Sure he does he just had a penultimate orgasm!
Sure he does he just had a penultimate orgasm!
Fox Mulder wrote:
aGeochemist wrote:Much of the scientific "evidence" is falsely presented to achieve a specific political or economic agenda, either knowingly or unknowingly.
I'm glad someone is finally shedding light on this. Man-made climate change is all part of a worldwide conspiracy perpetrated by scientists who are doing the bidding of the aliens. The truth is out there!
Are you naive enough to think that scientists in tandem with politicians would never skew the facts to achieve a political goal? It has, does, and is bound to continue to happen.
your right, they are aliens! Alienated from the common man, lining pockets in war,and any other industy that they can concoct to get your $ and you gladly give it!
It's like the back cover of Yoga Journal this month, there is a picture of Obama in seated position, and the page reads "Ombama" !
Give me a break all they forgot to do was put a cigarette in his mouth! Like a guy who does'nt even take care of his own body is going to do something good for you and me! HA!!!!
Who is to say what the ideal is? Warmer could be better.
me o my wrote:
No Science does overwhelmingly agree. .
How can Science agree? Can math agree? Can liturature agree?
actually seismic activity tends to increase during solar minima.
fleetfoot wrote:
Actually have you noticed the increase in sisemic activity at Yellowstone national park? The earth is really heating from whithin and were getting ready to unload and explode!!!
Interesting that no one commented on this.I met a college girl from San Francisco on a recent flight. She mentioned that it was so much hotter in SF "you know, because of global warming" ... uhhh yeah sure.
not in the news wrote:
You won't hear this on the news, however you did see news that the start of the Iditarod had to be moved because of "global warming".
Here is the headline that you will not see.
4 Time Iditarod Champion Pulls Out of Sled Race - Too Cold
FAIRBANKS — Defending champion Jodi Bailey of Chatanika won a bitterly cold, blustery Gin Gin 200 late Sunday night. Several mushers had pulled out of the race from Paxson to the MacLaren River Lodge -- including four-time Iditarod champion Jeff King -- citing the adverse conditions. According to the race Web site, temperatures at the MacLaren River Lodge were between 35 and 40 below. It was reportedly 10 to 15 degrees colder on the lower portions of the trail during the second portion of the race.
Are you an idiot? How do I know that it is news when one Irish politician disagrees? Because the original poster posted a piece of news about an Irish politician who disagrees with global warming.
I never said my own opinion is irrelevant but if the majority of experts agree on something I'll will tend to take their word for it.
Did I take a poll that the majority of experts believe in man made global warming? NO.
Do the majority of experts believe in gravity? Before you answer is it necessary to take a poll?
haah wrote:
Fox Mulder wrote:I'm glad someone is finally shedding light on this. Man-made climate change is all part of a worldwide conspiracy perpetrated by scientists who are doing the bidding of the aliens. The truth is out there!
Are you naive enough to think that scientists in tandem with politicians would never skew the facts to achieve a political goal? It has, does, and is bound to continue to happen.
I said I agreed. It's a worldwide conspiracy. All the scientists are making big bucks off this. They all love money, so they are easily controlled. Most of them don't even know about the aliens pulling the strings from behind the scenes. Watch out for the smoking man.
me o my wrote:
Are you an idiot? How do I know that it is news when one Irish politician disagrees? Because the original poster posted a piece of news about an Irish politician who disagrees with global warming.
I never said my own opinion is irrelevant but if the majority of experts agree on something I'll will tend to take their word for it.
Did I take a poll that the majority of experts believe in man made global warming? NO.
Do the majority of experts believe in gravity? Before you answer is it necessary to take a poll?
I already went over this. Just because it's on the news, does not mean it's unheard of. Why don't you stop repeating yourself and give a freakin' logical post for once. Basically, what you're saying is that you value your own opinion, but you would never betray the scientists by agreeing with yourself... uh, yeah. Did it ever occur to you that you can't just look at what other people say to make an argument? So far, you haven't commented on a single piece of evidence, you've just restated that we should all listen to the scientists. Well, thanks, Einstein, but if you listened to what I said, you would know that is not a logical approach. Can you get that through your thick skull? Also, global warming is not the same as gravity. Where did you come up with this? You can't compare two scientific theories and assume that they are equally supported. Global warming is being debated, but gravity is not. Why is that? Well, duh, one has more support. Try digging up some support for your own arguments or just stop posting. You obviously don't know what logic is, or how to arrive at a logical conclusion. If you can understand what I'm saying, then respond with something logical, not a repetition of your own ideas. Got it?
haah wrote:
Also, global warming is not the same as gravity. Where did you come up with this? You can't compare two scientific theories and assume that they are equally supported. Global warming is being debated, but gravity is not. Why is that? Well, duh, one has more support. Try digging up some support for your own arguments or just stop posting. You obviously don't know what logic is, or how to arrive at a logical conclusion. If you can understand what I'm saying, then respond with something logical, not a repetition of your own ideas. Got it?
The difference between gravity and global warming is that one has more support? You might not want to be so quick to chastise others for poor arguments when your comeback includes a line like that.
The fact of the matter is that much of the science behind global warming isn't controversial at all. CO2 and other greenhouse gasses do trap the Sun's radiation and warm the planet. Venus has temps that range from 400c to 780 k because of the overabundance of greenhouse gasses in its atmosphere. It is also not a controversy that burning of fossil fuels and other man-made actions (deforestation, ocean dead zones, production of methane and other more reactive greenhouse gasses) are causing a rise in CO2 and other greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Finally, there is significant evidence of a rise in global temps.
Back in the late 1980s, climatologists produced climate models that took into consideration many of the factors asserted as signs that global warming is not caused by humans (i.e. solar output, volcanoes, wabbles in the Earth's orbit). These climate models accurately predicted the rise in global temperatures. In fact, the climate models proved to be too conservative, if anything.
Global warming skeptics have done little to challenge the basic science behind global warming. Instead, you just hear a bunch of invalid non-scientific arguments (Al Gore flies a private jet, scientists have an interest in the outcome (and skeptical scientist funded by industry don't), politicians want to control your lives, the Bible says that God created the earth, man can destroy God's creation). And the scientific arguments do not refute the basic science of global warming. They just challenge certain observations or put forth a conclusory alternative theory (solar output being the most recent).
The fact remains that the planet has warmed significantly over the past thirty years. Human activity has increased greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Scientist accurately predicted in the 1980s that this would cause a rise in global temps, and it did.
Unless you know where we can get a lab with exact replicas of the planet Earth and the Sun, where we can run multiple experiments, testing whether one theory is right or wrong, there is going to be a limit to the definitive quality of the scientific evidence supporting global warming theory. The problem is that the downside to being wrong about global warming is really minimal compared to the opposite. Fossil fuels are very dirty and dangerous (just look at the massive coal ash spill in Tenn), rapidly headed towards decline and much of the resources are in the hands of some very oppressive governments. Finally, the dangers of rising temps are well known and don't need to be repeated.
how about some sources on this biatchhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007
Main article: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
In February 2007, the IPCC released a summary of the forthcoming Fourth Assessment Report. According to this summary, the Fourth Assessment Report finds that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability. Global warming in this case is indicated by an increase of 0.75 degrees in average global temperatures over the last 100 years.[2]
The New York Times reports on the report:
The world's leading climate scientists said global warming has begun, is very likely caused by man, and will be unstoppable for centuries, ... . The phrase very likely translates to a more than 90 percent certainty that global warming is caused by man's burning of fossil fuels. That was the strongest conclusion to date, making it nearly impossible to say natural forces are to blame.[3]
The report said that an increase in hurricane and tropical cyclone strength since 1970 more likely than not can be attributed to man-made global warming. The scientists said global warming's connection varies with storms in different parts of the world, but that the storms that strike the Americas are global warming-influenced.[4]
The Associated Press summarizes the position on sea level rise:
On sea levels, the report projects rises of 7-23 inches by the end of the century. That could be augmented by an additional 4-8 inches if recent surprising polar ice sheet melt continues.[5]
InterAcademy Council
As the representative of the world’s scientific and engineering academies,[6][7] the InterAcademy Council (IAC) issued a report in 2007 entitled Lighting the Way: Toward a Sustainable Energy Future.
Current patterns of energy resources and energy usage are proving detrimental to the long-term welfare of humanity. The integrity of essential natural systems is already at risk from climate change caused by the atmospheric emissions of greenhouse gases.[8]
Concerted efforts should be mounted for improving energy efficiency and reducing the carbon intensity of the world economy.[9]
Joint science academies' statement 2008
In preparation for the 34th G8 summit, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a declaration reiterating the position of the 2005 joint science academies’ statement, and reaffirming “that climate change is happening and that anthropogenic warming is influencing many physical and biological systems.” Among other actions, the declaration urges all nations to “(t)ake appropriate economic and policy measures to accelerate transition to a low carbon society and to encourage and effect changes in individual and national behaviour.”[10]
The thirteen signatories were the national science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
Joint science academies’ statement 2007
In preparation for the 2007 G8 summit, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a declaration referencing the position of the 2005 joint science academies' statement, and acknowledging the confirmation of their previous conclusion by recent research. Following the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, the declaration states:
It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken.
The thirteen signatories were the national science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
Joint science academies’ statement 2005
In 2005 the national science academies of the G8 nations, plus Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, signed a statement on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action[11], and explicitly endorsed the IPCC consensus. The eleven signatories were the science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
Joint science academies’ statement 2001
In 2001, following the publication of the IPCC Third Assessment Report, sixteen national science academies issued a joint statement explicitly acknowledging the IPCC position as representing the scientific consensus on climate change science. The sixteen science academies that issued the statement were those of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.[12]
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
In October 2007, the International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences (CAETS) issued a Statement on Environment and Sustainable Growth[13]
As reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), most of the observed global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human-produced emission of greenhouse gases and this warming will continue unabated if present anthropogenic emissions continue or, worse, expand without control.
CAETS, therefore, endorses the many recent calls to decrease and control greenhouse gas emissions to an acceptable level as quickly as possible.
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
In March 2007, the European Academy of Sciences and Arts issued a formal declaration in which they stated, “Human activity is most likely responsible for climate warming. Most of the climatic warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Documented long-term climate changes include changes in Arctic temperatures and ice, widespread changes in precipitation amounts, ocean salinity, wind patterns and extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves and the intensity of tropical cyclones. The above development potentially has dramatic consequences for mankind’s future. “[14]
Network of African Science Academies
In 2007, the Network of African Science Academies submitted a joint “statement on sustainability, energy efficiency, and climate change” to the leaders meeting at the G8 Summit in Heiligendamm, Germany.
“A consensus, based on current evidence, now exists within the global scientific community that human activities are the main source of climate change and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible for driving this change.”
“The IPCC should be congratulated for the contribution it has made to public understanding of the nexus that exists between energy, climate and sustainability.”[15]
The thirteen signatories were the science academies of Cameroon, Ghana, Kenya, Madagascar, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe, as well as the African Academy of Sciences.
Royal Society of New Zealand
On July 10, 2008, the society released a statement, which said in summary:
The globe is warming because of increasing greenhouse gas emissions. Measurements show that greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere are well above levels seen for many thousands of years. Further global climate changes are predicted, with impacts expected to become more costly as time progresses. Reducing future impacts of climate change will require substantial reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.[16]
National Research Council (US)
In 2001, the Committee on the Science of Climate Change of the National Research Council published Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions.[17] This report explicitly endorses the IPCC view of attribution of recent climate change as representing the view of the scientific community:
The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century... The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue.[17]
European Science Foundation
The European Science Foundation has issued a Position Paper on climate change in which they concur, "There is now convincing evidence that since the industrial revolution, human activities, resulting in increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases have become a major agent of climate change. These greenhouse gases affect the global climate by retaining heat in the troposphere, thus raising the average temperature of the planet and altering global atmospheric circulation and precipitation patterns." The paper concluded, "While on-going national and international actions to curtail and reduce greenhouse gas emissions are essential, the levels of greenhouse gases currently in the atmosphere, and their impact, are likely to persist for several decades. On-going and increased efforts to mitigate climate change through reduction in greenhouse gases are therefore crucial."[18]
American Association for the Advancement of Science
In December 2006, the American Association for the Advancement of Science adopted an official statement on climate change in which they stated, "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society....The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now."[19]
Federation of American Scientists
In their Energy and Environment Overview, the Federation of American Scientists state, “There is no serious doubt that human activity is altering the earth's climate in potentially catastrophic ways. Even skeptics are forced to admit that the risk is real and that prudence demands action if only as an insurance policy, the only serious debate is about how best to respond." [20]
World Meteorological Organization
In its Statement at the Twelfth Session of the Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) confirms the need to “prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” The WMO concurs that “scientific assessments have increasingly reaffirmed that human activities are indeed changing the composition of the atmosphere, in particular through the burning of fossil fuels for energy production and transportation.” The WMO concurs that “the present atmospheric concentration of CO2 was never exceeded over the past 420,000 years;” and that the IPCC “assessments provide the most authoritative, up-to-date scientific advice.” [21]
American Meteorological Society
The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2003 said:
There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the Earth's surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years. There is also clear evidence that the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased over the same period. In the past decade, significant progress has been made toward a better understanding of the climate system and toward improved projections of long-term climate change... Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems.[22]
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
In February 2007, after the release of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, the Royal Meteorological Society issued an endorsement of the report. In addition to referring to the IPCC as “world’s best climate scientists”, they stated that climate change is happening as “the result of emissions since industrialization and we have already set in motion the next 50 years of global warming – what we do from now on will determine how worse it will get.” [23]
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
The Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society has issued a Statement on Climate Change, wherein they conclude, “Global climate change and global warming are real and observable…It is highly likely that those human activities that have increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have been largely responsible for the observed warming since 1950. The warming associated with increases in greenhouse gases originating from human activity is called the enhanced greenhouse effect. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased by more than 30% since the start of the industrial age and is higher now than at any time in at least the past 650,000 years. This increase is a direct result of burning fossil fuels, broad-scale deforestation and other human activity.”[24]
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
"CMOS endorses the process of periodic climate science assessment carried out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and supports the conclusion, in its Third Assessment Report, which states that the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate."[25]
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
In November 2005, the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences (CFCAS) issued a letter to the Prime Minister of Canada stating that "We concur with the climate science assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001 ... We endorse the conclusions of the IPCC assessment that 'There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities'. ... There is increasingly unambiguous evidence of changing climate in Canada and around the world. There will be increasing impacts of climate change on Canada’s natural ecosystems and on our socio-economic activities. Advances in climate science since the 2001 IPCC Assessment have provided more evidence supporting the need for action and development of a strategy for adaptation to projected changes."[26]
International Union for Quaternary Research
The statement on climate change issued by the International Union for Quaternary Research reiterates the conclusions of the IPCC, and urges all nations to take prompt action in line with the UNFCCC principles.
“Human activities are now causing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gasses - including carbon dioxide, methane, tropospheric ozone, and nitrous oxide - to rise well above pre-industrial levels….Increases in greenhouse gasses are causing temperatures to rise…The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action….Minimizing the amount of this carbon dioxide reaching the atmosphere presents a huge challenge but must be a global priority.” [27]
American Quaternary Association
The American Quaternary Association (AMQUA) has stated, “Few credible Scientists now doubt that humans have influenced the documented rise of global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution,” citing “the growing body of evidence that warming of the atmosphere, especially over the past 50 years, is directly impacted by human activity.” [28]
Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
The Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London stated, "We find that the evidence for human-induced climate change is now persuasive, and the need for direct action compelling."[29]
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
In July 2007, the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics (IUGG) adopted a resolution entitled “The Urgency of Addressing Climate Change”. In it, the IUGG concurs with the “comprehensive and widely accepted and endorsed scientific assessments carried out by the International Panel on Climate Change and regional and national bodies, which have firmly established, on the basis of scientific evidence, that human activities are the primary cause of recent climate change.” They state further that the “continuing reliance on combustion of fossil fuels as the world’s primary source of energy will lead to much higher atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gasses, which will, in turn, cause significant increases in surface temperature, sea level, ocean acidification, and their related consequences to the environment and society.” [30]
International Union of Geological Sciences
In their Climate Change prospectus for the International Year of Planet Earth project, the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) stated, “The idea that there is a strong human imprint on recent climate change is now compelling, with forest clearing, building and man-made gas emissions all having a strong influence on Earth’s warming.”[31]
We know that human activity has resulted in changes to atmospheric chemistry and land cover, and caused serious decline in biodiversity.[32]
European Geosciences Union
In July 2005, the European Geosciences Union (EGU) issued a position statement in support of the joint science academies’ statement on global response to climate change. Additionally, the EGU concurred that the IPCC “represents the state-of-the-art of climate science supported by the major science academies around the world and by the vast majority of science researchers and investigators as documented by the peer-reviewed scientific literature.” [33]
Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
The Canadian Federation Of Earth Sciences has issued a position paper on global climate change in which they state, “ Canada's Earth scientists also recognize that humans are adding greenhouse gases (GHGs) to our atmosphere at an ever increasing rate. The level of CO2 in our atmosphere is now greater than at any time in the past 500,000 years; there will be consequences for our global climate and natural systems as a result….These could include: increased frequency and severity of drought, coastal erosion, sea level change, permafrost degradation, impact of reduced glacier cover on water resources, groundwater quality and quantity, and occurrence of climate-related natural hazards such as flooding, dust storms and landslides.”[34]
Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries. Furthermore, the potential implications of global climate change and the time scale over which such changes will likely occur require active, effective, long-term planning."[35]
American Geophysical Union
The American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement [36] adopted by the society in 2003 and revised in 2007 affirms that rising levels of greenhouse gases have caused and will continue to cause the global surface temperature to be warmer:
The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.
American Astronomical Society
The American Astronomical Society has endorsed the AGU statement:[37]
In endorsing the "Human Impacts on Climate" statement [issued by the American Geophysical Union], the AAS recognizes the collective expertise of the AGU in scientific subfields central to assessing and understanding global change, and acknowledges the strength of agreement among our AGU colleagues that the global climate is changing and human activities are contributing to that change.
American Institute of Physics
The Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics endorsed the AGU statement on human-induced climate change:[38]
The Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics has endorsed a position statement on climate change adopted by the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Council in December 2003.
American Physical Society
In November 2007, the American Physical Society (APS) adopted an official statement on climate change: "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.
"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."[39]
American Chemical Society
The American Chemical Society stated:
Careful and comprehensive scientific assessments have clearly demonstrated that the Earth’s climate system is changing rapidly in response to growing atmospheric burdens of greenhouse gases and absorbing aerosol particles (IPCC, 2007). There is very little room for doubt that observed climate trends are due to human activities. The threats are serious and action is urgently needed to mitigate the risks of climate change.
The reality of global warming, its current serious and potentially disastrous impacts on Earth system properties, and the key role emissions from human activities play in driving these phenomena have been recognized by earlier versions of this ACS policy statement (ACS, 2004), by other major scientific societies, including the American Geophysical Union (AGU, 2003), the American Meteorological Society (AMS, 2007) and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS, 2007), and by the U. S. National Academies and ten other leading national academies of science (NA, 2005). This statement reviews key global climate change impacts and recommends actions required to mitigate or adapt to currently anticipated consequences.[40]
American Society for Microbiology
In 2003, the American Society for Microbiology issued a public policy report in which they recommend “reducing net anthropogenic CO2 emissions to the atmosphere” and “minimizing anthropogenic disturbances of” atmospheric gasses:[41]
Carbon dioxide concentrations were relatively stable for the past 10,000 years but then began to increase rapidly about 150 years ago…as a result of fossil fuel consumption and land use change.[42]
Of course, changes in atmospheric composition are but one component of global change, which also includes disturbances in the physical and chemical conditions of the oceans and land surface. Although global change has been a natural process throughout Earth’s history, humans are responsible for substantially accelerating present-day changes. These changes may adversely affect human health and the biosphere on which we depend.[43]
Outbreaks of a number of diseases, including Lyme disease, hantavirus infections, dengue fever, bubonic plague, and cholera, have been linked to climate change.[44]
Institute of Biology (UK)
The UK's Institute of Biology states “there is scientific agreement that the rapid global warming that has occurred in recent years is mostly anthropogenic, ie due to human activity.” As a consequence of global warming, they warn that a “rise in sea levels due to melting of ice caps is expected to occur. Rises in temperature will have complex and frequently localised effects on weather, but an overall increase in extreme weather conditions and changes in precipitation patterns are probable, resulting in flooding and drought. The spread of tropical diseases is also expected.” Subsequently, the Institute of Biology advocates policies to reduce “greenhouse gas emissions, as we feel that the consequences of climate change are likely to be severe.”[45]
World Federation of Public Health Associations
In 2001, the World Federation of Public Health Associations issued a policy resolution on global climate change:
Noting the conclusions of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other climatologists that anthropogenic greenhouse gases, which contribute to global climate change, have substantially increased in atmospheric concentration beyond natural processes and have increased by 28 percent since the industrial revolution….Realizing that subsequent health effects from such perturbations in the climate system would likely include an increase in: heat-related mortality and morbidity; vector-borne infectious diseases,… water-borne diseases…(and) malnutrition from threatened agriculture….the World Federation of Public Health Associations…recommends precautionary primary preventive measures to avert climate change, including reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and preservation of greenhouse gas sinks through appropriate energy and land use policies, in view of the scale of potential health impacts....[46]
American Public Health Association
In 2007, the American Public Health Association issued a policy statement entitled ‘’Addressing the Urgent Threat of Global Climate Change to Public Health and the Environment’’:
The long-term threat of global climate change to global health is extremely serious and the fourth IPCC report and other scientific literature demonstrate convincingly that anthropogenic GHG emissions are primarily responsible for this threat….US policy makers should immediately take necessary steps to reduce US emissions of GHGs, including carbon dioxide, to avert dangerous climate change.[47]
American Medical Association
In 2008, the American Medical Association issued a policy statement on global climate change declaring that they:
Support the findings of the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, which states that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that these changes will negatively effect public health.
Support educating the medical community on the potential adverse public health effects of global climate change, including topics such as population displacement, flooding, infectious and vector-borne diseases, and healthy water supplies.[48]
American College of Preventive Medicine
In 2006, the American College of Preventive Medicine issued a policy statement on “Abrupt Climate Change and Public Health Implications”:
The American College of Preventive Medicine (ACPM) accept the position that global warming and climate change is occurring, that there is potential for abrupt climate change, and that human practices that increase greenhouse gases exacerbate the problem, and that the public health consequences may be severe.[49]
American Statistical Association
On November 30, 2007, the American Statistical Association Board of Directors adopted a statement on climate change:
The ASA endorses the IPCC conclusions. ... Over the course of four assessment reports, a small number of statisticians have served as authors or reviewers. Although this involvement is encouraging, it does not represent the full range of statistical expertise available. ASA recommends that more statisticians should become part of the IPCC process. Such participation would be mutually beneficial to the assessment of climate change and its impacts and also to the statistical community.[50]
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
"Engineers Australia believes that Australia must act swiftly and proactively in line with global expectations to address climate change as an economic, social and environmental risk... We believe that addressing the costs of atmospheric emissions will lead to increasing our competitive advantage by minimising risks and creating new economic opportunities. Engineers Australia believes the Australian Government should ratify the Kyoto Protocol."[51]
Water Environment Federation
In 2006, the Water Environment Federation issued a resolution on climate change stating “there is scientific consensus, as established by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and confirmed by the National Academy of Sciences, that the build-up of greenhouse gases from human sources, including carbon dioxide and methane, in the atmosphere is causing global temperatures to increase and threaten the stability of our planet’s climate…” They further warn “there will be significant disruptions in the natural hydrological cycle in various regions of the world, including extreme and more frequent wet weather events; increased flooding due to higher precipitation; severe and more frequent drought; increased water temperatures; and rising sea levels leading to saltwater intrusion in coastal aquifers…”[52]
Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management
In 2006, the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management issued a policy position statement on global climate change wherein they confirm, “The scientific consensus is that human activity is changing the climate, as evidenced in the recent temperature record…”, and advocate for the “strengthening of international agreements on climate change, including the Kyoto Protocol, to ensure greenhouse gas emissions are capped and reduced in a meaningful and timely manner…”[53]
Federal Climate Change Science Program (US)
On May 2, 2006, the Federal Climate Change Science Program commissioned by the Bush administration in 2002 released the first of 21 assessments. Though it did not state what percentage of climate change might be anthropogenic, the assessment concluded:
Studies ... show clear evidence of human influences on the climate system (due to changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols, and stratospheric ozone). ... The observed patterns of change over the past 50 years cannot be explained by natural processes alone, nor by the effects of short-lived atmospheric constituents (such as aerosols and tropospheric ozone) alone.[54]
In a May 29, 2008 assessment, they stated:
It is well established through formal attribution studies that the global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases.[55]
Noncommittal statements
American Association of State Climatologists
The 2001 statement from the American Association of State Climatologists noted the difficulties with predicting impacts due to climate change, while acknowledging that human activities are having an effect on climate:
Climate prediction is difficult because it involves complex, nonlinear interactions among all components of the earth’s environmental system. (...) The AASC recognizes that human activities have an influence on the climate system. Such activities, however, are not limited to greenhouse gas forcing and include changing land use and sulfate emissions, which further complicates the issue of climate prediction. Furthermore, climate predictions have not demonstrated skill in projecting future variability and changes in such important climate conditions as growing season, drought, flood-producing rainfall, heat waves, tropical cyclones and winter storms. These are the type of events that have a more significant impact on society than annual average global temperature trends. Policy responses to climate variability and change should be flexible and sensible – The difficulty of prediction and the impossibility of verification of predictions decades into the future are important factors that allow for competing views of the long-term climate future. Therefore, the AASC recommends that policies related to long-term climate not be based on particular predictions, but instead should focus on policy alternatives that make sense for a wide range of plausible climatic conditions regardless of future climate... Finally, ongoing political debate about global energy policy should not stand in the way of common sense action to reduce societal and environmental vulnerabilities to climate variability and change. Considerable potential exists to improve policies related to climate.[56]
American Association of Petroleum Geologists
The American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) Position Statement on climate change states that "the AAPG membership is divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has on recent and potential global temperature increases ... Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming trend will continue, as reported through NAS, AGU, AAAS and AMS. AAPG respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data. These data do not necessarily support the maximum case scenarios forecast in some models."[57]
Prior to the adoption of this statement, the AAPG was the only major scientific organization that rejected the finding of significant human influence on recent climate, according to a statement by the Council of the American Quaternary Association.[58] Explaining the plan for a revision, AAPG president Lee Billingsly wrote in March 2007 that "Members have threatened to not renew their memberships ... if AAPG does not alter its position on global climate change ... . And I have been told of members who already have resigned in previous years because of our current global climate change position. ... The current policy statement is not supported by a significant number of our members and prospective members."[59]
Hmm, interesting:
Statements by dissenting organizations
With the July 2007 release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate.[58]
and a survey of climate scientists:
STATS, 2007
In 2007 Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. The survey found 97% agreed that global temperatures have increased during the past 100 years while 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence substantiates the occurrence of human-induced greenhouse warming.".[64]
Welly welly well. There you go. Instead of blowing smoke up each other's asses, let's have some facts. There is a consensus and no group of climate scientists disagrees
well done King Arthur!
the deniers are identical to the 9/11 conspiracy theorists, its all a big conspiracy and the "elite" are in on it!
it is sad what the right wing has done to intellectual discourse in this country over the past 30 years.
Having taken an atmospheric chemistry course last semester, let me assure you that there is plenty of viable science that points to human activity as the cause of global warming. This includes both the current slight increase in average global temperature and potentially much larger (5-15 deg. C) increases in the next 50-100 years.
The greenhouse effect is very real and is rooted in the quantum chemistry of the greenhouse gas molecules. Simple models show that increases in greenhouse gases lead to small increases in retained heat. The melting of glaciers and polar ice caps follows from these slight increases in temperature. The loss of ice decreases the earth's albedo, or reflectivity, meaning that more solar radiation is absorbed, further warming the earth.
CO2 is actually not the strongest greenhouse gas that we produce; CH4 is stronger, but produced in smaller quantities, and SF6 and others are extremely strong but only present in trace amounts. A quick look at CO2 plots over time shows that there are indeed natural cycles in which CO2 levels rise and fall. These levels have NEVER risen above ~300ppm. Current levels are ~385ppm; levels were ~275 pppm before the industrial revolution and ~310 in 1950.
***When you line up the global average temperature plots with the CO2 plots over the last several hundred thousand years, there is a striking correlation. If you use CO2 as a predictor of temperature, it is undeniable that the global average will rise far higher in the near future than it ever has.***
In terms of whether or not we can trust experts: it should be noted that Bush administration changed words in scientists' statements in order to make human-caused global warming sound much more hypothetical than it actually is. The scientific community IS largely in agreement that global warming is real and we are causing it. These are the same or similar scientists that correctly predicted the stratospheric ozone hole over the antarctic. Why else should we trust the experts? Anybody who claims to understand global warming/lack thereof without at least a bit of college-level education on the matter has likely not seen all of the evidence. In addition, the scientific underpinnings are too complicated to understand without a couple of chemistry classes. Even after my atmospheric chemistry class, I don't claim to be an expert. I have of course forgotten certain things already and never completely understood all of it. So please don't claim that anybody can look at the evidence and determine things for themselves; if that were the case, why would we even bother to have experts on anything?
Yes, yes. How very pompous you are. Welly well well to you, then, that is not really evidence. Of course the IPCC would say such things, they\'re the IPCC. Do you think they don\'t have an agenda? Of course they would attribute storms and such to global warming without really explaining their reasoning. Of course they would predict terrible things to come, but that is what\'s being discussed. They didn\'t really provide any scientific backup for those statements. Just because a global warming group says global warming is caused by humans and is dangerous, means I should lay down my arms and readily agree? I already know what they say about it, but they don\'t explain it. This doesn\'t help your argument.
As for the stats, 97% of scientists agree the planet has been warming. Yes, this is mostly true. However, 74% of scientists is actually statistically a quite low number for a consensus on if humans cause global warming. I know because I took a college stats class. Hopefully, you would know that, too. From that number, I can conclude that there are many scientists that don\'t agree the climate change model that has been pushed is accurate. Since only 74% agree, then we can\'t just choose which side we are on. We have to look at the evidence for ourselves. So far, you haven\'t done that, so I can\'t really refute your argument because it is logically flawed. Besides, the majority does not make right. I went over this a million times. From your arrogance, I can conclude that you also thought you would \'pwn\' me and refute my arguments. Well, all you\'ve done is repeat the same old tired argument in someone else\'s words while offering shaky statistics. That\'s just wonderful.
haah wrote:
Yes, yes. How very pompous you are. Welly well well to you, then, that is not really evidence. Of course the IPCC would say such things, they're the IPCC. Do you think they don't have an agenda? Of course they would attribute storms and such to global warming without really explaining their reasoning. Of course they would predict terrible things to come, but that is what's being discussed. They didn't really provide any scientific backup for those statements.
The IPCC Fourth Assessment is a massive body of work. The summary report is 52 pages and stuffed to the brim with "scientific backup", as you would call it:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdfAnd remember, this is just a summary of a massive body of work. To say that there is no "scientific backup" to the IPCC is just pure ignorance.
Your statistics argument is also pure ignorance. No one is saying that a consensus among scientists proves global warming. The point is that the consesus gives the theory credibility, raises the burden on skeptics, and justifies action to reduce the threat of global warming.
Finally, anyone idiot can be a skeptic. Can you point to any section of the IPCC fourth assessment and refute it with anything other than your attack on the author's credibility? Come on, where's your science? You took a college statistics class. You must be a freakin' genuis.
Fact of the matter is that you haven't got anything to refute the IPCC except for your claim of bias. Well, guess what, if there is really bias at play, you should be able to identify how that bias appears in the IPCC assessment. But you can't. That is because on talk radio they don't talk about science.
Come on, let's have it. If you are going to be the authority on refuting global warmup, provide some science that is of the same quantum you expect from the IPCC. If you can't, then you need to shut up.
Thank you Fred. You are a very important and valued part of the LetsRun community.
haah wrote:
As for the stats, 97% of scientists agree the planet has been warming. Yes, this is mostly true. However, 74% of scientists is actually statistically a quite low number for a consensus on if humans cause global warming. I know because I took a college stats class. Hopefully, you would know that, too. From that number, I can conclude that there are many scientists that don't agree the climate change model that has been pushed is accurate. Since only 74% agree, then we can't just choose which side we are on. We have to look at the evidence for ourselves. So far, you haven't done that, so I can't really refute your argument because it is logically flawed. Besides, the majority does not make right. I went over this a million times. From your arrogance, I can conclude that you also thought you would 'pwn' me and refute my arguments. Well, all you've done is repeat the same old tired argument in someone else's words while offering shaky statistics. That's just wonderful.
What? 74% is a low number for consensus? Can you provide some evidence for that? Consensus is majority opinion. 74% is statistically significant when compared to a simple majority with a sample size of nearly 500.
"Besides, the majority does not make right." Sure, but does that mean we should automatically side with the minority because we like it better? You've got some bizarre reasoning. As for shaky statistics, it looks like it's time for a second semester stats class for you. You've learned just enough to sound like an idiot when you spout off.
Maybe we should ask the polar bears whether the Earth is warming.
Except that there are only five left, because their habitat is melting. Also, I doubt they care whether humans are causing the problem.
Anyways, even if man-made climate change were some sort of massive farce designed for who knows what diabolical reason...we still have an impending energy crisis on our hands and we still have the Earth's natural resources being depleted at a disturbing rate. Sea levels are threatening to rise high enough to flood major metropolises like New York City within the next 50 years. Many of us will still be alive then. Everyone remembers the refugee overload Katrina caused in New Orleans. Imagine if Manhattan Island starts going under. If you're too much of a skeptic to care about anything else, just think about the economic consequences. To "not care" about sustainability or to write off man-made climate change as some kind of scheme is sheer lunacy.
kjk wrote:
Sea levels are threatening to rise high enough to flood major metropolises like New York City within the next 50 years.
That's a brilliant scare tactic. I will have to put that in my next movie. As if flooding half of Florida wasn't enough.