What do they imagine the world and scientists and IPCC would look like if the majority of scientists around the world who study this issue were truly alarmed.
You mean the majority isnt truely alarmed?
What do they imagine a consensus of scientists is?
Perhaps that the majority of them agree? ..that such agreement would even be demonstratable?
They always have such a different standard of proof for readily verifiable data and the stuff they WANT to believe.
Sounds like the AGW movement.
Show me the readily verifiable data. The only readily verifiable data I have seen suggests that the warming due to CO2 emissions should be very minor. That effect is the direct consequences of a minor greenhouse gas, which is highly scientific.
Beyond that actual science is only speculation about forcings and trumpeting models that can't even simulate el nino (which has a greater impact on global temperatures than any speculative forcing) or even cloud cover (which also has a greater impact than any speculative forcings.)
On top of it all, the surface temperature record is muddied by verifiably poor methodology where the unscientific "corrections" done to the data are greater in magnitude than the theorized warming over the last several decades, and almost always biased towards a greater recent temperature.
Hints:
If you are going to move the thermometer trying to avoid the urban heat island effect, you dont just willy-nilly adjust the old record from the old thermostat downwards by an arbitrary amount .. you instead leave the old one in place for a period of years and collect statistics about the differences so that you can make reasoned scientific adjustments to the record. In nearly all cases, the old record is adjusted without such scientific steps being taken, and then used to draw conclusions about the difference between the old record and the new record. Betcha didnt know that.
Additionally you don't set the new thermometer up right next to an air conditioner exhaust vent .. ehem .. some really horrible methodology being played out.
Also, you don't declare a proxy which is only located in North America as representative of global climate, and then use that proxy to make bold claims about past global climate. Do you honestly think that there was science behind that?
And you do not use a statistical methodology that produces hockey sticks even when fed with white noise instead of real data, and then draw conclusions about how alarming the hockey stick is. Seriously.
Science doesnt get to do that.
And my last hint of the day: When you claim that there is a consensus among scientists, you do not hide the supposedly consensing reviewers notes.
No amount of data is convincing if it goes against their politics or cherished notions and the vaguest hint of any doubt is elevated to "truth" status if the message aligns with their political, financial, or ignoramus interests.
No amount of bad data is convincing, for sure.
Science. Somewhere along the way you get the measurement error to within a tolerance that allows conclusions about the hypothesis to be drawn. If this isnt possible, then good conclusions about the hypothesis are not possible. Period. Science. Love it or hate it. It is what it is.
Yes, it is.
Billions of people being told that the debate (and hence, the science) is over IS unblievable.
Billions of people being told that there is a consensus when apparently nobody has actualy done a study that might have the chance to actualy draw such a conclusions IS unbelievable. (The only studies so far provided here in this thread seem to suggest that there ISNT a consensus, but the methodology is flawed by a potential sampling bias .. so we dont know either way)
The demonstrable lack of access to the IPCC reviewers notes IS unbelievable. Why hide the notes when there is a consensus? The IPCC supposedly has an open hands policy. Guess not.
What ISNT unbelievable is that a political group wants to effect policy changes, and justifies its existance using the tried and true tactic of peddling fear. No suprise there.
That is the situation we are in regarding global warming. We can't predict the future, but we can say that the longer we don't do anything, the worse and sooner the consequences will befall us
Wait a second here.. if we cannot predict the future then how come you decided that there are bad consequences? Which is it?
We CAN predict the future to some degree.. sometimes to an extremely good degree. But please show me the SCIENCE behind it. If you went looking, you will find that there is much speculation and little actual science behind the doomsday predictions.
--in fact, they already are. Muddying up facts with a "teach the controversy" notion doesn't serve your fellow inhabitants very well. Global warming deniers are on par with creationist obfuscationists in my book. -- Bad mouthers of science and promoters of spin.
Until they say what evidence they would find acceptable, I think it's safe to say they are stuck in their "faith".
For the record since you clearly do not know: The supposed consensus is not only that global warming is happening, but additionally that humans are the primary cause of global warming.
Show me the evidence that such a consensus exists. Pointing to a claim that there is a consensus is not evidence. Shame on the ones claiming it for not actualy performing a study that would lead to such a conclusion.
The IPCC has lied before.. why not again?
