Global Warming Test

[wetmule]

http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/realityzone...warmingtest.htm

 

I know my facts

[mr.smith]

What a joke. Scientists don't refute things with; "The Facts". Clearly a politically biased site citing old papers and telling half truths.This global warming test was created in 1990. Unfortunately I don't belive that one could find a truly objective source for info on Global Warming. There is some truth to both sides of the argument. It is a natural cyclic occurence, human activities since the industrial revolution have contributed to its acceleration but, did not cause it, it is certainly not as bad as Al Gore lets on. However the polar bears really are screwed.

 

I find it really amusing that the same people who will claim to know the consensus of scientist are also quite adamantly anti-evolution. It seems science is only good when it meets your agenda.

[DesertBull]

I will believe in man caused global warming long before I ever believe in evolution.

 

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/bigscienceacademy.php

[.270]

one thing about the evolution/creationism arguement, i don't think they can tax it. i think things evolve, but i don't know about the darwin theory. it would be cool to have a tail tho. Lark.

[bobbyo]

Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements.For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "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" [p. 3 in (5)].

 

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

 

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

 

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

There is a consensus. references to above footnotes are at:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

All references are from peer reviewed publications not blogs or political organizations. These are facts on scientific consensus.

Bob

[.270]

conscensus if what the sciencetists who are have the contrary view, say is wrong with this stuff. scientific proof, not theory or conscensus is what good science is based on. just because folks agree, don't make it so. it has to be proven, and so far there is too much contrary evidence, established by competent science, for any concrete conclusions to be drawn. you can go about anywhere and get conscensus on something. it doesn't make it true. Lark.