Global warming-fact or fiction and how do you propose we tackle it?

[Final-Fan]

Sqrl said:

This belief that all major scientists have decided on the issue is a fallacy.

What we do have is a lot of "science journalists", "comittee panelists", and politicians who have decided and have used their political weight to gain the endorsement of scientific organizations. Just because an organization endorses a theory does not mean its community and members have as well. These organizations have to play the political game or they lose funding, thats no secret and to be a legitimate scientist you have to be part of these organizations to be taken seriously..again no secret.

But more over, Science is not now and never has been about "consensus". Its about facts, theories, and the practical tests that prove those theories correct. If anthropogenic global warming is a fact then where are the scrutinized tests that prove that theory? And how many times has it been reproduced and by which scientists and groups? Those are the things that matter.

Some examples?

Roy Spencer is the Weather Satellite Team Leader for NASA and brings up valid points about the greenhouse effect specifically as a cause. He points out that if the greenhouse effect were the cause the heat would be trapped in the troposphere and it would be hotter there than on the ground. But the opposite is true according to his satellite readings and research, the troposphere is cooler than the ground readings that are taken.

John Christy who iirc is a Professor of Atmosphereic Science and points out that of all of the greenhouse gasses C02 accounts for an utterly insiginicant percentage (far less than 1%). Where as water vapor accounts for some 96% of all greenhouse gas. So are we to believe we should fight water vapor emissions? Should I stop boiling water?

There are others who point out things like the Medievil Warm Period, a time in the middle ages when its much warmer than it is now. Yet this time period, even without the benefits of air conditioning and modern medicine was considered to be an era of great prosperity and growth. So why are we so afraid of rising temperatures?

Realize that the things I have pointed out aren't actually debated by the scientists. These points aren't in contention, and yet somehow we are to believe that carbon emissions are the problem and that if it gets much hotter we are all in big trouble.

Now if you want to tell me we have energy problems and we should conserve? I'm all for that, but don't come running to me screaming about global warming and carbon emissions. I'm not buying it.

I'm not saying that there are no individuals disputing that humans are the prime cause of global warming in recent decades, but your anecdotes do nothing to refute that there is a general consensus in the scientific community that we are, and that no major scientific organization (AFAIK) is an exception to this consensus.

Different altitudes in the atmosphere have different natural temperatures. What is the natural temperature for each of these levels and are they on the rise?

The water vapor vs. CO2 issue has already been raised and answered in some detail. If you think there is more to the story then go for it, but you do need to address what has already been said.

As for the medieval warming period, (A) no doubt it did benefit regions such as Europe that could benefit from the longer growing season, etc.; but did other regions have adverse effects? (B) What makes you think that the rate of pollution would not produce far too much warming?
(Actually, a little research indicates that the MWP was in fact regional warming and not global warming at all.)
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/medieval-warm-period-was-just-as-warm.html

I greatly respect you Sqrl but you have not brought anything significant to this debate.