Take the Taxpayer funding out of so-called 'global warming' research and (in my opinion) the whole 'global warming' cause goes away.
It would be nice to see the individual 'vote/survey' results for each 'scientist' while having them disclose how much funding they receive from Taxpayers for their climate 'research'.
Global warming is a recently evolved, insidious anthropogenic disaster. It is the documented historical warming of Earth's near-surface temperature. Global warming came into existence in mid 20th century and has been progressing at an unprecedented rate ever since. Global warming is sometimes used synonymously with the term "climate change". However a basic difference exists between the two. Climate change is identified state of change of climate which persists for a decade or longer, whereas Global warming is the combined effect of man made green house gases and change in solar irradiance. Global warming has emerged as a humongous problem facing the fast and ever growing world.
Speech about Causes of Global Warming and Mechanism
As mentioned earlier, it is a combined effect. Over the years of development of new and improved products for living, their has been a neglected, unwanted rise in gases that are causing gradual destruction of the protective blanket around our globe i.e. the Ozone layer. Global warming is an uncalled for event following employment of harmful greenhouse gases such as Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Nitrous Oxide (N2O), , Methane (CH4), and aerosols such as Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC), Hydrocarbons (CHC), etc.
These gases form O. free radicals which combine with Ozone and convert it to O2 and other non-protective gases. Thus solar energy which was impermeable to the Earth's atmosphere due to the unyielding Ozone layer is clear of all the obstacles.
Speech about Effects and Control of Global Warming
According to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the decade of the 2000s (2000–2009) is the warmest on record. The global mean surface temperature for 2009 is currently estimated at 0.44°C/0.79°F above the 1961-1990 annual average of 14.00°C/57.20°F. Global warming is a potential health hazard.
There are a lot of things that "census" doesn't say. It doesn't say who they included in the census and who they didn't. It doesn't say what the question was. Polls are easily manipulated along with their results.
If you ask people whose livelihood depends on something being real, I think that would skew the results. There should be a way to screen out those scientists who get funding for AGW research but of course that would probably eliminate 98% of them. It is true there is a distinction between a consensus of scientists who think humans have or will cause catastrophic warming and those who believe that humans have played a role in the warming over the last 100 years but alarmists want to blur that distinction because they are pushing a cause and that cause has nothing to do with science or facts..
Hey Bacheus.
How come crop yields are going up
How come many marine species are doing better crustaceans like shrimp, crabs and lobsters, and phyto-plankton like cocclithophores who need Co2 to combine with calcium to make their shells,
At the current rate of sea rise it will be 6inches at the end of the century (big deal)
April was the 9th highest snowfall in 47 years
In the U.S., scientific consensus is expressed by the National Academy of Science
* For each degree of warming, yields of corn in the United States and Africa, and wheat in India, drop by 5-15%
* If 5°C (9°F ) of global warming were to be reached, most regions of the world would experience yield losses, and global grain prices would potentially double.
* Changing ocean chemistry can result in other impacts—warmer waters could lead to a decline in subsurface oxygen, boosting the risk of “dead zones,” where species high on the food chain are largely absent because of a lack of oxygen
* Ocean acidification, brought on as the oceans take in more of the excess CO2 will threaten many species over time, especially mollusks and coral reefs.
* If average sea level rises by 0.5 meters (20 inches) relative to a 1990 baseline, coastal flooding could affect 5 million to 200 million people worldwide. Up to 4 million people could be permanently displaced, and erosion could claim more than 250,000 square kilometers of wetland and dry land 98,000 square miles, an area the size of Oregon). Relocations are already occurring in towns along the coast of Alaska, where reductions in sea ice and melting permafrost allow waves to batter and erode the shoreline.
* According to one sensitivity analysis, each 1°C (1.8°F) of local warming may lead to an average 20% reduction in local snowpack in the western United States.
http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoi...
In Canada, scientific consensus is expressed by the Royal Society of Canada which joined with the NAS and other science academies in joint statements ...
"The need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable. For example, limiting global warming to 2°C would require a very rapid worldwide implementation of all currently available low carbon technologies"
http://www.nationalacademies.org/include...
The scientific consensus is indisputable. National science academies are established specifically to educate their own countries of what has been scientifically established and what is still uncertain. These are the associations of top scientists in each country. There is no need to argue about what is consensus, we can ask the academies -- that's what they are there for. In this case, the whole world has gone beyond "consensus" to state that the need to ask is "indisputable".
Go ahead and join JimZ in his statement that all great scientists are "idiots and imbeciles" as he's previously stated. Go ahead and claim that physics is a Marxist conspiracy as you whack-jobs like to claim. But the world's scientific community has spoken and whether or not all scientists in the world are evil they are clear, and rather than "consensus" the word they choose is "indisputable".
The consensus and how it developed is explained in Spence Weart's solid history of the science. I have provided the links a few times before. His book was written over a decade ago (the basic consensus is more than two decades old).
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timel...
http://www.amazon.com/Discovery-Global-W...
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...
http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/...
Margaret Thatcher recognized and reflected the consensus:
Actually, I'll answer that question as best I can with a quote from NASA:
"Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities" http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
I think people recognize that figure and where it came from. However, it doesn't say anything about future global temperatures. It doesn't say anything about the amount of human activity versus natural variation. It doesn't say which of man's activities are causing warming and in what proportion. It doesn't say anything about the negative or positive effects of warming.
So what I really mean to ask is: How does that statement translate to "CO2 emissions must be reduced to prevent dangerous global warming"?
