Well, coincidentally, the NYTimes cover story is on the latest report:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/02/sc...2vyMpuC0PVkpKw

Though frankly, I think it's too late. So long to polar bears, hello to yearly Katrinas and Wyoming beaches.

so just to be clear....your argument is that although there is basically total agreement among all atmospheric scientists, we are probably wrong becauase......why exactly?
we have made their case for global warming.....but the only thing i hear doubters like you argue is basically that all science is hogwash. we present a factually based and logical argument, and you come back with a completely unsubstantiated claim of 5%. based on what?

Again, I'm a Nader voter so obviously what I'm saying is sacreligious but we could be warming and the opposite affect could take place. The Atlantic conveyor gets disrupted and suddenly its too cold for millions of people. Again, eveything comes back to equilibrium.

Based on articles I've read....Mind you, Dr. Gray, the same Dr. Gray who is the hurricane forecaster for the enitre United States doesn't believe in the impact of humans on Global Warming either. And all he does is study it and other atmospheric conditions since the 60's.

as the article says....."over 90% confident." but some people choose not to believe in it. why? nobody knows. including them.

Let's not get arrogant please. I don't disagree with the warming, I disagree with the end game. Big difference....Agree to disagree....We'll see what happens in 25 years.

i can't help getting arrogant. i am a scientist. that is just the kind of people we are.

ENJOY.

http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807

leave it to derby trail to turn groundhog day into a global warming debate!

there are certainly scientists that dispute it. just out of curiosity.....why do you choose to believe them when they make up the vast minority of experts, but choose to dispute the 90+% that argue it exists?

that makes so little sense that it boggles the mind.

thank you dear...;)

um...i frankly don't know why i am even bothering to respond to such juvenile reductionism but oh well......i'll bite.

so do you think we would be better served by going with the minority of scientists all the time or by just ignoring science all together? do you want me to list all of the millions of things that the majority of scientists have been right about over the years?

Can we move this to the off-topic board?

Interesting article- fairly evenhanded, though one of the scientists quoted does say Bill Gray has a "mind block" where the topic of global warming is concerned:

http://www.summitdaily.com/article/2...NEWS/109300057

Regardless of being speeded up by humans or not, our frantic burning of fossil fuels isn't good. Not just environmentally speaking, but our oil addiction keeps us chained to the Middle East. Want to see Iran lose power? Stop sucking down so much oil. The drop in oil prices sank the Soviet Union- it would sink Iran. I fail to see why this nation is so resistant to getting unaddicted. And I'm not talking about the government- I know why they're so uninterested. I don't see why we the people aren't pushing for it. We should be.

And then the sheiks couldn't buy up every race horse in sight, either!

i just thought you should know that i have a masters degree in microbiology and am currently working on PhD at Washington University in St. Louis. I just showed this entire thread to some of the people in the lab where i work and your ignorance gave us all a good laugh. i know you won't care about this at all, because we are all scientists and since the vast majority of us laughed at you, it must mean (according to your logic) that we are wrong!
you might want to consider the fact that you obviously have no idea what the term strawman means, and you are using it very incorrectly. i tell you this only because i don't want you to use the term with all your PhD friends and look foolish.
have a nice day.