LETS VOTE::::

[_Tarski]

Is there a consenus of the global warming thing.
Well who in the scientific community agrees with my position (which is actually more modest than the IPCC report)?


One one side we have Coggins coming up with about 5 people to disagree, only one or two of which of which are truly global climate scientist and some having taken funding from Exxon for the "research".



Well agreeing with me we have

11,885 individual scientists listed by name
52 Nobel Laureates,
63 National Medal of Science recipients,
195 members of the National Academies,
(see petition in other thread)


and all of the following scientific societies:


* Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
* Royal Society of Canada
* Chinese Academy of Sciences
* Academié des Sciences (France)
* Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
* Indian National Science Academy
* Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
* Science Council of Japan
* Russian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Society (United Kingdom)
* National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
* Australian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
* Caribbean Academy of Sciences
* Indonesian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Irish Academy
* Academy of Sciences Malaysia
* Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
* NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
* National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
* State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
* Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
* Royal Society of the United Kingdom (Relief Society)
* American Geophysical Union (AGU)
* American Institute of Physics (AIP)
* National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
* American Meteorological Society (AMS)
* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

So who wins on the issue of scientific consensus?

Tarski or Coggins?

[_barrelomonkeys]

Tarski.

[_barrelomonkeys]

Tarski.

I wrote his name, hit submit and the entire site shuts down!

That was a fairly powerful vote! ;)

I understand that to acknowledge global warming is an issue means there will be significant changes in the way our country/world must work. It seems to me that rather than fussing over the science the scientists should come up with some new suggestions for how we can improve the problem without significantly impairing our economy or way of life.

[_Bond...James Bond]

tarski

[_Mercury]

Tarski

[_Ren]

Tarski.

[_gramps]

Tarski.

[_dartagnan]

Well, Tarski obviously

But just out of curiosity, did Coggins ever claim consensus was on his side?

It should also be noted that scientists are humans just like anyone else, and like other fields of scholarship, have a tendency to unite on common themes for the sake of political acceptance. I mean look what happens to those who disagree... they are branded money-grubbing right wingers. Similarly, look what happens when Islamic scholars disagree with the popular idea that poverty and lack of education causes terrorism (anything causes it but the obvious: fundamental Islamic teachings). If they disagree they are branded as anti-Muslim bigots. But consensus says so right?

Consensus is only as good as the motives and arguments used to arrive at that consensus.

This is why I prefer to read arguments from both sides and deduce from that the most likely conclusion. I don't bother worrying about how large or small the representation from each side is. I mean who here is really willing to let consensus dictate all truth in the world?

Tarski, are you aware of any point by point refutation of Lindzen, preferably by one of your 21,000 scientists who favor GW? Obviously they would have nothing to gain in doing so since it has become standard fare just to dismiss people like him as fringe whackos who don't toe the line of consensus, but that sort of dismissal doesn't work for me. Never has really.

I don't want to hear quip opinions of scientists. I want to know why they reach these conclusions. The anti-GW group of scientists are the only thoroughly detailed arguments I have read. Do you have something I can read that rebuts them?

[_Blixa]

Tarski.

I've never read or listened to anything by Al Gore or any of the "leftist" (what a joke) pundits which those of us who are alarmed by global warming supposedly worship.

My opinion has been mostly formed by talking to friends and colleagues in the biological sciences, marine biologists for the most part.

[_Mercury]

Coggy does his best Al Gore impression in 3...2.......