Perhaps "global warming alarmists" are telling you, via your cable news provider, that "a consensus of scientists" determines the truth. However, they have it wrong. Science is not determined by a "consensus of scientists." Scientific theories are established by a long-term vetting process using a mechanism where tested hypotheses are submitted to peer-reviewed journals, where other scientists look for fallacies in arguments, errors in data processing, and the like. If the editors of these scientific journals agree that the submission meets a scientific standard, it is published. Others then have the opportunity to perform additional testing of the original hypothesis, and if it is prov...

Perhaps "global warming alarmists" are telling you, via your cable news provider, that "a consensus of scientists" determines the truth. However, they have it wrong. Science is not determined by a "consensus of scientists." Scientific theories are established by a long-term vetting process using a mechanism where tested hypotheses are submitted to peer-reviewed journals, where other scientists look for fallacies in arguments, errors in data processing, and the like. If the editors of these scientific journals agree that the submission meets a scientific standard, it is published. Others then have the opportunity to perform additional testing of the original hypothesis, and if it is proven wrong, the scientific community moves on. At any time, anyone is free to submit alternative hypotheses, if they are falsifiable, testable, actually tested, and supported by evidence.

The mistake you appear to have made, is that the consensus is that of peer-reviewed journals, not of scientists. Scientists are just people.

Source, please.

http://www.cei.org/gencon/030,05331.cfm

http://www.cei.org/gencon/019,05329.cfm

The preceeding comments are from the Competitive Enterprise institute. When you finish those, I'll give you some more.

I haven't seen any proposals to abort all progress.

Nor have I and I appoligize for the overstatement..... but read the articles.

leaving on all the incandescent light bulbs in your house while driving
the Hummer across the state at 90 mph to watch a NASCAR race.

And it still leaves less of a "carbon footprint" than [i]my ow[b]...

Source, please.

http://www.cei.org/gencon/030,05331.cfm

http://www.cei.org/gencon/019,05329.cfm

The preceeding comments are from the Competitive Enterprise institute. When you finish those, I'll give you some more.

I haven't seen any proposals to abort all progress.

Nor have I and I appoligize for the overstatement..... but read the articles.

leaving on all the incandescent light bulbs in your house while driving
the Hummer across the state at 90 mph to watch a NASCAR race.

And it still leaves less of a "carbon footprint" than my own private jet!

step one is to stop denying that wasteful living is causing the climate to change.

No. Step one would be to prove it to me. I'm not going to "buy-off" on something that could cause more harm potentially trying to fix than if it actually existed.

why doesn't someone show me some science behind these carbon offsets
that the "green" elites use to justify their gross use of what they
fight so hard to remove.

Don't forget about my question. Other than padding Al Gore's pockets with "green".... how is this "green"?

Thanks for the reply, Steve. Your links are not primary sources, but they are a free market think tank's criticisms of what they consider to be alarmist assertions. In your first link, most (all?) of the statements it criticizes are unsourced hypothetical questions. These documents do little to convince me. I prefer primary sources.

For example, the National Academies' Ocean Studies Board wrote, "Current trends along with forecasts for the next century indicate that the climate averages and variabilities likely will reach levels not seen in instrumental records or in recent geological history. These trends have the potential to push the climate system through a threshold to a new climat...

Thanks for the reply, Steve. Your links are not primary sources, but they are a free market think tank's criticisms of what they consider to be alarmist assertions. In your first link, most (all?) of the statements it criticizes are unsourced hypothetical questions. These documents do little to convince me. I prefer primary sources.

For example, the National Academies' Ocean Studies Board wrote, "Current trends along with forecasts for the next century indicate that the climate averages and variabilities likely will reach levels not seen in instrumental records or in recent geological history. These trends have the potential to push the climate system through a threshold to a new climatic state." [Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises (2002), pp. 119-120, available for free at http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10136#toc).

Now, I'm no Democrat, and I disagree with strict regulations such as the Kyoto Protocols (which are not only impossible to comply with, but also ineffective), but I think that the evidence that destructive global climate change is being caused by man is too strong to deny, and indeed is strong enough for me, as an individual, to make a conscious effort to conserve. Heck, I'll even go online and advocate for others like you to do the same.

As for your question regarding carbon offsets, and your reference to Nancy Pelosi, I'm not addressing those issues here because they are irrelevant ad hominem political attacks.

"Current trends along with forecasts for the next century indicate that the climate averages and variabilities likely will reach levels not seen in instrumental records or in recent geological history. These trends have the potential to push the climate system through a threshold to a new climatic state."

Think about that for a moment. In the course of Earth's history, how little of it has man even existed? And how little of man's existence have we been able to get good instrumental records? The time frame they are using to draw those conclusions is simply too small.

On the other hand, ice core samples show that the Earth has gone through many temperature increases and decreases, and has a...

"Current trends along with forecasts for the next century indicate that the climate averages and variabilities likely will reach levels not seen in instrumental records or in recent geological history. These trends have the potential to push the climate system through a threshold to a new climatic state."

Think about that for a moment. In the course of Earth's history, how little of it has man even existed? And how little of man's existence have we been able to get good instrumental records? The time frame they are using to draw those conclusions is simply too small.

On the other hand, ice core samples show that the Earth has gone through many temperature increases and decreases, and has at many times in the past had far higher CO2 levels and much higher temperatures. To think the Earth's climate has suddenly become incapable of changing without the influence of man just because we can now measure that temperature is quite arrogant.

This

Think about that for a moment. In the course of Earth's history, how little of it has man even existed? And how little of man's existence have we been able to get good instrumental records? The time frame they are using to draw those conclusions is simply too small.

is in conflict with this:

On the other hand, ice core samples show that the Earth has gone through many temperature increases and decreases, and has at many times in the past had far higher CO2 levels and much higher temperatures.

Do you have a source for the claim that scientists know that the earth had higher CO2 levels in the past than it does now? My understanding is that this not cor...

This

Think about that for a moment. In the course of Earth's history, how little of it has man even existed? And how little of man's existence have we been able to get good instrumental records? The time frame they are using to draw those conclusions is simply too small.

is in conflict with this:

On the other hand, ice core samples show that the Earth has gone through many temperature increases and decreases, and has at many times in the past had far higher CO2 levels and much higher temperatures.

Do you have a source for the claim that scientists know that the earth had higher CO2 levels in the past than it does now? My understanding is that this not correct.[1]

To think the Earth's climate has suddenly become incapable of changing
without the influence of man just because we can now measure that
temperature is quite arrogant.

I'll let the document I cited speak for itself: "In a chaotic system, such as the earth’s climate, an abrupt
climate change always could occur. However, existence of a forcing
greatly increases the number of possible mechanisms. Furthermore, the
more rapid the forcing, the more likely it is that the resulting change
will be abrupt on the time scale of human economies or global
ecosystems." Ibid. at 107.

And speaking of arrogance, your statement that "The time frame they are using to draw those conclusions is si...

To think the Earth's climate has suddenly become incapable of changing
without the influence of man just because we can now measure that
temperature is quite arrogant.

I'll let the document I cited speak for itself: "In a chaotic system, such as the earth’s climate, an abrupt
climate change always could occur. However, existence of a forcing
greatly increases the number of possible mechanisms. Furthermore, the
more rapid the forcing, the more likely it is that the resulting change
will be abrupt on the time scale of human economies or global
ecosystems." Ibid. at 107.

And speaking of arrogance, your statement that "The time frame they are using to draw those conclusions is simply too small" seems rather supercilious to me. This is the National Academy of Sciences, composed of many of the most respected scientists known to the U.S., writing in a peer-reviewed publication. If there is a peer-reviewed essay you can cite that falsifies their methodology, please point me to it.

Works on Solar not man made:
http://www.dsri.dk/~ndm/PDF/manuscripts/PRL_2000_PDF.pdf
http://www.dsri.dk/~hsv/

Here's a few from SEPP: (Current research)
http://www.sepp.org/research/scirsrch/scirsrch.html

Also from SEPP (Published)
http://www.sepp.org/publications/GWbooklet/withfigures.html

I've got some more but start withthese... my space bar is broken... gotta go get a new one. (Using an allen wrench to press space...sigh) My point in all this isn't ...

Works on Solar not man made:
http://www.dsri.dk/~ndm/PDF/manuscripts/PRL_2000_PDF.pdf
http://www.dsri.dk/~hsv/

Here's a few from SEPP: (Current research)
http://www.sepp.org/research/scirsrch/scirsrch.html

Also from SEPP (Published)
http://www.sepp.org/publications/GWbooklet/withfigures.html

I've got some more but start withthese... my space bar is broken... gotta go get a new one. (Using an allen wrench to press space...sigh) My point in all this isn't to say "your wrong"...only that this isn't settled science.

Maybe the "warmest winter on record" provides stats that can start another debate as interesting as the one above.

Tell that to the northeast US.

I'm not saying that peer review makes a paper bulletproof.

And all I AM saying is that this isn't settle science and we should give these people time to satisfy people who demand (and rightfully so) peer reviewed work. There is a lot of research being done, right now. Let it finish.

Although, even you have to admit, it must be really hard to get something reviewed that is this political and goes against this money magnet that is "man made" global warming research. A lot of scientists would lose thier ...

Maybe the "warmest winter on record" provides stats that can start another debate as interesting as the one above.

Tell that to the northeast US.

I'm not saying that peer review makes a paper bulletproof.

And all I AM saying is that this isn't settle science and we should give these people time to satisfy people who demand (and rightfully so) peer reviewed work. There is a lot of research being done, right now. Let it finish.

Although, even you have to admit, it must be really hard to get something reviewed that is this political and goes against this money magnet that is "man made" global warming research. A lot of scientists would lose thier income if "man made" global warming were debunked officially.

Do you really think these scientific elitests are going to let anything like this get by the peer review process? (And that's a real question for you)

I disagree with your premise that prejudicial "scientific elitists" control the content of peer-reviewed publications. In my experience, a review board would not be so quick to dismiss a submission that debunked the prior consensus on anthropogenic global warming, in a way supported by repeatable and reproducible evidence. In fact, I think that journals would fight to be the first to publish such a paper. If the evidence were real, that journal would get lots of exposure. That's what they care about.

And your statement about the "money magnet that is 'man made' global warming research" is so ridiculous that I don't know how best to respond. Scientific research grants go to those with v...

I disagree with your premise that prejudicial "scientific elitists" control the content of peer-reviewed publications. In my experience, a review board would not be so quick to dismiss a submission that debunked the prior consensus on anthropogenic global warming, in a way supported by repeatable and reproducible evidence. In fact, I think that journals would fight to be the first to publish such a paper. If the evidence were real, that journal would get lots of exposure. That's what they care about.

And your statement about the "money magnet that is 'man made' global warming research" is so ridiculous that I don't know how best to respond. Scientific research grants go to those with valid hypotheses and a history of passing peer review to get their papers published. The "money magnet" in this equation is the sale of fossil fuels! How can you be blind to this? Why do you choose to ignore the obvious? I've been trying to keep this civil, but honestly, that is just bullshit.

Current trends along with forecasts for the next century indicate that the climate averages and variabilities likely will reach levels not seen in instrumental records or in recent geological history

The probability for the trends and forecasts to come true, is next to zero, despite the fact they are published in peer-reviewed journals. All the models never took attempt to explain the past. Not a successful forecast. Open any book on physics of the atmosphere to understand that there is no comprehensive quantitive theory on atmosphere (let alone the whole climate).

As for term "recent geological history", apparently it is ill-placed regarding alarmist global warming "recon...

Current trends along with forecasts for the next century indicate that the climate averages and variabilities likely will reach levels not seen in instrumental records or in recent geological history

The probability for the trends and forecasts to come true, is next to zero, despite the fact they are published in peer-reviewed journals. All the models never took attempt to explain the past. Not a successful forecast. Open any book on physics of the atmosphere to understand that there is no comprehensive quantitive theory on atmosphere (let alone the whole climate).

As for term "recent geological history", apparently it is ill-placed regarding alarmist global warming "reconstructions". We can take only one millenium (recent human history span) to see there were no global warming catastrophes, even though temperatures rose higher http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s3/amgumen/Figure8.jpg
(bye the way, from IPCC report of 1990. Afterwards they remove that graph and showed "hockey stick" to get as scared.) Take a look also at the recent geological history not to be upset about current changes http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s3/amgumen/Figure1.jpg