6)  I won't argue the percentage of scientists that agree or disagree. That number changes from year to year and is irrelevent when the system the scientists work under is considered.

7) It is a fact however that the governement is funding study after study regarding GW--so what is a scientist who is not a predetermined proponent of MMGW to do--refuse his grant money? The current crop of studies are based on the hypothesis that all of the warming is made made--and that is pure crap.   The grant system is flawed to begin with and drives scientist to preconcieved, politically correct conclusions and views--in other words, they read the data and report what the government wants to hear, or the grant money goes to other scientists that agree with the government position--thus your 97%   It's fairly well known  that the scientists who currently publically question MMGW are now ridiculed and denied government grant money. 

4)  Read  "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming" by Horner for a brief synopsis of Al Gore's "not sufficiently precise" and "minor incorrect" arguments--you may be extremely surprised just how wrong and "not precise" he was. 

5)  You are right about it being irrelevant to the science of GW that Sendler did not win the Nobel--I was merely pointing out the the Gore prize was politically motivated and that Sendler was a much better candidate in comparison.

8) Lets not all panic about GW--while this may or may not be man made (i do believe that a certain amount of it is, by the way), biology scientists have shown that throughout history, plant life, man, and animal life have all done better (i.e., thrived) in warmer climates versus colder ones. 

I also believe that the US and its citizens can do little to affect GW in comparison to the real polluters in the world--China, India, and the rest of the Eastern half--China is by far the worst, and will do nothing policy wise to lower their emissions--my EV is like spitting in the ocean, to be honest.  But I'm getting it anyway--why?  Because it makes good economic sense for me.  When MMGW proponents get off of their holier-than-thou sermon boxes, and we create the technology and policies that will allow us to lower emmissions responsibly while keeping our standard of living, it will be a lot easier and faster that forcing society to do it with higher costs and less freedoms.

4) You talk about scientists who get their grant money from the government being biased.  What do you think about people who get their money from oil companies.  Horner is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a think tank that's received more than $2 million in funding from ExxonMobil since 1998.

But more importantly, Horner is not a scientist.  He's a lawyer and author.  I've seen Gore's movie and I understand fundamental climate science.  I don't need to hear Horner's spin on the film, because I know it's fundamentally accurate.

7) This is just a conspiracy theory so I won't waste my time on it.  However, your claim that "It's fairly well known  that the scientists who currently publically question MMGW are now ridiculed and denied government grant money" is wrong.  Roy Spencer has no problem getting grant money.  Richard Lindzen has gotten millions of dollars of grant money.  He's also gotten $2500 per day consulting for oil companies.  Again, to have an issue with government grant money and not with getting funds from oil companies is a pretty nasty double-standard.

8) US CO2 emissions are nearly as large as China's (they only recently passed us as #1 overall emitter), and their population is 4 times larger than ours.   On a per capita basis, the problem rests squarely on our shoulders.

As for the 'hotter is better' argument, sure, when life was given thousands of years to adapt to a hotter climate, it did.  When given a few decades to adapt to a radically changing climate, life doesn't do so well.  Especially when some of the consequences of this climate change are increased heat waves, droughts, food and water shortages, desertification, and so on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dana1981 

4) You talk about scientists who get their grant money from the government being biased.  What do you think about people who get their money from oil companies.  Horner is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a think tank that's received more than $2 million in funding from ExxonMobil since 1998.

Skeptics like Tim ought to go to NSF's website and see what becoming a climate skeptic did for Richard Lindzen's funding.  He went from a piddling $150,000 per year on average to several million.  Anyone who argues that funding is driving climate scientists to adopt the consensus conclusions of the IPCC has nothing useful to add to the debate.  They should be ignored since they are not thinking objectively. 

Being a skeptic, especially a learned skeptic, is far more lucrative than being some average scientist working to understand some small facet of climate physics writing proposals to NASA, NSF, and NOAA. 

Everyone's favorite Gelatinous Doctor is now showing a fondness for this site.  Lucky Huddler.  Since most of you aren't permitted to view this, here you go:

"

Is Global Warming Myth #4 Busted?

Ah yes the brilliant gelatinous mind.  Link a graph whose data stops in 1980, and take a vague statement ("the sun has influenced the climate of the last 150 years") and misinterpret it.  Of course the sun has influenced the climate.  Just not a whole lot.  The same page even says

A very standard scientific statement.  Jello as usual just cherrypicks a sentence that sounds good and takes it out of context to misrepresent the scientists' opinions.  Whatever, it's not even worth dignifying.

I expect that the sun has affected the earths atmosphere for a few billion years - no?

Man has only really worked on messing it up for the past 100 or so - see how much more efficient we are!

A circus wouldn't be the same without the clowns would it?