"Arthur Smiley" <ciceroii@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:MPG.21d4bcf5fe88d40b98986b@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<misledrkstar@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > For every scientist you can find who doesn't believe in global
> > warming, we can find at least 20 who do.
>
> and your cite for that bull**** tidbit? o thats right you have no
> cite because you are a leftard that cant sup****t anything with facts/
> data.
>
>
Listen to the uneducated right wing stooge babble like a child. Nothing
but
another bleating conservative repeating the garbage he's been fed by the
right
wing noise machine.
No one in the climate science community is debating whether or not changes
in
atmospheric CO2 concentrations alter the greenhouse effect, or if the
current
warming trend is outside of the range of natural variability, or if sea
levels
have risen over the last century.
This is where there is a consensus.
Specifically, the "consensus" about anthropogenic climate change entails
the
following:
a.. the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the
range
of
natural variability;
b.. the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of
the
greenhouse gas CO2;
c.. the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels;
d.. if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will
continue;
and
e.. a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame
represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.
While theories and viewpoints in conflict with the above do exist, their
proponents constitute a very small minority. If we require unanimity
before
being confident, well, we can't be sure the earth isn't hollow either.
This consensus is represented in the IPCC Third *****sment Re****t, Working
Group
1 (TAR WG1), the most comprehensive compilation and summary of current
climate
research ever attempted, and arguably the most thoroughly peer reviewed
scientific do***ent in history. While this review was sponsored by the UN
That's where the prolem lies.
If it's sponsored by the UN, it can't be valid.
, the
research it compiled and reviewed was not, and the scientists involved
were
independent and came from all over the world.
The conclusions reached in this do***ent have been explicitly endorsed by
....
a.. Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
b.. Royal Society of Canada
c.. Chinese Academy of Sciences
d.. Academié des Sciences (France)
e.. Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
f.. Indian National Science Academy
g.. Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
h.. Science Council of Japan
i.. Russian Academy of Sciences
j.. Royal Society (United Kingdom)
k.. National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
l.. Australian Academy of Sciences
m.. Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
n.. Caribbean Academy of Sciences
o.. Indonesian Academy of Sciences
p.. Royal Irish Academy
q.. Academy of Sciences Malaysia
r.. Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
s.. Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
.... in either one or both of these do***ents: PDF, PDF.
In addition to these national academies, the following institutions
specializing
in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed or
published
the same conclusions as presented in the TAR re****t:
a.. NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
b.. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
c.. National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
d.. State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
e.. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
f.. Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
g.. American Geophysical Union (AGU)
h.. American Institute of Physics (AIP)
i.. National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
j.. American Meteorological Society (AMS)
k.. Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
If this is not scientific consensus, what in the world would a consensus
look
like?
http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
|
