Politicians are goobers and have no scientific knowledge but they understand the benefit of taxing carbon for profit
This is what the British courts thought of the “science”
He stated: “It is built around the charismatic presence of the ex-vice president Al Gore, whose crusade is to persuade the world of the dangers of climate change caused by global warming…It is now common ground that this is not simply a science film- although it is based substantially on science research and opinion, but it is [clearly] a political film.”
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136
As for vast consensus, parroted by you, one researcher claimed 97% of nigh thousand reports agreed with global warming, but when vetting only 61 of those journals actually said that.
The “97 percent” statistic first appeared prominently in a 2009 study by University of Illinois master’s student Kendall Zimmerman and her adviser, Peter Doran. Based on a two-question online survey, Zimmerman and Doran concluded that “the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific bases of long-term climate processes” — even though only 5 percent of respondents, or about 160 scientists, were climate scientists. In fact, the “97 percent” statistic was drawn from an even smaller subset: the 79 respondents who were both self-reported climate scientists and had “published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.” These 77 scientists agreed that global temperatures had generally risen since 1800, and that human activity is a “significant contributing factor.”
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/artic…ge-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle
With 10s of thousands of scientists in the world when does 79 make a statistically significant sampling?
CO2 is not the primary climate driver in a volcano. It is the sulphur content. Some volcanoes contain 50% H2S in the gas. This quickly reacts with water vapor and sulfuric acids impact the atmosphere and float around as a greenhouse gas for years, even decades.
“Pop” science is just that. Reading the Sunday supplement probably subtracts from the sum total of your knowledge. If you read the referenced articles and authors you find often that they don’t actually say what is attributed to them. They, like appraisers, tend to crouch unknowables into “maybe, could be, appears, models seem to indicate, etc.” The test is to test the data, to repeat an experiment, and confirm the results. Pop surveys of OPINIONS of scientists is as worthless as any other opinion. Opinions NEVER create a substantial fact.
Likewise estimating the volume of a pollutant from a volcano is problematic and not very precise. It could be off by 1 magnitude. I just listened to the director of the Oklahoma Seismic station give a talk and he was saying that different people can interpret the data differently and it would result in a reported difference of a quake of magnitude 5.7 to 5.8 or even more between. Yet, that would be 32 x more energy in a 5.8 as opposed to a 5.7. That is not very precise.
Why do we expect a “scientist” (a self-reported scientist at that) to be any better than an appraiser. We have good appraisers, bad appraisers, and mediocre appraisers. Some mediocre appraisers are very successful. Some mediocre scientists are very good about gathering research funds especially when they have a ready market of cash to “prove” global warming” to someone who is making millions off carbon credits. Do you think they would ever conclude anything except “global warming” is alarming, and the next thunderstorm may trigger a global catastrophe and…oh, by the way I am certain we need more research and can you write a check for another $300,000 or so?