[purplefrog]

These dissenters don't change the fact that the relevant scientific organizations and journals agree there is a consensus. Again, consensus does not mean unanimity, nor does it mean that there is absolutely no doubt. It simply means that a significant majority of scientists believe that the earth is getting warmer and that CO2 and GHGs are in part the cause. In previous posts I said that some of the dissenters would likely have lofty credentials. This is the way science works on just about every issue. There are always individuals that for whatever reason see a problem in a different way. The Science article I referred to in an earlier post (and I posted the abstract) did a survey of the literature in the top journals in the past 10 years and found only studies that either supported global warming (75%) or studies that took no position (25%). According to the author, no study could be found that stated global warming was clearly not occuring. None. Is the author of this paper a liberal sympathizer?.... Maybe. Are all of these scientists part of a grand conspiracy...I can't prove otherwise. I realize that science and grant getting and publishing can be a political game. But what I would like you to consider is that while there are likely to be left wing nut jobs that are promoting this idea, there are also likely to be right wing extremists that are trying to fight it. Sowell might fit into this category as well as Mark Steyn (who has hosted the Rush Limbaugh show from time to time). I don't know... its hard to say. In the end, I think all we can do is to accept the fact that there is a consensus (as judged the acceptance of the idea from journals and organizations) and now ask the question, "What do we do about it". And when we answer that question we should take into account that while some doubt does in fact still exist the preponderance of the data support global warming and therefore it is best to act in thoughtful and responsible way that has a minimal effect on our economy.