Discussions Search    Reviews    Search Aid    Buzzzz    Google@Omgili    Q&A Add to iGoogle   Bookmark and Share

  Advanced Search

Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili (Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.

This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.
[http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/index.php?s...]
Click here to search for discussions with Omgili discussions search engine.

Common Ground Common Sense

Palin: cause of global warming 'doesn't matter' Published: Wednesday October 1, 2008 http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Palin_cause_o...n_10012008.html Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin said Tuesday that global warming is "real," but stressed that it "kind of doesn't matter" whether or not humans are to blame for climate change. Human activity has "contributed to the issues that we're dealing with now with these impacts" on the earth's climate, Palin, who is Republican standardbearer John McCain's running mate, said in an interview aired Tuesday with CBS News' Katie Couric. "I'm not going to solely blame all of man's activities on changes in climate because the world's weather patterns are cyclical, and over history we have seen changes there. "But it kind of doesn't matter at this point in the debate what caused it.

The point is it's real, we need do something about it." Palin, who is governor of the vast and remote northern state of Alaska, said communities in her state "feel the impacts more than any other state up there with the changes in the climate and certainly it is apparent." The 44-year-old mother of five was little known nationally until she burst onto the political scene when Republican presidential candidate John McCain chose her as his shock running in late August. In interviews prior to McCain tapping her to be on the ticket, Palin has said she does not believe global warming is a man-made problem, putting her at odds with McCain. Her state is one of the country's largest energy producers and she supports opening a protected Alaskan wildlife refuge to oil drilling -- a position pilloried by environmentalists and some Democratic leaders. As Alaska governor she has also filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn the current administration's decision to list the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Climate change has been a contentious issue in US politics since President George W.

Bush took office nearly eight years ago.

Bush remains the only leader of a major industrialized nation to have refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, the most far-reaching international treaty on climate change. A devout Christian who is fiercely anti-abortion and a paid-up member of the National Rifle Association, Palin electrified McCain's campaign after being plucked from the obscurity of the far north. But in the past week she has faced widespread ridicule for the few interviews she has given, including a previous sit-down with Couric in which Palin cited Alaska's proximity to Canada and Russia as giving her a solid grounding in foreign policy.

Quote: Palin: cause of global warming 'doesn't matter' Published: Wednesday October 1, 2008 http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Palin_cause_o...n_10012008.html Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin said Tuesday that global warming is "real," but stressed that it "kind of doesn't matter" whether or not humans are to blame for climate change. Human activity has "contributed to the issues that we're dealing with now with these impacts" on the earth's climate, Palin, who is Republican standardbearer John McCain's running mate, said in an interview aired Tuesday with CBS News' Katie Couric. "I'm not going to solely blame all of man's activities on changes in climate because the world's weather patterns are cyclical, and over history we have seen changes there. "But it kind of doesn't matter at this point in the debate what caused it.

The point is it's real, we need do something about it." Palin, who is governor of the vast and remote northern state of Alaska, said communities in her state "feel the impacts more than any other state up there with the changes in the climate and certainly it is apparent." The 44-year-old mother of five was little known nationally until she burst onto the political scene when Republican presidential candidate John McCain chose her as his shock running in late August. In interviews prior to McCain tapping her to be on the ticket, Palin has said she does not believe global warming is a man-made problem, putting her at odds with McCain. Her state is one of the country's largest energy producers and she supports opening a protected Alaskan wildlife refuge to oil drilling -- a position pilloried by environmentalists and some Democratic leaders. As Alaska governor she has also filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn the current administration's decision to list the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Climate change has been a contentious issue in US politics since President George W.

Bush took office nearly eight years ago.

Bush remains the only leader of a major industrialized nation to have refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, the most far-reaching international treaty on climate change. A devout Christian who is fiercely anti-abortion and a paid-up member of the National Rifle Association, Palin electrified McCain's campaign after being plucked from the obscurity of the far north. But in the past week she has faced widespread ridicule for the few interviews she has given, including a previous sit-down with Couric in which Palin cited Alaska's proximity to Canada and Russia as giving her a solid grounding in foreign policy. I haven't seen enough evidence to say any climate change is man made or not.

I am not saying that it is or isn't, I am just saying there isn't enough proof to say that its a man made problem as weather patterns have changed during the history of the planet when there where not factories or cars etc.

Quote: I haven't seen enough evidence to say any climate change is man made or not.

I am not saying that it is or isn't, I am just saying there isn't enough proof to say that its a man made problem as weather patterns have changed during the history of the planet when there where not factories or cars etc. Well GOPGuy maybe one day we will find out that Einstein was not only wrong on a point or two, but basically full of it, despite what we think we know now.

But I wouldn't count on it, in fact, I would bet against it. Sure there are natural causes of climate change, no serious scientist would deny that.

There are influences on my health that I cannot do anything about, but that doesn't mean that there is no reason to avoid behavior such as snorting cocaine, smoking, eating a half pound cheeseburger everyday and drinking a fifth of whiskey at every meal.

Quote: Quote: I haven't seen enough evidence to say any climate change is man made or not.

I am not saying that it is or isn't, I am just saying there isn't enough proof to say that its a man made problem as weather patterns have changed during the history of the planet when there where not factories or cars etc. Well GOPGuy maybe one day we will find out that Einstein was not only wrong on a point or two, but basically full of it, despite what we think we know now.

But I wouldn't count on it, in fact, I would bet against it. Sure there are natural causes of climate change, no serious scientist would deny that.

There are influences on my health that I cannot do anything about, but that doesn't mean that there is no reason to avoid behavior such as snorting cocaine, smoking, eating a half pound cheeseburger everyday and drinking a fifth of whiskey at every meal. Oh come on Arne, let your hair down and have a little fun.

Quote: Quote: Quote: I haven't seen enough evidence to say any climate change is man made or not.

I am not saying that it is or isn't, I am just saying there isn't enough proof to say that its a man made problem as weather patterns have changed during the history of the planet when there where not factories or cars etc. Well GOPGuy maybe one day we will find out that Einstein was not only wrong on a point or two, but basically full of it, despite what we think we know now.

But I wouldn't count on it, in fact, I would bet against it. Sure there are natural causes of climate change, no serious scientist would deny that.

There are influences on my health that I cannot do anything about, but that doesn't mean that there is no reason to avoid behavior such as snorting cocaine, smoking, eating a half pound cheeseburger everyday and drinking a fifth of whiskey at every meal. Oh come on Arne, let your hair down and have a little fun. True, maybe if I did all of those things it would be good for me.

Do we know the opposite for certain?

But the neo-cons do not allow fun...it was outlawled in a signing statement by Herr Bushie.

I'v gotten a ticket for "having fun in a no fun zone" every year for the past 20.

I intend to get many more! “But there comes a time when you realize that the engine you've built with your blood and your sweat and your tears is being used for something so foul, so perverted that it makes you sick in your heart.

And it's then that you must throw your body on the gears and on the levers and on the machine itself and make it stop.

And you have to show the people who run it, the people who control it, that unless we're free, that machine will be prevented from working at all.” --Tyrol BSG P.J.O'Rourke, the conservative writer, once remarked: “The Republicans are a party that says government doesn't work - and then get elected and prove it.” "..Artists use lies to tell the truth, while politicians use them to cover the truth up" --V for Vendetta

BIDEN THE PALIN PAIN CURE HA VING FUN NOW "Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power." James Madison "When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace." -- Jimi Hendrix VOTE YOUR HEART USING ALL THE COMMON SENSE YOU WERE BORN WITH In war, there are no unwounded soldiers.

- José Narosky

Quote: Quote: I haven't seen enough evidence to say any climate change is man made or not.

I am not saying that it is or isn't, I am just saying there isn't enough proof to say that its a man made problem as weather patterns have changed during the history of the planet when there where not factories or cars etc. Well GOPGuy maybe one day we will find out that Einstein was not only wrong on a point or two, but basically full of it, despite what we think we know now.

But I wouldn't count on it, in fact, I would bet against it. Sure there are natural causes of climate change, no serious scientist would deny that.

There are influences on my health that I cannot do anything about, but that doesn't mean that there is no reason to avoid behavior such as snorting cocaine, smoking, eating a half pound cheeseburger everyday and drinking a fifth of whiskey at every meal. Arne I am not against do things per se to protect the environment I am not sold on global warming.

Besides hasn't global temp cooled recently?

If we are in admist of unbridled global warming how is the global temperature falling?

Facts such as these tend to make me doubt alot of the rhetoric to global warming.

Most smart people know that global warming is seen in the severity of the storms of all types rain/sleet/snow/wind/hot/cold tornadoes/hurricanes/monsoons/tidal waves/large snowfalls/hot in January/cold in July

Quote: most smart people know that global warming is seen in the severity of the storms of all types rain/sleet/snow/wind/hot/cold tornadoes/hurricanes/monsoons/tidal waves/large snowfalls/hot in January/cold in July Is that why the last two years we have very mild hurricane seasons?

BTW tidal waves are not storms.

Quote: Quote: most smart people know that global warming is seen in the severity of the storms of all types rain/sleet/snow/wind/hot/cold tornadoes/hurricanes/monsoons/tidal waves/large snowfalls/hot in January/cold in July Is that why the last two years we have very mild hurricane seasons?

BTW tidal waves are not storms. ask the people in Galveston if they thought it was mild. Or the people in Haiti, or the people in Cuba or the other places which got hit hard

Quote: Quote: Quote: most smart people know that global warming is seen in the severity of the storms of all types rain/sleet/snow/wind/hot/cold tornadoes/hurricanes/monsoons/tidal waves/large snowfalls/hot in January/cold in July Is that why the last two years we have very mild hurricane seasons?

BTW tidal waves are not storms. ask the people in Galveston if they thought it was mild. Or the people in Haiti, or the people in Cuba or the other places which got hit hard Hurricanes happen every year, they happened before industrialization and sometimes they hit in bad places.

By all measures this was a light hurricane season.

And by all measures, Sarah DipseyDoodle is a lightweight even compared to Dan Quayle, she ranks lower than he does And she is the best the republicans have to offer Says something about republicans if she is the best.

Quote: Quote: Quote: I haven't seen enough evidence to say any climate change is man made or not.

I am not saying that it is or isn't, I am just saying there isn't enough proof to say that its a man made problem as weather patterns have changed during the history of the planet when there where not factories or cars etc. Well GOPGuy maybe one day we will find out that Einstein was not only wrong on a point or two, but basically full of it, despite what we think we know now.

But I wouldn't count on it, in fact, I would bet against it. Sure there are natural causes of climate change, no serious scientist would deny that.

There are influences on my health that I cannot do anything about, but that doesn't mean that there is no reason to avoid behavior such as snorting cocaine, smoking, eating a half pound cheeseburger everyday and drinking a fifth of whiskey at every meal. Arne I am not against do things per se to protect the environment I am not sold on global warming.

Besides hasn't global temp cooled recently?

If we are in admist of unbridled global warming how is the global temperature falling?

Facts such as these tend to make me doubt alot of the rhetoric to global warming. GOPGuy, if you have the flu and your temp goes from 103 to 102.5, do you go to work?

Do we know for sure that your temp might not edge up again?

Since your temp always fluctuates are you even "sold" that you have the flu when your temp is over 101 and you have a few aches and pains?

She says is there because McCain and Bush say its there -- its only since joining McCain that she has made such admissions...

Quote: Quote: Quote: I haven't seen enough evidence to say any climate change is man made or not.

I am not saying that it is or isn't, I am just saying there isn't enough proof to say that its a man made problem as weather patterns have changed during the history of the planet when there where not factories or cars etc. Well GOPGuy maybe one day we will find out that Einstein was not only wrong on a point or two, but basically full of it, despite what we think we know now.

But I wouldn't count on it, in fact, I would bet against it. Sure there are natural causes of climate change, no serious scientist would deny that.

There are influences on my health that I cannot do anything about, but that doesn't mean that there is no reason to avoid behavior such as snorting cocaine, smoking, eating a half pound cheeseburger everyday and drinking a fifth of whiskey at every meal. Arne I am not against do things per se to protect the environment I am not sold on global warming.

Besides hasn't global temp cooled recently?

If we are in admist of unbridled global warming how is the global temperature falling?

Facts such as these tend to make me doubt alot of the rhetoric to global warming. OK, we only have evidence going back about 100,000 years so the long cycles are unknown (although the most radical changes appear to be event driven instead of cyclical), but we do know the impact of certain gasses and our influence on their release.

Can we quantify our impact?

I think not. Can we be certain that we're having impact in a given direction?

Yes, those who deny this deny science.

Are we near a tipping point?

Actually we're near 3 tipping points, arctic ice loss (albedo), rising sea temperatures (killing coral which is a major factor in CO2 storage) and deforestation in rainforest areas.

Quote: She says is there because McCain and Bush say its there -- its only since joining McCain that she has made such admissions... She definitely has dialed back on some of her Right-Wing positions since joining the ticket.

Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: I haven't seen enough evidence to say any climate change is man made or not.

I am not saying that it is or isn't, I am just saying there isn't enough proof to say that its a man made problem as weather patterns have changed during the history of the planet when there where not factories or cars etc. Well GOPGuy maybe one day we will find out that Einstein was not only wrong on a point or two, but basically full of it, despite what we think we know now.

But I wouldn't count on it, in fact, I would bet against it. Sure there are natural causes of climate change, no serious scientist would deny that.

There are influences on my health that I cannot do anything about, but that doesn't mean that there is no reason to avoid behavior such as snorting cocaine, smoking, eating a half pound cheeseburger everyday and drinking a fifth of whiskey at every meal. Arne I am not against do things per se to protect the environment I am not sold on global warming.

Besides hasn't global temp cooled recently?

If we are in admist of unbridled global warming how is the global temperature falling?

Facts such as these tend to make me doubt alot of the rhetoric to global warming. GOPGuy, if you have the flu and your temp goes from 103 to 102.5, do you go to work?

Do we know for sure that your temp might not edge up again?

Since your temp always fluctuates are you even "sold" that you have the flu when your temp is over 101 and you have a few aches and pains? An excellent analogy... But to put it in perspective...the temperature rises to about 105 with 106 being death...and then drops to 104.7...the fact that the temperature has fluctuated upward and downward during the last 20 years -- but has remained inordinately high does little to suggest that there is a real cooling trend. We have the following on the one hand...opposed to reality... Believe global warming is not occurring or has ceased Surface temperatures measured by thermometers and lower atmospheric temperature trends inferred from satellitesTimothy F.

Ball, former Professor of Geography, University of Winnipeg: "[The world's climate] warmed from 1680 up to 1940, but since 1940 it's been cooling down.

The evidence for warming is because of distorted records.

The satellite data, for example, shows cooling." (November 2004)[5] "There's been warming, no question.

I've never debated that;

Never disputed that.

The dispute is, what is the cause.

And of course the argument that human CO2 being added to the atmosphere is the cause just simply doesn't hold up..." (May 18, 2006;

At 15:30 into recording of interview)[6] "The temperature hasn't gone up.

... But the mood of the world has changed: It has heated up to this belief in global warming." (August 2006)[7] "Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus.

... By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus.

It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling." (Feb.

5, 2007)[8] Robert M.

Carter, geologist, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia: "the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998 ...

There is every doubt whether any global warming at all is occurring at the moment, let alone human-caused warming."[9] Vincent R.

Gray, coal chemist, climate consultant, founder of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition: "The two main 'scientific' claims of the IPCC are the claim that 'the globe is warming' and 'Increases in carbon dioxide emissions are responsible'.

Evidence for both of these claims is fatally flawed."[10] Believe accuracy of IPCC climate projections is inadequate Individuals in this section conclude that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century.

They do not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling. David Bellamy, environmental campaigner, broadcaster and former botanist: a doubling of atmospheric CO2 "will amount to less than 1°C of global warming [and] such a scenario is unlikely to arise given our limited reserves of fossil fuels—certainly not before the end of this century."[11] Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute: "The blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate 'realistic' simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic.

From my background in turbulence I look forward with grim anticipation to the day that climate models will run with a horizontal resolution of less than a kilometer.

The horrible predictability problems of turbulent flows then will descend on climate science with a vengeance."[12] Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists : "models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view".[13] Believe global warming is primarily caused by natural processes Individuals in this section conclude that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovskaya Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences: "Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost throughout the last century - growth in its intensity...Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated...Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away."[14][15][16] Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air."[17] Reid Bryson, emeritus professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison: "It’s absurd.

Of course it’s going up.

It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air."[18] George V.

Chilingar, Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California: "The authors identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate: (1) solar radiation ..., (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial activities ...

. The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth’s climate [and] show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible."[19] Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: "That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere.

This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation - which has a cooling effect.

... We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change.

And interestingly...

Solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle."[20] David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester: "The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming.

The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming."[21] Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University: "global warming since 1900 could well have happened without any effect of CO2.

If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035"[22] William M.

Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University: "This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations.

Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood.

Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes.

We are not that influential."[23] "I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people."[24] "So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing—all these big labs and research and stuff.

The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more."[25] William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology: "There has been a real climate change over the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries that can be attributed to natural phenomena.

Natural variability of the climate system has been underestimated by IPCC and has, to now, dominated human influences."[26] George Kukla, retired Professor of Climatology at Columbia University and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, said in an interview: "What I think is this: Man is responsible for a PART of global warming.

MOST of it is still natural."[27] David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware: "About half of the warming during the 20th century occurred prior to the 1940s, and natural variability accounts for all or nearly all of the warming."[28] Marcel Leroux, former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean Moulin: "The possible causes, then, of climate change are: well-established orbital parameters on the palaeoclimatic scale, ...

Solar activity, ...;

Volcanism ...; and far at the rear, the greenhouse effect, and in particular that caused by water vapor, the extent of its influence being unknown.

These factors are working together all the time, and it seems difficult to unravel the relative importance of their respective influences upon climatic evolution.

Equally, it is tendentious to highlight the anthropic factor, which is, clearly, the least credible among all those previously mentioned."[29] Tad Murty, oceanographer;

Adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: global warming "is the biggest scientific hoax being perpetrated on humanity.

There is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities.

The atmosphere hasn’t changed much in 280 million years, and there have always been cycles of warming and cooling.

The Cretaceous period was the warmest on earth.

You could have grown tomatoes at the North Pole"[30] Tim Patterson[31], paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada: "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame.

In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years.

On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"[32][33] Ian Plimer, Professor emeritus of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide: "We only have to have one volcano burping and we have changed the whole planetary climate...

It looks as if carbon dioxide actually follows climate change rather than drives it".[34] Tom Segalstad, head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo: "It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere.

It is all a fiction".[35][36] Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: "[T]he truth is probably somewhere in between [the common view and that of skeptics], with natural causes probably being more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more dominant over the next century.

... [A]bout 2/3's (give or take a third or so) of the warming [over the past century] should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes." His opinion is based on some proxies of solar activity over the past few centuries.[37] Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia: "The greenhouse effect is real.

However, the effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect."[38][39] “It’s not automatically true that warming is bad, I happen to believe that warming is good, and so do many economists.”[40] Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]here's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations.

The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming.

In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed."[41] Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville: "I predict that in the coming years, there will be a growing realization among the global warming research community that most of the climate change we have observed is natural, and that mankind’s role is relatively minor"[42] Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London: "...the myth is starting to implode.

... Serious new research at The Max Planck Society has indicated that the sun is a far more significant factor..."[43] Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center: "Our team ...

Has discovered that the relatively few cosmic rays that reach sea-level play a big part in the everyday weather.

They help to make low-level clouds, which largely regulate the Earth’s surface temperature.

During the 20th Century the influx of cosmic rays decreased and the resulting reduction of cloudiness allowed the world to warm up.

... most of the warming during the 20th Century can be explained by a reduction in low cloud cover."[44] Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa: "At this stage, two scenarios of potential human impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model ..., and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as the principal climate driver.

... Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory.

If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but time will be the final judge."[45] Believe cause of global warming is unknown Scientists in this section conclude it is too early to ascribe any principal cause to the observed rising temperatures, man-made or natural. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and Founding Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks: "[T]he method of study adopted by the International Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) is fundamentally flawed, resulting in a baseless conclusion: Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.

Contrary to this statement ..., there is so far no definitive evidence that 'most' of the present warming is due to the greenhouse effect.

... [The IPCC] should have recognized that the range of observed natural changes should not be ignored, and thus their conclusion should be very tentative.

The term 'most' in their conclusion is baseless."[46] Claude Allègre, geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris): "The increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere is an observed fact and mankind is most certainly responsible.

In the long term, this increase will without doubt become harmful, but its exact role in the climate is less clear.

Various parameters appear more important than CO2.

Consider the water cycle and formation of various types of clouds, and the complex effects of industrial or agricultural dust.

Or fluctuations of the intensity of the solar radiation on annual and century scale, which seem better correlated with heating effects than the variations of CO2 content."[47] Robert C.

Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University: "[I]t is very likely that the recent upward trend [in global surface temperature] is very real and that the upward signal is greater than any noise introduced from uncertainties in the record.

However, the general error is most likely to be in the warming direction, with a maximum possible (though unlikely) value of 0.3 °C.

... At this moment in time we know only that: (1) Global surface temperatures have risen in recent decades.

(2) Mid-tropospheric temperatures have warmed little over the same period.

(3) This difference is not consistent with predictions from numerical climate models."[48] John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports: "I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see.

Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never "proof") and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time."[49] Petr Chylek, Space and Remote Sensing Sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory: "carbon dioxide should not be considered as a dominant force behind the current warming...how much of the [temperature] increase can be ascribed to CO2, to changes in solar activity, or to the natural variability of climate is uncertain"[50] William R.

Cotton, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University said in a presentation, "It is an open question if human produced changes in climate are large enough to be detected from the noise of the natural variability of the climate system."[51] Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland: "There is evidence of global warming.

... But warming does not confirm that carbon dioxide is causing it.

Climate is always warming or cooling.

There are natural variability theories of warming.

To support the argument that carbon dioxide is causing it, the evidence would have to distinguish between human-caused and natural warming.

This has not been done."[52] David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma: "The amount of climatic warming that has taken place in the past 150 years is poorly constrained, and its cause – human or natural – is unknown.

There is no sound scientific basis for predicting future climate change with any degree of certainty.

If the climate does warm, it is likely to be beneficial to humanity rather than harmful.

In my opinion, it would be foolish to establish national energy policy on the basis of misinformation and irrational hysteria."[53] Richard Lindzen, Alfred P.

Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences: "We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 °C higher than it was a century ago;

(2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries;

And (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds).

But – and I cannot stress this enough – we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future."[54] "[T]here has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas – albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming.

Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed."[55] Jennifer Marohasy, biologist, director of the Environment Unit of the Institute of Public Affairs: "It's ambiguous.

It's not clear that climate change is being driven by carbon dioxide levels...whether or not we can reduce carbon dioxide levels, there will be climate change."[56] Believe global warming will benefit human society Scientists in this section conclude that projected rising temperatures and/or increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide will be of little impact or a net positive for human society. Craig D.

Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University;

Founder of The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change: "the rising CO2 content of the air should boost global plant productivity dramatically, enabling humanity to increase food, fiber and timber production and thereby continue to feed, clothe, and provide shelter for their still-increasing numbers ...

This atmospheric CO2-derived blessing is as sure as death and taxes."[57] Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University: "[W]arming has been shown to positively impact human health, while atmospheric CO2 enrichment has been shown to enhance the health-promoting properties of the food we eat, as well as stimulate the production of more of it.

... [W]e have nothing to fear from increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and global warming."[58] Patrick Michaels, part-time research professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia: "scientists know quite precisely how much the planet will warm in the foreseeable future, a modest three-quarters of a degree (Celsius), plus or minus a mere quarter-degree ...

A modest warming is a likely benefit."[59] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scien..._global_warming And then we have the reality based community... Scientific opinion on climate change http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_op..._climate_change From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search National and international science academies and professional societies have assessed the current scientific opinion on climate change, in particular recent global warming.

These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the IPCC position that "An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system...

There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."[1] This article documents scientific opinion as given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists.

It does not document the views of individual scientists, individual universities or laboratories, nor self-selected lists of individuals such as petitions. Statements by concurring organizations 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. 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.[16] 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.[16] 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."[17] 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."[18] 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." [19] 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.” [20] 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.[21] 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.” [22] 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.”[23] 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."[24] 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."[25] 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.” [26] 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.” [27] 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."[28] 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.” [29] 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.”[30] We know that human activity has resulted in changes to atmospheric chemistry and land cover, and caused serious decline in biodiversity.[31] 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.” [32] 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.”[33] 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."[34] American Geophysical Union The American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement [35] 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:[36] 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:[37] 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."[38] 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.[39] 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."[40] 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.[41] 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.[42] 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.[43] 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.[44] 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."[45] 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.[46] 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."[47] 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.[46] Scientific consensus A question which frequently arises in popular discussion of climate change is whether there is a scientific consensus.

Several scientific organizations have explicitly used the term "consensus" in their statements: American Association for the Advancement of Science: "The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Joint National Academies' statement."[18] US National Academy of Science: "In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth’s warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

... On climate change, [the National Academies’ reports] have assessed consensus findings on the science..."[48] Joint Science Academies' statement, 2005: "We recognise the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."[49] Joint Science Academies' statement, 2001: "The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science.

We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus."[50] American Meteorological Society: "The nature of science is such that there is rarely total agreement among scientists.

Individual scientific statements and papers—the validity of some of which has yet to be assessed adequately—can be exploited in the policy debate and can leave the impression that the scientific community is sharply divided on issues where there is, in reality, a strong scientific consensus.

...IPCC assessment reports are prepared at approximately five-year intervals by a large international group of experts who represent the broad range of expertise and perspectives relevant to the issues.

The reports strive to reflect a consensus evaluation of the results of the full body of peer-reviewed research.

... They provide an analysis of what is known and not known, the degree of consensus, and some indication of the degree of confidence that can be placed on the various statements and conclusions."[51] Network of African Science Academies: “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.” [15] Surveys of scientists and scientific literature Various surveys have been conducted to determine a scientific consensus on global warming.

Few have been conducted within the last ten years. Oreskes, 2004 A 2004 article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[52] The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, listed with the keywords "global climate change".

Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position.

75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories, thus either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view;

25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change;

None of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable".

According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural.

However, none of these papers argued that point." Bray and von Storch, 2003 A survey was conducted in 2003 by Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch[53][54] Bray's submission to Science on December 22, 2004 was rejected, but the survey's results were reported through non-scientific venues.[55][56] The survey received 530 responses from 27 different countries.

One of the questions asked was "To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes?", with a value of 1 indicating strongly agree and a value of 7 indicating strongly disagree.

The results showed a mean of 3.62, with 50 responses (9.4%) indicating "strongly agree" and 54 responses (9.7%) indicating "strongly disagree".

The same survey indicates a 72% to 20% endorsement of the IPCC reports as accurate, and a 15% to 80% rejection of the thesis that "there is enough uncertainty about the phenomenon of global warming that there is no need for immediate policy decisions." The survey has been criticized on the grounds that it was performed on the web with no means to verify that the respondents were climate scientists or to prevent multiple submissions.

The survey required entry of a username and password, but the username and password were circulated to a climate skeptics mailing list and elsewhere on the internet.[57][58] Bray and von Storch defended their results[59] and accused climate change skeptics of interpreting the results with bias. Bray and von Storch distributed an updated version of their survey in August 2008, sent to 1842 selected scientists drawn from authors in ISI listed climate related journals for the past 10 years, as well as lists used in previously published analyses.

This survey contains a web link with a unique identifier for each respondent.

Results of this survey are not yet available.

BUt GOP Guy -- Even suppose that the jury is out on global warming being caused by man made greenhouse gas emissions... There is still a significant national security and economic impetus...for us acting to stop using fossil fuels... Listen to T.

Boone Pickens...if you don't believe in global warming -- he stresses that we have to eliminate our dependency on foreign oil -- well you do not eliminate a dependence on an energy source by doing more drilling for that same energy source...it just does not work... What you do is you develop alternative energy sources...more robustly... Otherwise - our enemies -- Russia last year surpassed Saudi Arabia as the largest exporter of oil worldwide...they also have huge natural gas reserves...and control Europe... -- Iran has oil and funds Hamas and Hezbollah with its oil revenues... -- Venezuela likewise with Hugo Chavez is not a friend... -- And Saudi Arabian oil money still likely goes to funding terrorists... Just get stronger...and just hold more sway over us economically -- and guess what -- Saudi Arabia we may be able to go after militarily -- but not Russia and not Iran --who has as its closest allies China and Russia -- and next closest -- India...which is why the nuclear deal with India is so stupid because when it comes down to it -- India will sever its ties with the US and become allied with Iran when its energy stakes are on the line...and it needs more oil... So there is an imperative for us to act...since we only have 3% of the world's oil -- and at most by 2030 with the price of oil likely to skyrocket as India and China have economies which continue to grow --- to probably over $200 a barrel --- we need to do something now... The expansion of drilling is dumb when oil companies do not use the leases they have now -- its just stupid to give them more leases -- it will do nothing to bring the price down when it would take until 2030 for them to increase production by 7% -- which would be the increase necessary to have any impact in lowering the price of oil...by this time it will be too late --- to have any appreciable impact... BUt you stay in your state of denial if you like...

Discussion Title:
Title Keywords: Common  Ground  Common  Sense 



Omgili Home About FAQ Plugins Usenet