http://www.kxmb.com/getArticle.asp?ArticleId=129337
Lawrence Solomon debunks the myth, largely propagated by Al Gore and
his supporters, that there is a consensus among scientists about
global warming:
Somewhere along the way, I stopped believing that a scientific
consensus exists on climate change. Certainly there is no consensus at
the very top echelons of scientists the ranks from which I have been
drawing my subjects and certainly there is no consensus among
astrophysicists and other solar scientists, several of whom I have
profiled. If anything, the majority view among these subsets of the
scientific community may run in the opposite direction. Not only do
most of my interviewees either discount or disparage the conventional
wisdom as represented by the IPCC, many say their peers generally
consider it to have little or no credibility. In one case, a top
scientist told me that, to his knowledge, no respected scientist in
his field accepts the IPCC position.
Scientists don't accept the IPCC position because, contrary to the
myths about the IPCC, it is not a collection of 2,000 or so top
scientists - it is a political grievance committee populated by many
people who have no background in science at all. The IPCC is becoming
a kind of new Flat Earth Society, with a preordained agenda that will
cook the books to arrive at the results they want. They have not even
released the names of the supposed scientists on the panel, and many
of them have demanded to have their name removed from the list of
participants.
Do you think the IPCC is unbiased? Here is part of their statement of
purpose:
The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open
and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic
information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of
human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for
adaptation and mitigation.
It appears that the IPCC considers 'human-induced climate change' to
be a forgone conclusion. Now, all they have to do is cherrypick the
reports they admire, claim they have a 'concensus' of 2,000 scientists
(whom they don't reveal) and let their spokesman Al Gore claim that
'the debate is over'.
This is at odds with the actual scientific community, which is far
from reaching a concensus on this issue. Again, from Solomon:
A great many scientists, without doubt, are four-square in their
support of the IPCC. A great many others are not. A petition organized
by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine between 1999 and 2001
claimed some 17,800 scientists in opposition to the Kyoto Protocol. A
more recent indicator comes from the U.S.-based National Registry of
Environmental Professionals, an accrediting organization whose 12,000
environmental practitioners have standing with U.S. government
agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the
Department of Energy. In a November, 2006, survey of its members, it
found that only 59% think human activities are largely responsible for
the warming that has occurred, and only 39% make their priority the
curbing of carbon emissions. And 71% believe the increase in
hurricanes is likely natural, not easily attributed to human
activities.
Of course, none of this keeps the global warming dogmatists from
getting great press they don't deserve.