. To the dunce above me: Abe Lincoln freed the slaves out of political obligation not moral. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.