http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Aconsensus&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=

The very fact that you say “the facts support the consensus” means you’ve been brainwashed (or greenwashed) into believing that CO2 is going to kill the Earth. The entire idea behind “global warming” is to get governments to tax their citizens ever more. Al Gore is in it for the money; he is a founder of the vaguely named firm Generation Investment Management.

If you really are a “scientist” instead of another flaming liberal, you would take the time to look at the other side of the argument. Take a look here to read about Gore’s business interests in scaring people into trading “carbon credits”:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22663

I can agree or disagree with Cali or Leo without feeling the need to totally write them off as people with something to contribute to my life in other areas in the form of tech information or pure entertainment. Most people have knowledge and strengths in some areas and gaps in others. The expert that knows how to fix your computer may not know how to fix a plumbing problem, but that makes them no less an expert on computers.

On climate itself, I am happy that people are trying to grasp how we can affect our environment on a macro and micro level. It’s a young and burgeoning subject, and I like hearing various viewpoints from various sources of information.

I’ll start by saying I am a skeptic of the man-made global climate change mantra that is being said. Note that I said man-made, that the earth is undergoing climate change is clear, but whether man is responsible or to what extent is another matter.
The earth has existed a hell of a long time and has undergone changes (climate or other) throughout its history. The climate cycles of the planet as whole are not currently understood. We should therefore be wary of assigning blame to any particular party.
The problem also now that now it has been politicized is that it is now becoming monetized.Carbon emission schemes, taxes, etc now have the potential to make a very small group of people very wealthy and therefore influential in our political process.
The issue as well is that prematurely coming to a conclusion that we are to blame and start implementing taxes, emission trading schemes, etc which may well have a significant impact on our economy overall and on the man on the street.
I don’t believe anything is proven other than climate change is occurring. We may find that we can do as little as the dinosaurs to affect it. Rather than stop it we may find that all we can do is come up with solutions to mitigate the impact on us as a species.

First time to your blog - great work and great input from the other readers.

sometimes the truth lies in another angle of view. I’m not impressed about the results of the current state of climate science. There is and there was no model of the worlds climate, that ever predicted anything that happend in reality.

About a year ago, I read an article in a computer magazine (c’t) about an interesting question: Does the energy we use to drive the massive force of super computers to try out climate models do more than heat our atmosphere? And the answer was clearly: NO. No one ever had an idea HOW the climate does change as a result of our doings. The prove is, that not until this very day any scientist was able to come up with a climate model that predicted _anything_ based on whatever data. Reality is completely different than any climate model.

Even the often heard sentence ‘It’s worse than any of our models’ does not tell more than ‘All of our models are completely wrong’. So - whatever thousands of scientists believe to have found out. There is no prove, no reality check and therefore, no reason to act on there believes.

Thousands of scientists united to try and convince humans to not destroy there environment is cute, but it does not make science out of a cute idea.

But: If people need additional forces to behave in a way that our next generations have a chance to survive, we are doomed. That’s it,

If we are having a dramatic influence on the climate, and using up resources that aren’t limitless rather quickly, then a serious change in efficiency is vital. If we aren’t having much of an effect on the climate, then that change in efficiency is still good.

If we assume we aren’t having an effect, and we aren’t then that’s fine, but we will use resources at an increasing rate. If we are having a big effect and do nothing, then we are really in for a huge problem.

Which approach makes basic sense to you?

I believe the earth and life on it will survive as it is incredibly resilient, but will that be a world that suits us? We can make sure it is, or take a very big chance on man’s future.

Some people believe it is scary to change their lives now and be more efficient, but I think I’d rather look toward what my grandchildren will have to deal with and try and secure them a safer future.

there is lots that we do know about the earth but there is lots that we don’t know. most weather records date back to just a few hundred years. and measuring carbon dioxide doesn’t go back that far with serious studies being made starting in the 1950’s.

there is evidence that massive climate change is part of the history of the planet. look to Minnesota for an example. but nobody was around writing it down so we’ll never know the whole story beyond the core samples, tree rings, dug up bones and satellite photos.

“the media” loves a good story. the like to have the victim and the villain. it’s simpler that way. captivates the audience. generates sympathy for the good guys. the problem is that “science” isn’t that simple. a few decades of data that goes UP doesn’t tell the whole story. what else is affecting that UP? what factors aren’t we seeing?

bottom line: science is not a sound bite.