Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Global Warming: 100% Scientific Consensus?

From what I've been reading that consensus number (that was obviously never 100% among scientists as it is often touted) is continually dropping...

Those scientists who do not believe that climate change is man-made claim they are being shut out and censored.

"...At issue is a report issued by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) earlier this month accusing ExxonMobil-funded "contrarian scientists" and "ideological advocacy groups" of a "disinformation campaign" aimed at deceiving and "confusing" the public about the connection between human activity and climate change.

It also criticized media organizations for quoting scientists who the USC views as being out of step with mainstream opinion."

The UCS report took aim at "climate contrarians" affiliated with the Independent Institute such as Fred Singer, David Legates and Frederick Seitz, accusing them of bucking the scientific consensus.

But Ebell said the notion of consensus was a "game" political activists use to discredit skeptics who raise legitimate questions.

Ebell argued that the weight of scientific evidence has in fact shifted against "alarmist projections" that envisage potential catastrophe.

Singer, an environmental scientist at the University of Virginia, told Cybercast News Service that proponents of global warming models that see a significant correlation between human activity and rising temperatures are "afraid they might lose the debate" because their data is unlikely to withstand scrutiny.

"The facts and the data are pretty convincing now," he said. "Any warming taking place is largely due to natural variability, not human activity. The way we can tell is by comparing the pattern of warming with what greenhouse warming models predict. They don't agree."

Although he describes himself as a "believer in the greenhouse effect," Singer said the fundamental question centers around the role of human activity.

"The human influence is small," he asserted. "Not zero - but small compared to natural effects."

Singer's findings are the subject of a new book entitled "Hot Talk, Cold Science," published by the Independent Institute..." (source)

As I have said in the past, I am not solidly in one camp or another. I believe that we could be more efficient with out use of natural resources and more conscientious about energy use --but I also believe that there was massive climate changes before a human every used anything but fire which makes the likelihood of human error seem a bit narcissistic. I never expect Global Warming scare tactics to cease (even if there were irrefutable evidence to the contrary) because aside from socialized nationalized's a huge Dem talking point.

G-Man has his own pictures to argue global warming.

No comments: