The facts are that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that without greenhouse gasses the earth average temperature would be 33C colder (a giant snowball) and that we have added 40% more CO2 to the atmosphere. There is not one person who denies these facts. Skepticalscience dot com keeps a list of the more common denier claims and debunks each and every one of them.
Quotes by Sagebrush (a self proclaimed Christian and ardent AGW denier) :
"Execute all those who voted for OBAMA"
"Hire the handicapped, they are fun to watch!"
"The overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas), are responsible for most of the climate change currently being observed."
-- The National Academy of Science, our association of greatest scientists,
http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoi...
The major science academies of the world, speaking together for all scientists in the world have called the human contribution "indisputable".
http://www.nationalacademies.org/include...
The leaked version of the IPCC report due out later this year indicates it will conclude it is almost certain. In 2007 they concluded it was at least 90% certain.
Those who claim there is not a consensus are just making that up. They have no basis for such a silly claim.
The National Academy of Science is the most credible science academy on earth.
The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels.This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.
National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states:
An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[5]
The main conclusions of the IPCC on global warming were the following:
The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years.[6]
"There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.
If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100. Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise. On balance the impacts of global warming will be significantly negative, especially for larger values of warming.
No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position. Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.
Flossie OMG you DA deniers are the only ones who are concerned with models. The proof of the 10 global warmest years in 132 years are real time temperature records from over 1300 weather stations throughout the world as well as satellite readings. in fact the correlation made between global temps and increase in CO2 are real time readings.
There is a 99% consensus that there is global warming among scientists. 97% of climatologists agree that the current acceleration of global warming is human emissions of greenhouse gases and the majority of the world's climate organizations are in agreement. The deniers are a bunch of lame non science people who prefer to be led around by their noses instead of examining the evidence of real climate scientists and then thinking for themselves.
Here is the latest report on the scientific consensus:
There are various 'scientific views on this subject. What is generally accepted is that there has been some climatic change, with recent warming trends. What is in dispute is 1. By how much? 2. Is the trend continuing or slowing? 3. What the effects will be on a world-wide basis, and more localized basis? 4. Is it man-made? 5. Is it a natural cycle? For each possibility, 'experts' can produce 'evidence' to prove their case. What is also not in dispute, is that it has been a billion dollar money spinner for supporters of man-made global warming, both for private proponents and for governments. Ultimately, only time will give us the more realistic answer.
There is no consensus on anthroprogenic global warming. The IPCC has many conflicting view points, John Christy lead author of the 2001 IPCC report has come out and publicly stated how the supposed "facts" have been greatly exaggerated and over-stated. ClimateGate in 2009 shows us that scientists ae ready to lie and hide the decline in temperatures, in the name of "global warming".
The scientific view is this , if you don't tow the government line on the global warming lie your funds are cut & you will be discredited.
Agenda 21
The IPCC Synthesis Report is a good place to start : http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report...
Its the document that critics refuse to read
Scientists cannot even agree on what the temperatures is today, I would say that the science is far from being settled. Just because a scientist agrees with the theory of another scientists does not mean that theory is correct.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/surfacetemps_japan2.png
Ok so there are many differing views on this, and im just looking for the scientific concensus on the matter. if you have an answer please include some kind of reference or proof.
You won't get one. all you'll get are "projections, models, it is thought type forecasts", but proof, no afraid not.
EDIT @ Sig Syph: Your "The proof of the 10 global warmest years in 132 years are real time temperature records ". Time after time it has been stated on here by warmies that they admit they didn't know what the world's temperature was 132 yeras ago. How many more times can you refute the truth: We just don't know?
'Scientific consensus' is an oxymoron. 'Science policy consensus' is not. Do you wish to believe a lie or promote one?
There are many varieties of views of AGW or man made global arming. Some view it as a scam. Some view it as s scientific fact. Some view it as a political end. Some view it as a way to get into another man's pockets.
There are those on this site who say it is a scientific fact and cite that 97% of the scientists are in agreement that AGW is true. It turns out that that 97% represents only 75 out of 77 highly selected scientists.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/20...
Also in that article, it refers to, 31,000 scientists who disagree with AGW. Here is that site.
http://www.petitionproject.org/
Notice it is open and not in any way ambiguous. Why don't we hear about this on the news?
Because it is a stated concerted effort to sway your opinion by telling you only one side.
Quote by Ross Gelbsan, former journalist: “Not only do journalists not have a responsibility to report what skeptical scientists have to say about global warming. They have a responsibility not to report what these scientists say.”
That is why you don't hear from scientists lie these.
Quote by Will Harper, Princeton University physicist, former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy: “I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism....I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect....Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth's climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past.”
Quote by Tom McElmurry, meteorologist, former tornado forecaster in Severe Weather Service: “Governmental officials are currently casting trillions down huge rat hole to solve a problem which doesn’t exist....Packs of rats wait in that [rat] hole to reap trillions coming down it to fill advocates pockets....The money we are about to spend on drastically reducing carbon dioxide will line the pockets of the environmentalists....some politicians are standing in line to fill their pockets with kick back money for large grants to the environmental experts....In case you haven’t noticed, it is an expanding profit-making industry, growing in proportion to the horror warnings by government officials and former vice-presidents.”
And there are plenty more.
Even the advocates of AGW know that it does not have a scientific leg to stand on.
Quote by Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Quote by Timoth Wirth, U.S./UN functionary, former elected Democrat Senator: “We’ve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
Notice 'justice and equality' are code words for Communism or other such tyrannical governments. And the environmentalists don't even hide the fact that it is not a scientific subject, but rather a political one.
Quote by Dixy Lee Ray, former liberal Democrat governor of State of Washington, U.S.: "The objective, clearly enunciated by the leaders of UNCED, is to bring about a change in the present system of independent nations. The future is to be World Government with central planning by the United Nations. Fear of environmental crises - whether real or not - is expected to lead to – compliance”
Yet another one is even more clear.
Quote by Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official: "We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy...Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization...One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore."
So by their own words they blatantly tell you that this is not a scientific issue but rather a political and financial con game.
Scientifically, the earth has been cooling for over the last decade. All the while the CO2 level has been increasing.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...
Science speaks the loudest and it says there is no AGW. Many many scientist agree.
Ok so there are many differing views on this, and im just looking for the scientific concensus on the matter. if you have an answer please include some kind of reference or proof.
You won't get one. all you'll get are "projections, models, it is thought type forecasts", but proof, no afraid not.
EDIT @ Sig Syph: Your "The proof of the 10 global warmest years in 132 years are real time temperature records ". Time after time it has been stated on here by warmies that they admit they didn't know what the world's temperature was 132 yeras ago. How many more times can you refute the truth: We just don't know?
'Scientific consensus' is an oxymoron. 'Science policy consensus' is not. Do you wish to believe a lie or promote one?
There are many varieties of views of AGW or man made global arming. Some view it as a scam. Some view it as s scientific fact. Some view it as a political end. Some view it as a way to get into another man's pockets.
There are those on this site who say it is a scientific fact and cite that 97% of the scientists are in agreement that AGW is true. It turns out that that 97% represents only 75 out of 77 highly selected scientists.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/20...
Also in that article, it refers to, 31,000 scientists who disagree with AGW. Here is that site.
http://www.petitionproject.org/
Notice it is open and not in any way ambiguous. Why don't we hear about this on the news?
Because it is a stated concerted effort to sway your opinion by telling you only one side.
Quote by Ross Gelbsan, former journalist: “Not only do journalists not have a responsibility to report what skeptical scientists have to say about global warming. They have a responsibility not to report what these scientists say.”
That is why you don't hear from scientists lie these.
Quote by Will Harper, Princeton University physicist, former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy: “I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism....I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect....Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth's climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past.”
Quote by Tom McElmurry, meteorologist, former tornado forecaster in Severe Weather Service: “Governmental officials are currently casting trillions down huge rat hole to solve a problem which doesn’t exist....Packs of rats wait in that [rat] hole to reap trillions coming down it to fill advocates pockets....The money we are about to spend on drastically reducing carbon dioxide will line the pockets of the environmentalists....some politicians are standing in line to fill their pockets with kick back money for large grants to the environmental experts....In case you haven’t noticed, it is an expanding profit-making industry, growing in proportion to the horror warnings by government officials and former vice-presidents.”
And there are plenty more.
Even the advocates of AGW know that it does not have a scientific leg to stand on.
Quote by Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Quote by Timoth Wirth, U.S./UN functionary, former elected Democrat Senator: “We’ve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
Notice 'justice and equality' are code words for Communism or other such tyrannical governments. And the environmentalists don't even hide the fact that it is not a scientific subject, but rather a political one.
Quote by Dixy Lee Ray, former liberal Democrat governor of State of Washington, U.S.: "The objective, clearly enunciated by the leaders of UNCED, is to bring about a change in the present system of independent nations. The future is to be World Government with central planning by the United Nations. Fear of environmental crises - whether real or not - is expected to lead to – compliance”
Yet another one is even more clear.
Quote by Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official: "We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy...Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization...One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore."
So by their own words they blatantly tell you that this is not a scientific issue but rather a political and financial con game.
Scientifically, the earth has been cooling for over the last decade. All the while the CO2 level has been increasing.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...
Science speaks the loudest and it says there is no AGW. Many many scientist agree.
