The policy issue regarding global warming is not either there is a consensus by scientists or not on this issue but about the magnitude of the total global-wide risks and disaster to humanity even if there is a 20 to 70% that global warming induced by human activity is correct. If there were predictions that an astroid was directed toward the earth and that in perhaps 50 years there was a 20% chance it could destroy the world, I would imagine that most of the world, including the United States would be spending billions of dollars just in case the astroid hit our planet.

What a surprise. Paul Mero's group issues a questionable report from people we have no way of checking on, that supposedly rebuts an emerging scientific consensus. Yet, when you consult the local scientist, expert in the field, who is named and quoted in the article, he says Mero's report is a lot of hooey. Who are you going to trust?

Since when is science a democracy? The majority has been notoriously wrong in the past, and in this case the "consensus" is an illusion that depends on exactly how the question is asked. The DATA show that CO2 has never controlled temperatures in the past, including in the past 100 years, and the DATA show that most measured temperature increases are linked to land use changes, including microclimate changes around the thermomoters. The DATA show that CO2 increases AFTER temperature rises, not the other way around. Global warming is a hoax, and that has been conclusively demonstrated by DATA.

End the Greenhouse Gasses/Global Warming debate with two scientific facts.

One
Polar Icecaps are not melting because of greenhouse gasses.

All greenhouse gasses are in the Troposphere. The Troposphere extends from the Earth out about 14 miles at the equator and 4 miles at the poles during summer. The Troposphere at the poles during winter is indistinct. (Supports the �oceans exhale when they�re hot� concept. When the oceans exhale, they exhale water vapor and CO2. The oceans are the #1 producer of CO2.)

A quick note about CO2:
CO2 is .038% of our atmosphere. The increase in CO2, according to NASA Facts on line, has been 10% over the last 50 years. If man is responsible for all the increase, man is responsible for 10% of .038% or .0038%. (That�s less than a nickel compared to a $1,000 bill.)


Two
There is no consensus without �Monte Carlo.� Monte Carlo refers to gambling, not science.

Read the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.

IPCC Report #1, page 118 it states, �Comparing different models is not sufficient, however. Using multiple simulations from a single model (the so-called Monte Carlo, or ensemble, approach) has proved a necessary and complementary approach to assess the stochastic nature of the climate system�These ensemble simulations clearly indicated that even with a single model a large spread in the climate projections can be obtained.�
.
One of the Theory�s major problems is clouds.

On page 114 it states, �It is somewhat unsettling that the results of a complex climate model can be so drastically altered by substituting one reasonable cloud parametrization for another, thereby approximately replicating the overall inter-model rage of sensitivities.�

The real question is �What scientist would put their name on a report that admits it can�t accurately project the outcome?�

The battle of global warming is one of dollars and no sense. If those that do not believe, should at least take the attitude that if man is the cause of some of the warming, then we need to take heed. We can not continue to pollute our air and water for ever. The population of the earth continues to grow and so far governments have not been able to control that. We must control the elements that we can control for future generations.

Hey, you global warming deniers gotta do your thing. Science is not a democracy, but theories that enjoy the overwhelming support of the experts in a given field, are the ones to bet on (to prolong the gambling metaphor, ala Monte Carlo).
Similar deniers denied the dangers of smoking, and continue to deny biological evolution.
And scientists routinely can't always project outcomes with total reliability, but they can make predictions. Here's a couple predictions (though I ain't a scientist):
A. As we burn through carbon based fuels, the rate of atmospheric CO2 will continue to increase.
Here's another:
B. As the CO2 increases, so will the global temperature averages.
You can compare the 2 variables, temperature and CO2 levels, and see how well they correlate. The problem, as a real scientist once told me, is PROVING a causal relationship. But science is not about proof; it is about degrees of confidence. And the majority of climatologists are telling us that a human-caused phenomenon is involved with the measured rise in temperatures.

Monte Carlo methods are used in many areas of science. They're required for very complex systems. Without them we wouldn't have accurate models of how nuclear reactors operate. In complex systems small changes can have a great effect on the final outcome. That's why you need a monte carlo method to predict results. If you don't look at a full set of possibilities and sum the chances of each you risk picking one of the very low probability outcomes and assuming that it is the correct one. Running multiple tests with slightly different parameters builds up a great deal of confidence in the outcome if most results come back saying that a similar occurrence will happen. Maybe look into what the method actual is before taking a look at the name and saying that it's just gambling. If you don't think that probability is part of science, don't look up quantum mechanics.

The public definitely has the right to be informed about all aspects of this topic. It is wrong for an organized group of politicians, scientists, researchers and public-policy administrators to advance an idea that not only tells us there is a problem but that they know how to fix it, if only they follow blindly and do what they are told.
The IPCC has turned into a sham. It is perhaps scientific in nature,but the work that body does, and especially the reports they issue are anything but scientific.
There is a huge and growing portion of scientists and researchers who have built the courage to come forward and say, "Now just a minute!" to refute the findings and claims of the "Concensus."
So, while global warming is an established fact--and perhaps we can thank the climate fanatics for bring this fact to worldwide attention--it is far from truthful to state the it is due to human activity. The zealots like to point to their favorite icon, the Hockey Stick, which seeks to illustrate the relentless increase of carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere matched by a similar increase of temperatures over recent decades. But it doesn't hold up. Carbon dioxide levels have risen in linear fashion for a century-and-a-half or so, but temperatures are not matching this trend. 1934 has recently been confirmed as the warmest year on record in the U.S. Regardless of what the meaning of the NASA data revision is on the global statistics, doesn't it seem clear that a true, dramatic, irrevocable global warming would show itself more emphatically on the U.S. records than what we now see on the graph? Global warming is less that previously believed
Global Warming? -Naturally!