Meteorologists Disprove Myth of Global Warming Consensus, Science is not about consensus, it's about verifiable results. The global warming proponents have had more than two decades to prove their case, and they have failed. It's time to get a better theory.

I remember when I was a child, my father and I would watch the evening news together and wait for the weather report.

Many a night after the announcement that there would be sunshine, rain, lightning, frogs or whatever coming our way, my dad would poke his head out the window, scrutinize the sky for a minute, maybe put his finger up in the air to test the wind, then say something like, "Nah, it's going to be partly cloudy tomorrow, then it'll start raining about 3 a.m. Tuesday."

More often than not, my dad was right and the TV weatherman was wrong. But that was because the weatherman just read a report he got off the news wires, whereas my dad, as a pilot, had not only an innate talent for reading the skies, but had received some training in meteorology.

There aren't many people trained in the science of weather, and even fewer who stick with it long enough to earn the professional designation of meteorologist.

People who promote the global warming agenda like to tout the supposed consensus of scientists that humans are causing the world to bake like a potato, what with our SUVs and post-Industrial Revolution technology.

President Obama, for instance, likes to say that "97 percent" of the world's scientists agree humans are causing global warming, even though there's been no measurable warming for more than a decade.

His figure comes from a May 2013 survey of the abstracts of scientific papers from around the world that critics have attacked for its  parameters and methods of selecting which studies to include.

One such critic, Andrew Montford of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, said the survey was so broad that for a study to be counted as supporting the human-caused warming "consensus," all the study's authors had to do was agree that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that humans have affected the climate to any unspecified extent at some time, both uncontroversial points. A study was only counted against the consensus if it specifically minimized human activity as a factor in climate.

Weighing in on the whole consensus concept, the American Meteorological Society took a poll of its members and found that while 52 percent believe global warming is occurring and is mostly human-caused, 48 percent do not believe in man-made warming.

In addition, the poll noted that those with liberal political views were much more likely to accept the man-caused warming hypothesis than those who don't espouse a liberal point of view.

Polls being what they are, there will doubtless be critics of the way questions were framed and results counted, but this poll is mainly interesting because it shows very clearly that there are differences of opinion on global warming among those who are best trained in the subject, putting the lie to the propaganda coming out of the White House and elsewhere.

The myth of scientific consensus is just a political ploy to coerce voters into going along with the politicians' plans to raise taxes, charge fees and generally drain more money from the public's pockets.

Science is not about consensus, it's about verifiable results. The global warming proponents have had more than two decades to prove their case, and they have failed. It's time to get a better theory.

The fallback on consensus is an act of desperation. Science doesn't require approval, just facts. Galileo didn't have a consensus behind him when he talked about a heliocentric solar system, and we all know who won that argument.


Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/13448/meteorologists-disprove-myth-global-warming-consensus/#lsoAcs5FMAos04QA.99