There are just as many scientists who hold other views on the issue.
There is no overwhelming consensus.
The information (both ways) is not hard to find. Here are a few links:

Scientists at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine:
http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm

"Myth #1: Scientists Agree the Earth Is Warming"
National Center for Policy Analysis:
http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html

Public Policy Institute, a collection of contrary findings:
http://www.rppi.org/climate/

Polar Disasters: More Predictable Distortions of Science
http://canstats.org/readdetail.asp?id=724

There's just too many unanswered questions & conflicting data to commit so much recourses on an unproven theory.
Another point is that I understand the money collected under the Kyoto Treaty would be handled by the U.N; which was just recently involved in the largest humanitarian scandal in history.

 

Hi Guys:

___Kyoto or the UN? Not a chance … How much cheating do you think the Chinese or India would do if it came to real $’s in hand? There is hope in CO2 sequestration with pumping into the lower depths of the oceans a good bet but of course this all come down to quite a bit of money as well.

___Good Luck

___Wayne R. Gerdes
___Hunt Club Farms Landscaping Ltd.
___Waynegerdes@earthlink.net

 

I'm not arguing that you couldn't find tens or even a hundred scientists that argue that global warming is not caused by human activities. They are easy to find on the internet and you have found some sources. But even a hundred (or even several hundred) scientists is a drop in the bucket compared to the thousands that believe enough in the opposite point of view after reviewing tens of thousands of published articles. This is what those who say there is a scientific consensus mean - that a vast majority of climatologists believe currently that global warming is real and that human activity contributes to it.

 

Thanks llin123.

There's quite a bit more than ten or even a few hundred scientists that believe that we are in a natural cycle, and several thousand more who can't come to a conclusion for the conflicting data.

As we know there are lots of scientists who are convinced that we are on the path of ruin. No doubt their message is alarming and gets alot of attention...I'm not making light of this but most opposing conclusions are largely ignored.

Keeping in mind the Kyoto Treaty and the topic of this post, and the extremely large cost involved consider this analogy:

So many million years ago the Earth has been hit by a very large object which caused the extiction of most of the life on Earth.
I think we can agree on that fact.

Since it has happened before it could happen again.
It might be possible for us to avoid complete distruction by constructing a large space platform and place several thousand large nuclear missles aimed out to space for interception. An additonal moon base is not out of the question. To suppliment the missles we could back it up with powerful lasers.
We could deploy a permanent deep space sensor array to detect objects we can not see today, as well as powerful land and space based telescopes.
Large, state of the art computers could be built exclusively for the task of compiling and anylizing the data.
A possible additional selling point could be for common earth defences.
Many scientists believe, question or doubt the existance of extra terrestrials.
Me, I don't know.
If we do have occasional visitors then they would no doubt be far more advanced, which could possibly over run and enslave us.

A few scientist astronomers could get the ball rolling, sounding the alarm and I'm sure lots more would chime in as well. After all, another meteor is possible, and the presence of aliens is a possability. It would be rather sensational so the press would be a willing sounding board.

It would take a very, very long time to impliment this defence system.
Such a system would no doubt cost untold trillions of dollars, and billions to maintain.
They could impose a world tax to build the system, with the United States paying a large portion (If not most) to pay for construction and maintenance, cheered on by many who would like to see the U.S. superpower knocked down a few, or at least slowed down.
Anyway that's only fair, because everyone knows the U.S. has plenty of money to spare.
If we wouldn't subscribe to this theory and submit to the world tax, then we would be the bad guy. Right?

Of course this is only an analogy, but since extinction actually almost happened, why pour untold trillions on an unproven global warming theory?

No matter how much we would contribute to any world tax, I'm sure it would be said that we're not paying "our fair share."

 

Thanks for the recent comments. I still contend that there is a reason that one side gets more attention than the other and that is the vast majority of scientists are on one side. The head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (who was actually lobbied for by the Bush administration which contends that global warming is an unsettled issue) recently has said "We are risking the ability of the human race to survive." I'm sure all of these scientists are well aware of the dissenting opinions, but the evidence is overwhelmingly on the other side.

The original topic of the post actually had nothing to do with Kyoto. In the big picture, many regard Kyoto as too little too late despite dissenter screaming about massive cuts and damage to the economy. There is one fact that is absoutely undisputed, and that is that we are dumping gigantic quantities of carbon into the atmosphere. The part that is contested is whether this will affect global climates. But it is undisputed that we are doing a huge experiment with the earth by dumping large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. We will need to do far more than a 7% cut in emissions which will be a drop in the bucket if we are stop the experiment with the planet.

The actual post was objecting to Toyota's joining of a lawsuit to block California's new law to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. This would mainly be done through increases in fuel efficiency of the fleet. The California Air Resources Board has concluded that the consumer would save money through lower operating costs and fuel savings if their regulations were implemented. Their estimates are below in the following document:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/factsheets/cc_newfs.pdf

For more information about this topic from the automakers' side:
http://www.autoalliance.org/archives/000163.html

and from the other side:
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles...fm?pageID=1531

More comments are appreciated as this discussion has been interesting.

 

Global warming is junk science, for a number of reasons.

1. The issue of climate change is an issue on such a grand scale that it cannot be tested in a laboratory environment. Any conclusion of real science must be tested, and tested and retested with the result being the same for each test. On top of that it must be done by multiple, independent parties for any conclusion of science to become fact.

2. The Earth's life is a very long one. Much longer than the species both past and present which have inhabited the Earth. There have been huge climatic swings many times in Earth's history. The geologic record show long periods of ice formations and glaciers, gouging out huge swaths of the Earth to create mountains, valleys and depressions that we know today. It also indicates periods of lush forests and vegetation in places which today do not support tropic like plant species. The point is that science can determine where we are in time in relation to the previous ice age. It also indicates that these cycles happen and the inhabitants have little control over them coming and going.

3. Good science is not about consensuses. Scientific conclusions are not based on popular votes of the learned. It does not matter how many scientists think that global warming is real. If there are others out there with material and research that says that it is not happening, or not reality, then the truth about the issue has yet to be discovered and therefore there is no truth by which any other action can be taken.

When it is all said and done, science and scientific discovery are not for the average person. It requires fortitude and dedication which preclude creating conclusions based on weak data. Good science requires continual discovery, experimentation, hypothesis, and, most importantly, continual experimentation with repetitiveness being the goal.

 

Hi All:

The actual post was objecting to Toyota's joining of a lawsuit to block California's new law to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. This would mainly be done through increases in fuel efficiency of the fleet. The California Air Resources Board has concluded that the consumer would save money through lower operating costs and fuel savings if their regulations were implemented.

___I have not followed all the links but one thing that really stands out about CARB is the whole idea of forcing higher FE from the manufacturers by engineering it into new cars. Every single one of us knows the best answer to lower GHG emissions is to improve real world FE by both lowering the speed limits and enforcing them. These simple actions have both real and measurable results today, not some time down the road … The 75 to 80 mph average highway speeds in and around the California’s is making California the worst of all the states (the worst of all countries in fact!) in terms of CO2 emissions and until the California state government realizes this, their lack of sensitivity for the rest of the world is so glaringly obvious as to make their CO2 limiting legislation a farce.

___If California lowered their speed limits, actually enforced the lowered speed limits, and mandated lower CO2 output (higher FE), then I would be all for it. Unfortunately, California is doing no such thing.

___Good Luck

___Wayne R. Gerdes
___Hunt Club Farms Landscaping Ltd.
___Waynegerdes@earthlink.net

 

1. Evolution is a scientific theory that is in the same category as climate change since it cannot be tested directly in a laboratory. That does not mean that there is not evidence that supports the theory. The reason it is well-established amongst scientists is because of all of the evidence that shows that evolution is best theory so far. While some theories are not testable in the lab, evidence can certainly say whether one theory is better than another.

2. Yes, several mass extinctions have happened naturally in the past. I would not want to speed up the process artificially, however.

3. Science is done by consensus. A theory like special relativity is well-established because physicists have looked at all of the experiments and evidence and concluded that it is the correct theory. The same goes for any other theory, whether it is testable in the lab or not.

Yes, the science of global climate change is still evolving and the conclusions of the experts may change with time. But currently, the consensus of the experts is that global climate change is happened and will be made worse by human activities.

 

Hi All:

___As seen in the UCS link …
___Pure and simple hypocrisy … Ask those 81% of Californian’s to slow down by 10 - 20 mph to save the planet and see what the results are. Better yet, get an actual FE value for the 81% of the Californian’s in this survey/study. I can guarantee it will be far below that of the EPA combined from the cars they are currently driving. Unless California lowers their limits and enforces them, their mandates bring about a level of hypocrisy that is without question the worst the world has ever seen. In fact, this whole discussion of mandates to lower CO2 emissions before lowered speed limits and enforcement makes me sick!

___Good Luck

___Wayne R. Gerdes
___Hunt Club Farms Landscaping Ltd.
___Waynegerdes@earthlink.net

 

Thanks xcel.

I'm sure you're right on with alot of your points and believe me, I'm all for breathing cleaner air.

Especially correct is your 55MPH comment, which I learned just how true that is with driving my HCH.
Imagine the oil upset if even 20% of us all actually learned & practiced driving for efficiency.

I wish they would teach this in driving school, and not just rules & the mechanics of driving.