I along with other scientist, many other scientist, believe that global warming has reached serious proportions.
Global Warming - Fact or Myth?
%26quot;This consensus is represented in the IPCC Third Assessment Report, 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 document in history. While this review was sponsored by the UN, the research it compiled and reviewed was not, and the scientists involved were independent and came from all over the world.%26quot;
%26quot;The conclusions reached in this document have been explicitly endorsed by ...%26quot;
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
%26quot;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 report:
NASA%26#039;s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
If this is not scientific consensus, what in the world would a consensus look like?%26quot;
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/0... The Cold Truth about Global Warming by Joseph Romm
%26quot;The big difference I have with the doubters is they believe the IPCC reports seriously overstate the impact of human emissions on the climate, whereas the actual observed climate data clearly show the reports dramatically understate the impact.%26quot;
%26quot;One of the most serious results of the overuse of the term %26quot;consensus%26quot; in the public discussion of global warming is that it creates a simple strategy for doubters to confuse the public, the press and politicians: Simply come up with as long a list as you can of scientists who dispute the theory. After all, such disagreement is prima facie proof that no consensus of opinion exists.%26quot;
%26quot;So we end up with the absurd but pointless spectacle of the leading denier in the U.S. Senate, James Inhofe, R-Okla., who recently put out a list of more than 400 names of supposedly %26quot;prominent scientists%26quot; who supposedly %26quot;recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called %26#039;consensus%26#039; on man-made global warming.%26quot;
%26quot;As it turned out, the list is both padded and laughable, containing the opinions of TV weathermen, economists, a bunch of non-prominent scientists who aren%26#039;t climate experts, and, perhaps surprisingly, even a number of people who actually believe in the consensus.%26quot;
%26quot;But in any case, nothing could be more irrelevant to climate science than the opinion of people on the list such as Weather Channel founder John Coleman or famed inventor Ray Kurzweil (who actually does %26quot;think global warming is real%26quot;). Or, for that matter, my opinion -- even though I researched a Ph.D. thesis at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography on physical oceanography in the Greenland Sea.%26quot;
%26quot;What matters is scientific findings -- data, not opinions. The IPCC relies on the peer-reviewed scientific literature for its conclusions, which must meet the rigorous requirements of the scientific method and which are inevitably scrutinized by others seeking to disprove that work. That is why I cite and link to as much research as is possible, hundreds of studies in the case of this article. Opinions are irrelevant.%26quot;
Yes alias_JE, be sure you check your facts.
Dawn
Carbon monoxide is deadly poisonous.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. different issue.
And if you go to the websites I%26#039;ve listed you will see that there is no political prostitution. That is an idea fed to you by right wing think tanks and propaganda machines. And yes the oil companies through the Heartland Institute, The Heritage Foundation and many more. That is where you will find political prostitution. The Heartland Institute is paying people to write papers or make speaches against AGW. $1000 a speach and $10,000 a paper.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfact...
Destrech,
Where did you get the information that the earth hasn%26#039;t warmed in nine years? That is totally misleading. Where are your so called facts?
It%26#039;s misleading because they use the strongest El Nino year of the century in 1998, which was very warm, as the starting point. The warmth was due to the el nino effect, that year.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11...
%26quot;According to NASA, it was elevated far above the trend line because 1998 was the year of the strongest El Nino of the century. Choosing that year as a starting point is a classic cherry pick and demonstrates why it is necessary to remove chaotic year-to year-variability (aka: weather) by smoothing out the data.%26quot;
%26quot;But any scientist in pretty much any field knows that you cannot extract meaningful information about trends in noisy data from single-year end points. It%26#039;s hard to hear a scientist make this argument and still believe they speak with integrity in this debate -- seems more like an abuse of the trust placed in them as scientists.%26quot;
Polar ice caps are thicker? I beg to differ.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11...
%26quot;This is simply not true, rumors on %26quot;the internets%26quot; aside. The National Snow and Ice Data Centre and their State of the Cryosphere division, on their Glacial Balance page, report an overall accelerating rate of glacial mass loss. The World Glacier Monitoring Service has similar findings, the most recent data coming from 2004.
%26quot;While there surely are some growing glaciers, studies like these are designed to determine a global trend by ensuring glaciers from all regions of the globe are assessed. There are 67,000 glaciers in the World Glacier Inventory. Not all, or even most, have quality data for many decades, but there are enough with adequate data, located in enough regions of the globe, to know the average trend.%26quot;
Destrech
A lot of scientists believe it is crap? Read the following.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11...
Al Gore was tried in England for lies in his movie?
It was thrown out. The judge found a few discrepencies but said that overall it was true.
Global warming is hoax? Not at all.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11...
And I love your brilliant statement that CO2 is not a bad gas because plants breathe it. What has that to do with it being a greenhouse gas?
El Fagguito The amount of CO2 we are pumping into the atmosphere is not small. CO2 is up 35% in the blink of an eye timespan of 100-150 years.
Thats 35% above the average over at least 400,000 years and probably longer. It coincides perfectly with the advent of the industrial age.
And the atmosphere is paper thin compared to the size of the globe.
The idea that we can%26#039;t effect the planet is absurd. We are already threatening grave harm to every ecosystem on earth, not including the effects of global warming. We managed to make a hole in the ozone, cause acid rain, endanger the life of the sea, pollute the air, water and ourselves.
National Geographic tested one man for 260 chemicals and found 165 of them in his body. They found 18 out of 26 pesitcides which they tested for. He had dangerous levels of mercury, PCPs and the chemicals used in flame retardants and plastic softeners. He had never worked in any related industries, just an average American.
The fish in the sea are full of mercury, sellenium and other toxins. . ....
I think we have a problem.
%26quot;According to a 1998 survey of 400 biologists conducted by New York%26#039;s American Museum of Natural History, nearly 70 percent believed that they were currently in the early stages of a human-caused mass extinction, known as the Holocene extinction event. In that survey, the same proportion of respondents agreed with the prediction that up to 20 percent of all living populations could become extinct within 30 years (by 2028). Biologist E. O. Wilson estimated in 2002 that if current rates of human destruction of the biosphere continue, one-half of all species of life on earth will be extinct in 100 years. More significantly the rate of species extinctions at present is estimated at 100 to 1000 times %26quot;background%26quot; or average extinction rates in the evolutionary time scale of planet Earth; moreover, this current rate of extinction is thus 10 to 100 times greater than any of the prior mass extinction events in the history of the Earth.%26quot;