How many have taken a science class at the university level?
I did all the pre-med reqs (4 bios, 2 physics, two gen chems, two organic chems, biochem) and then the standard two years of basic medical science education in grad school.
I don't know anything about geology or climatology and global warming isn't really my cup of tea as I have never formally studied any of these. On matters of science that I personally don't know much about it, I defer to the consensus of the experts as is how the scientific field works.
What annoys me is the anti-global warming people attacking the basic scientific methodology and standards of doing things ("There is no such thing as a consensus!"). They are so desperate to disprove global warming (for whatever reason) they they want to claim the entire field is corrupt.
That's ludicrous. I might be inspired to buy some of the claims about global warming being some vast conspiracy, but I've noticed that, to do so, you have to make some pretty amazing logical leaps (i.e. the vast majority of climatologists are corrupt and are perpetuating a lie and cover up to secure grant money).
You are incorrect here my friend. It is us who are trying to get the AGW proponents to FOLLOW the scientific method. The scientific method says that you must give others your work so it can be tested by others. They refused, for 15 years they refused even though it was illegal for them to do so. The scientific method says that correlation does not equal causation but the AGW proponents allways ignore that little code.
There are many other examples where the AGW proponents have violated the scientific method. I suggest you look at some other sources than wikipeadia to further your research. One example of AGW fraud is the wonderful case of Wiliam Connolley and his abuse of the wikipedia system. He is responsible for rewriting 5428 articles to give them a AGW bias. He further removed 500 articles that he didn't approve of. This went on for years until he was finally booted as a wiki contributor. But that one case gives you an idea of how far they will go to push their case.
When you have to rewrite the articles of others that you don't agree with, there is a problem here.
I can go on but I think if you do some basic research from independant sources you will get a better idea of the issues at hand. Also the idea of consensus has been vastly overblown by the AGW proponents. It has recently come to light that they handpicked the scientists that they quoted in their "consensus" it was FAR from a random sampling of scientists.
Your response is exagerated.
The vast majority of climatologists state,with their facts and research, that AGW is happening and at an alarming rate.
I have been to glacier park twice. Once in 1961 and again 2 years ago.
Glaciers do not melt if the earth is NOT warming.