A Freeper meteorologist. I will look for the post, but I asked him (or her) about global warming. He said that a majority of scientists accept its validity. The debate now was whether it is natural or manmade. He seemed to feel it was both, as did most of his fellows.
hard proof. And if there were any hard proof, a) we'd have seen it already,
There are plenty of accounts in the scientific literature of temperature variations, CO2 levels, abnormal animal movements, and so forth. Studies come from a spectrum of scientific disciplines. All these reports are difficult to ignore and the disbelievers in global warming have not addressed them.
it would be a lot more than a simple majority of scientists who agreed.
Non-scientists are not really qualified to make conclusions. I really don't put too much stock in what non-scientists say just like I don't put much stock into my optometrist's opinion about my tooth ache. I ask the dentist.
This would be an excellent point....if we were talking about science.
But we're not. 99.99% of the literature on "global warming" is no more scientific or valid than early 20th century theories on physiognomy. It is a pseudo-science in the service of a political ideology.
When we elevate it to the level of "science," we've already conceded the high ground.
I don't think anybody ever disputed that the global temperature changes over time. What is in dispute is indeed the cause. But those who speak of global warming almost uniformly declare human activity to be the major cause, and the evidence to support that simply doesn't exist.
There are plenty of accounts in the scientific literature of temperature variations, CO2 levels, abnormal animal movements, and so forth. Studies come from a spectrum of scientific disciplines. All these reports are difficult to ignore and the disbelievers in global warming have not addressed them.
There are also plenty of accounts in scientific literature about the variation in our Sun's radiation levels over time, which is as likely as any to be the cause of global temperature variation.
I would have you note that the burden of proof is on those who positively assert something (human agency in global warming) rather than the skeptic. Any honest scientist must agree.
Non-scientists are not really qualified to make conclusions. I really don't put too much stock in what non-scientists say just like I don't put much stock into my optometrist's opinion about my tooth ache. I ask the dentist.
More than just non-scientists - a biologist may be a scientist but have done nothing remotely to do with global warming. Likewise in all the sciences. So it comes down to a handful of ideologically-bent "scientists" who promote global warming to secure research funding. Are there any non-compromised scientists who would agree with them? I would think not!