The Consensus on Climate Change: From Science to Industry
Skeptics like Richard Lindzen try to say “There’s no consensus on global warming.” in the Wall Street Journal, in front of Congress, and many other places. Other researchers like Dean Dr. Mark H. Thiemens say this “has nothing to do with reality”.1,2,3 The following is a list of quotes from scientific organizations, academies, scientists, industry spokesmen, etc supporting the existence of climate change and the need to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Many of these quotes reference the IPCC or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which is widely regarded by mainstream scientists as either the “most reliable” or one of the most reliable sources for accurate information on climate change. As you will notice, the evidence against the “consensus skeptics” like Lindzen is overwhelming. If you are confused as to whose opinion matters, just pay attention to the peer review science journals and the National Academy of Sciences. For those that don’t know, the National Academies are like the Supreme Court of science. The number of climate scientists in the US can be found by looking at how many members of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) there are. As of November 10, 2006 we know that there is a minimum (no official count of foreign climatologists is available) of 20,000 working climatologists worldwide. Keep this in mind the next time you see a handfull of climate scientists with dissenting opinions. Also keep in mind that Exxon Mobil is funding a $10,000 bounty](http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/01/oil-lobby-payments/) for climate denialists and skeptics.
…
*Click the link to see the consensus that climate change is indeed real and then compare this list to those that say it’s not happening and it’s easy to see who has more expertise, more members, and more credibility. *
*WTH are you on about? I didn't say that it becomes real because I did a presentation on it. Whilst preparing for the presentation I had to research - sound familiar? *
*I was just expressing my viewpoints based on my research. *
BTW, are you really an ASS or do you just enjoy acting like one on GS?
Thanks for sharing UTD and congrats inzi_rocks on your research and presentation. Those who don't do research can only offer insults and generalizations. They have little actual knowledge and only speak based on the myopic and biased viewpoints of their conservative blow hard pundits.
Well, my concern is a bit of proportionality and common sense.
First, so long as the number of human being is climbing, the possibility for climate change exists. So eventually are we going to mandate a "one child" policy like China? And even with a policy such as this, China is the the leading accelerator of green house gases. Not per capita, but in total.
And what is the worst possible outcome of global warming? People could die? There are 170,000 deaths in the US alone from lung cancer per year. Globally it is millions. wouldn't banning smoking immediately save more lives than might be harmed in 20 years by global warming? And, we would cut down down some green house gases too. I find it hilarious that every single Democratic candidate flies into the debate on separate private jets sucking thousands of gallons of fuel per hour, and then we discuss global warming. Al Gores house uses more electricity than five average sized houses.
So those people who running about seemingly most concerned about Global warming have not changed their life styles. Color me skeptical, not about the sincerity, but about the level of real commitment. The whole debate has taken on the air of a quasi-scientific witch hunt, where at some levels scientific debate is squelched. I remember 30 years ago telling my father why we should recycle. He was game for it, but he expressed doubt that it was really economically feasible. I fervently told my father that every plastic milk jug would eventually be turned into insulation or some miracle fibre, and recycling of glass, aluminum, paper and plastic would be a profitable solution. Last week I got my annual newsletter from the local authorities, and the the recycling program for metro Orlando is losing millions. 30 years ago recycling was going to save the world, now we are all monitoring our "carbon footprint". Now that my dad is gone, I guess it is my turn to be the sceptic....
OG, even if one is in favor of depopulating this crowded planet through disasters and disease, it is not economically feasible to continue policies that we know will cost us more in the long run.
I don't think anyone is in favor of government mandated policies as draconian as a one child policy, but there are things we could do now that would slow down, or allow us to plan, for the huge population shifts that will come about because of a lack of water or too much water.
Companies can make money now in alternative resources if they were incentivized. It doesn't have to be an economy killer.
To me the most important issue in all this is to get America OFF the dependency of foriegn oil. That would solve so many international problems that the other side effects of burning oil could be considered secondary for the global warming sceptics.
Actually when you think about it, some of what is going on will help.
For example, Ethanol burns cleaner. Of course prices of corn have gone up substantially, but corn is lousy for Ethanol anyway. Better is sugar cane and cellulostic plants. Sugar Cane needs a great deal of fertilizer, and that can pollute, but cellulostic plants can actually grow in rather harsh and otherwise marginal farm land. So you could do two things. First, cut back on farm subsidies for keeping farm land idle. Second, create incentives for putting every acre of farmland back to work. (Incidentally, plants consume Co2, and produce oxygen, so the planet is somewhat self healing and self balancing.) Right now, there are tariffs in place to help the Ethanol industry grow. But you could do more. Take the funds fom those tariffs and subsidize advanced methodologies plants. Fund the farmers equipment conversions from corn based growing to sugar cane. (The two require different planting and harvesting equipment.) Next mandate that all cars be made with fuel sensors so that all vehicles can use ethanol. Next create tax and incentive programs so that gasoline retailers are encouraged to add Ethanol tanks and pumps to their service stations.
All of those sorts of things are quite easy and quite cheap to do. Most are underway to some degree or another today. Frankly I believe that Ethanol 85 is a very viable alternative, and we are at a point where we could press for much faster adoption. I am in favor of all of this more for Geo-political reasons, but the byproduct of slowed emissions is good too.
Thanks for sharing UTD and congrats inzi_rocks on your research and presentation. Those who don't do research can only offer insults and generalizations. They have little actual knowledge and only speak based on the myopic and biased viewpoints of their conservative blow hard pundits.
Seminole and Inzi, there is only one constant in Climate and it is Change your pin heads. Of course it is changing, it always does. The question is how much are we as humans are contributing to it and if indeed situation is as dire as the doom and gloom false prophet Stiffy the Gore predicts.
Now Inzi, do you care to share your esteemed research that you did for your community college? I am sure you cross checked all of your references and made sure that all data presented in your research was accurate… correct.
Kiddo, I will let you off the hook this time, however, next time you try a personal insult, you will not go unpunished.
PS: Seminole, please share all the reseacrh Stiffy did on this topic.
BTW: Here is another scientists testimony to the senate…I bet you libs did not hear about this ..did you? It is old (2000), but the facts remain the same
Your links aren't working for me Kaleem. But testimony from one scientist 7 years ago doesn't negate the fact that the leading climate experts around the globe unanimously link the increase of average global temperatures to the increase of manmade greenhouse gases.
C'mon dude. Even Bush now admits to global warming and our ability to affect it. You know when Bush changes positions before you do that you are in the ignorant minority.
Maybe I need to reboot, I assure you I have the full Adobe program, not the Reader. But I'm not going to reboot unless I know what I'm going to read isn't the opinion of one scientist 7 years ago or an OPEC-paid pundit citing energy company talking points w/no relevant facts. The 'sources' you have posted so far as as suspect and looney as your ignorant position on global warming.
Some scientists who question whether human-caused global warming poses a threat have long pointed to records that showed the atmosphere’s lowest layer, the troposphere, had not warmed over the last two decades and had cooled in the tropics.
Now two independent studies have found errors in the complicated calculations used to generate the old temperature records, which involved stitching together data from thousands of weather balloons lofted around the world and a series of short-lived weather satellites.
A third study shows that when the errors are taken into account, the troposphere actually got warmer. Moreover, that warming trend largely agrees with the warmer surface temperatures that have been recorded and conforms to predictions in recent computer models.
The three papers were published yesterday in the online edition of the journal Science.
The scientists who developed the original troposphere temperature records from satellite data, John R. Christy and Roy W. Spencer of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, conceded yesterday that they had made a mistake but said that their revised calculations still produced a warming rate too small to be a concern.
“Our view hasn’t changed,” Dr. Christy said. “We still have this modest warming.”
Other climate experts, however, said that the new studies were very significant, effectively resolving a puzzle that had been used by opponents of curbs on heat-trapping greenhouse gases.
“These papers should lay to rest once and for all the claims by John Christy and other global warming skeptics that a disagreement between tropospheric and surface temperature trends means that there are problems with surface temperature records or with climate models,” said Alan Robock, a meteorologist at Rutgers University.
buri baat… dont be mean to unkil… eventhough he wz just sharing his thought and plus he is one experienced unkil on gs!
