>>Here is your chance to go beyond special pleading, what percent of involved   
   >>scientists deny?  What are their best arguments and what do they know that   
   >>others don't or have considered and rejected?  Sources requested it goes   
   >>without saying.   
   >   
   >I would expect all scientists to deny something. The question is in   
   >this case, what do you think they are denying?   
   >   
   >Q1. Is the earth warming?   
   >   
   >A.   Most (but not all) agree that it has been warming over the last   
   >200 years. A smaller group doubt that there has been statistically   
   >significant warming over the last 20 years. Some of the more rabid   
   >'warmists' even claim to doubt that there was any significant warming   
   >before about 1945. i.e. there was no Medieval warm period and no   
   >Little Ice Age. I am unaware of of their views on the Roman or   
   >Babylonian warm periods.   
   >   
   >Q2.  Does CO2 contribute to global warming?   
   >   
   >A. An almost unequivocal 'yes'. The argument is about how much CO2   
   >contributes to global warming. There are many scientists who consider   
   >for a variety of reasons that its effect is overstated by the IPCC by   
   >a factor of 3 or more.   
   >   
   >Q3.  Are there any other factors which might contribute to global   
   >warming?   
   >   
   >A.3.1  30 years ago the answer to this question might largely have   
   >been 'Uuh?' Much work has been done since then which suggests that the   
   >sun's own cycles may play a part, particularly through its magnetic   
   >fields affect on the radiation bombarding the earth. The Russians are   
   >the strongest supporters of this but there are still a considerable   
   >number of scientists who deny that it has any relevance.   
   >   
   >A3.2.  There are a considerable number of scientists beavering away in   
   >the background attempting to derive past climate data from a zillion   
   >different types of proxy. The statistics of this type of work are   
   >necessarily fuzzy but there are reasonably convincing arguments   
   >emerging for a variety of cycles within the earth's climate with   
   >periods ranging from 11 years to more than 25,000 years. So far it is   
   >anyone's guess as to what the present climate variations might owe to   
   >various combinations of cycles.   
   >   
   >Q4.  Is computer modelling of future climate reliable?   
   >   
   >A.  One group say 'yes'. Another group says 'no' and points to the   
   >failings of the forecasts of the last 20 years. Many of the latter   
   >group are of the opinion that while computer modelling can be useful   
   >models are not the real world.   
   >   
   >Q4.  Do we have historical temperature data of useful quality?   
   >   
   >A.  For practical purposes all agree that we lack useful and reliable   
   >historical data. That's about where agreement ends. Many believe that   
   >the inadequacies can be made good by suitable adjustments. There are   
   >two schools of thought about adjustments; some think that more recent   
   >temperatures should be corrected by raising them. Others think that   
   >more recent temperatures should be corrected by lowering them. The   
   >logic behind the adjustments made to many common sources of temprature   
   >data is unknown. There is a wide spread of low level concern about the   
   >relibility of much of the presently available data.   
   >   
   >Q5.  Do we fully understand the mass-flows of the carbon cycle?   
   >   
   >A.   Many of those working in the field tend to act as though they do   
   >but that their certainty is unjustified by periodic discoveries of the   
   >significance of previously previously ignored phenomena.   
   >   
   >Q6.  Is it going to be as bad as the news media says it is?   
   >   
   >A.  Those in the pulpit are screaming 'Yes, Yes, Yes!'. Meanwhile   
   >there are those in the back of the church trying to point out that   
   >even if Greenland melts it will take several thousands of years.   
   >   
   >   
   >Now, I defy you to frame a meaningful question which leas to a simple   
   >X% answer across that range of aspects.   
      
   You failed to tell us what percent of climate scientists reject human input   
   into the current changes and projected problems thereof.   
      
   There is nothing you raise that is not common fodder for climate science   
   consideration.  What are here questions only are not yet answers.   
      
   THe vast majority know of these possible factorss and remain unmoved absent   
   the evidence that would refute what is now known.  In any area of science   
   there are the minority who have questions, of such consensus is not formed.   
      
   Science goes with evidence, not questions absent evidence coming from them.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)