From a scientific perspective, the poll is a bit ill-stated. Climate change can only be implicated in long-term trends in weather patterns. Individual storms (or even seasons) vary wildly, so we can't properly blame climate change on our recent local weather. That said; the *overwhelming scientific consensus* is that the long term trend is a warming planet influence by human activity. We may have had a freakishly warm season past, but climate change would have made it incrementally more extreme.

Who remembers the TIME Magazine cover story from 1975: "The coming Ice Age"?
Not that long ago, the 'scientific evidence' was for global climate change, but in the opposite direction that this 'story' suggests. Do we always need a worry to distract us from the real problems facing us? Anyway, here is the lead from that article:

In Africa, drought continues for the sixth consecutive year, adding terribly to the toll of famine victims. During 1972 record rains in parts of the U.S., Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in centuries. In Canada's wheat belt, a particularly chilly and rainy spring has delayed planting and may well bring a disappointingly small harvest. Rainy Britain, on the other hand, has suffered from uncharacteristic dry spells the past few springs. A series of unusually cold winters has gripped the American Far West, while New England and northern Europe have...

It's long out of date, but the late Michael Crichton's concluding essay in "State of Fear" (and the premise of the novel) offers an interesting perspective. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Fear

A poll to determine scientific research? Really, are you kidding?

Maybe we could have a poll on whether or not the earth is flat.
Maybe a poll could determine what the right number for PI is (actually, there is some controversy there).
A poll might finally solve the riddle of whether or not Einstein's Theory of Relativity is wrong and we could save billions in research at CERN, since that is one of the subjects of discussion.

Either global warming is causing radical weather or it's not. That's a matter of scientific research. What I or anyone else might think is irrelevant. Sorry, these polls are really pretty dumb.

Mike Bruno - How do you reconcile Ben Santer's comments, in his latest paper, on 17 years little to no Trpospheric warming and the RSS data showing no warming in the last 17 years?

What about the American Meteorological Society's 2008 'State Of The climate' report which included work by MET Office scientists showing that IPCC models were already falsified at the 90% level and that little to no warming for 5 more years would falsify the models at the 95% level? See page S21 here.

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

I have family that design climate models and work with climate models and after talking to them I'm not convinced they have the feedbacks correct. I have several parameters of falsification I am tracking, have you established any so that you can track and measure results in a scientific manner?

Just how many lies about the "acceptance of scientific consensus " of global warming must be uncovered before people realize it is nothing but fraud and deception!

Mike Bruno-9:07 am March 19

“Virtually every natural scientist now recognizes human-exacerbated climate change as...for all intents and purposes...fact.”

Scientific FACT:

1. Something that has been objectively verified.

2. Something having real, demonstrable existence

Theoretical thought neither equals objective verification nor is it demonstrable.

”We should recognize that climate change is confirmed by climate measurements in the world as a whole.”

Definition of climate change: “Climate change as referred to in the observational record of climate occurs because of internal changes within the climate system or in the interaction between its components, or because of changes in external forcing either for natural reasons or because of human activities. It is generally not possible clearly to make attribution between these causes.”

We all recognize we must be good stewards to the planet but common sense should not be excluded.

Well this big lie has netted algore a LOT of money now so maybe he’ll move on to something else.

After reading all of these comments I am exhausted! I think I'll keep it simple and give Tom Skilling a call.

Mr. Mike Bruno,
Nice to see you around these parts. I applaud your effort but your time might be easier spent trying to explain the color blue to the blind. This here patch is frequented by a sound bite breed indoctrinated by the likes of Limbaugh and Hannity who are unable or unwilling to understand the science because you can't explain it in 30 seconds. Here in Elmhurst we are faced with huge expenses because we have seen the reality of a 1 in 500 hundred year storm and a 1 in 100 hundred year storm very close together, I suspect after climate change has cost the local right wing climate change deniers they may come around because that is one thing they seem to believe in. As for me I'll do my part for our planet and won't shirk from having a conversation with climate deniers because I'd like to see our species thrive.

Say what, Doremus?! Exactly what is "this here patch" and what/who is/are "climate deniers"?

I think clean air and water is worth investing in, I'm not 100% certain if pollution is the cause of increased temperatures and extreme weather patterns.

Freeman Dyson doesn't believe in Global Warming and neither do I.

It is telling that a number people here cite *individuals* for the belief/disbelief in climate change, but that entirely misses the point on scientific consensus. Any one source can be right or wrong. Einstein, Bohr, Hawking, Teller, Galileo et. al. were all wrong on many things at one time or another. (Some even have the integrity to change their minds). Citing one study or citing one scientist is a recipe for being frequently wrong. It's a math thing.

@Mike, the "consensus" was wrong about Acid Rain in the 1980's. The 1990 NAPAP study and big 60 Minutes show in 1992 proved there was no Acid Rain problem in the NE U.S. They were wrong about Global cooling in the 1970's, Paul Ehrlich and the left were horribly wrong in the 1960's when the "consensus" was we had too many people on the Earth and we were all going to starve in the 1970's, and on and on. Sorry, just don't buy the Global Warming story. The "consensus" has been wrong so often that I am unwilling to spend Trillions of dollars on a problem that might not exist. Just seems stupid and silly to me to do so.

@Mike, facts swept away "consensus". As was the case with Paul Ehrlich and his faction and the Acid Rain crowd.

Actually, the 1990 NAPAP study proved beyond a shadow of doubt there was nothing to the Acid Rain scare in the 1980's. 60 Minutes (not known for being a conservative show) exploded the whole myth in a great segment in 1992. Unfortunately the Acid Rain myth lives on, just like many other Federal programs that receive funding. Yes, I believe the Earth is as old as scientist say, yes I believe the Earth orbits the sun, etc. We need way more study of the Earth's climate before we commit Trillions of dollars to a problem that may not exist. It would be pure folly and we'd be committing economic suicide to do so.

Let's just tell it like it is. This whole man made "global warming" thing is nothing more than another government attempt to create a fat new revenue stream. A carbon tax would generate huge amounts of cash for governments and, whatever was not stolen by the politicians would, among other wasteful things, be used to fund more global warming studies, thereby lining the pockets of those who promote the "consensus". The old adage, "follow the money" really applies here.

I have no bogey Mike. Just feel we need more research before we spend Trillions of dollars on a problem that may not exist. Especially if you don't think we can even make a difference in climate change.

Science is not based upon "Consensus", Sir. If a consensus of 'scientists' tell us that the sky is green, does that make it true? In science, there is only fact. In religion, there is consensus because the beliefs are not provable beyond a reasonable doubt. The Church of Climate Change, which of course recently changed it name from the Church of Global Warming a few years back (remember when those slew of MLB games got SNOWED OUT recently?) will call any non-believers "Climate Deniers" (like Holocaust Deniers), or followers of the "swine-like" Rush Limbaugh. The more you guys squeal and blame man kind for something that man has no control over is quite telling. How long has man been around with the ability to impact the earth (if that is possible)...maybe since the Industrial Revolution? Will you eat fish from the nuclear bombed areas of Japan? Of course you will...nature has an amazing power of self-regulation and to think that man can impact it in the way you hope is simple arrogance.

Mike, if you understand fluid dynamics and the complexities therein you will know that even the largest super computer in the world cannot accurately model weather very effectively. There are way too many data points to do so. Even the largest supercomputer in the world struggles to model wind flow over an airplane wing effectively. The fact that world temps. have not really increased at all in the last 10 years indicates to me we should move very cautiously on this issue before we destroy our economy.

No Need to Panic About Global Warming
Editor's Note: The following has been signed by the 16 scientists listed at the end of the article:
A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about "global warming." Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.
In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"

In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.
Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.
The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.

The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.
Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.

This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.
Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word "incontrovertible" from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question "cui bono?" Or the modern update, "Follow the money."
Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.

Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to "decarbonize" the world's economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.
A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet.

If elected officials feel compelled to "do something" about climate, we recommend supporting the excellent scientists who are increasing our understanding of climate with well-designed instruments on satellites, in the oceans and on land, and in the analysis of observational data. The better we understand climate, the better we can cope with its ever-changing nature, which has complicated human life throughout history. However, much of the huge private and government investment in climate is badly in need of critical review.
Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of "incontrovertible" evidence.

Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.

I had to break the article above up into smaller bites in order to post it.

Whew Kurt, thanks for clearing that up, for a moment I thought you might have amazing words per minute typing skills!

The "Australasian Climate Research Institute" is listed on the Australian Business Register as a trading name of William Kininmonth - a known Australian climate change skeptic. [2]

It is based at his private residence in Kew, Australia. It has no website, phone number or existence separate from Kininmonth. Kininmonth contributed to the IPCC's Assessment Report 4 on both Working Groups 1 and 2, his credential on the listing for WG II are as a representative of 'Australasian Climate Research'[1]

Claude Allegre...Asbestos

In 1996, Allègre opposed the removal of carcinogenic asbestos from the Jussieu university campus in Paris, describing it as harmless and dismissing concerns about it as a form of "psychosis created by leftists".[6] The campus' asbestos is deemed[by whom?] to have killed 22 people and caused serious health problems in 130 others.[7]
[edit] Gravity

In 1999, the Canard enchaîné, and subsequently several other media, published Allègre's claim, initially stated during a radio interview, that, if one drops a pétanque ball and a tennis ball at the same time from a tower, they will reach the ground at the same time. Allègre claimed that there was a popular misconception to the contrary, and that schoolchildren should be made to understand that two objects always fall at the same speed. The Canard responded that this was true only in a vacuum, and not in all cases as Allègre had said. The latter responded in turn, maintaining his initial statement. Georges Charpak, Nobel prize for Physics, intervened to explain that Allègre was wrong; the latter maintained his statement yet again.[6][8]

"Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University." Doesn't sound like a climate scientist to me.

"Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne" again not a climate scientist.

James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University, hmm not a climate scientist. Starting to see a pattern here.

Henk Tennekes...This guy quotes the bible to support his scientific positions...In an interview in the Dutch paper De Telegraaf, Tennekes says he was ousted from his position at the Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute due to his skepticism over climate change. After publishing a column critical of climate model accuracy, Tennekes says he was told "within two years, you'll be out on the street".[6]

According to Gerbrand Komen, a retired KNMI researcher, Tennekes' view on climate change played a minor role. More important were[7] Tennekes' personality and his solitary views on a range of subjects. As an example Komen recalls how Tennekes objected to the increase of computing power for medium-range weather forecasting, because he considered this unnecessary. According to Komen, Tennekes supported this decision by referring to biblical texts.

The real point to look at is published research. And over the last fifteen years, you know how many articles were published in major peer reviewed journals that rejected or significantly challenged the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming?

I can tell you that the answer is none. Not one. Thats about as much consensus as evolutionary theory.

For those of you who insist on a man made ("anthropogenic" for those of you hanging out in faculty lounges musing on how evil the Western world is)...please lead by example and give up: Flying, driving, taking the train, riding a motorcycles, using a machine to cut your lawn, clear your snow, blow dry your hair (yea right), etc etc etc. We have done more to clean up the world and help mother nature in the past 25 years than ever. Why won't China and India sign on to the silly protocols that would curb their growth? Exactly. Why should we give up what we don't have. Again, I'll point to the lack of funding to chase this dream. I know that you would say that gas should be $9/gallon like Europe in order to discourage driving, but c'mon....the little guy has had to pay and pay to fund silly programs like this and frankly, we've had enough lecturing.

Yes, lectures are really complicated. Sorry for throwing that word, anthropogenic, in there. Those multisyllabic specific words really identify someone who doesnt know what they are talking about. Lets just make things simple and do whatever we want to do. Thats worked so well in the past.

If you take time and brainpower to understand the issue, you'll realize that we cant afford not to do anything. In fact, we are already preparing for bad things - just ask the Armed Forces, who are factoring in global warming to their long term planning. Or cities all over the world, including Chicago, who are planning on planting less hardy tree species so in fifty to 100 years we will still have trees in the streets that can handle a warmer climate.

Tell us... whats the view like with your head buried that far into the sand??

Less hardy trees handle a warmer climate better than hardy trees? What??

Please post some links for us chumbolones who wish to bone up on the military planning you refer to...and also, please, the City of Chicago's plans to plant other types of trees. Hey, I think the City should plan on how the won't have 50 shootings in one weekend again this year, but that's just me...i know, Paul, I know, you will say that if global warming would just go ahead and wipe us all out, we won't have to worry about 6 year old kids getting shot to death on their front porch. Let's put more of the tax dollars that we don't have into fighting the phantom of climate change vs. real life! Wow.

I'm a little stunned at the uneducated comments here denying what scientists have known clearly for a while--and these comments are coming a metropolitan area. Maybe people just haven't looked at the science lately. A good summary is here: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Ben, it's OK, your elitist 'metropolitan area' views are safe. I live in flyover country in rural Wisconsin. I've seen the reports that pig and cow flatulence are a threat to our climate. I think I am all for banning those gases and we should start right here and now.

OK Paul, now we know enough about you to simply stop the back and forth. You get your news and facts from Popular Science. We all remember seeing those whacy headlines at the news stands. But for those out there who may have forgotten, here are a sampling of not only headlines from Paul's favorite news source, but these are also ALL from the author of the article that Paul cites as cementing his belief that man, especially the USA, is to blame for todays and tomorrow's problems that may impact the world. Check these out:

-A Smartphone That Detects Whether Its User Is Depressed

-UK Report Suggests Soldiers Could One Day Plug Their Weapons Right Into Their Brains

-Paint Your Roof With Working Solar Cells Made from Grass Clippings

-A Massive Solar Eruption, the Strongest in 7 Years, Has Earth Bracing for a Radiation Storm ((-Ed note: This was last week, and all is still well here on Earth))

-Russian Space Authorities Determine Cause of Failed Mars Probe: America (of course!!!)

-Video: Groombot Brushes Cat, Ushering in a New Era of Remote Robo-Petting

-A Train to Space: All Aboard the 20,000-Mile-Per-Hour Low-Earth-Orbit Express

And, Finally, a headline that makes sense:
Canada Pulls Out of Kyoto Protocol, Making it the First Country to Legally Opt Out

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/