Global Warming

Bob asked:


Consensus is important in science. The only way it can be cleanly decided if something is “scientifically proven” is whether or not the scientific community accepts it as proven. There is no “Supreme Court” to decide, and there are always a few skeptics. The scientific community decides what the rules for proof are, and applies them.

You can personally choose to believe the Earth is 6000 years old or that NASA faked the moon landings. But that’s not science. In doing so, you are rejecting science and proven scientific facts. The same is true for global warming.
The scientific consensus that global warming is real and mostly caused by us is documented by hundreds of papers in the peer reviewed literature, and the resulting support from virtually every major scientific organization.

See the hundreds of references contained in: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html and

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

“The fact that the community overwhelmingly supports the consensus is evidenced by picking up any copy of Journal of Climate or similar, or any scientific program at the [climate] meetings. If you think there is some un-reported division, show me the hundreds of abstracts at [the meetings] on this topic that support your view - you won’t be able to.”

NOAA Ph.D.

“There’s a better scientific consensus on this [global warming] than on any issue I know …
You really can’t find intelligent, quantitative arguments to make it go away.”

NOAA Ph.D.
Bob TV - You quote a few skeptics. Your own site says they’re a small minority. Why believe them over the vast majority? Compact fluorescent light bulbs don’t pollute, they REDUCE mercury pollution.

http://www.cityofberkeley.info/sustainable/Powerplay%20articles/16Powerplay.Mercury.CFL.html

http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/cfl.asp
Ken C - There have been natural changes. But the scientific data clearly shows this warming is not natural. The websites above show that that’s the view of the vast majority of scientists.

“Global cooling” in the 70s was the idea of just a few scientists, with little data, and no backing from any major scientific organization. The “global cooling” guys were like the minority skeptics of today, not like the majority.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94
eric c- The Oreskes study is correct. The criticisms of it are the lies.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/14/1511/4868

Once again two skeptics are cited. Their views have been considered and rejected by the scientific community.

Kyle