Bush ok's Gulf of Mexico Drilling

[H2Andy]

In 2001 a panel representing virtually all the world's governments and climate scientists announced that they had reached a consensus: the world was warming at a rate without precedent during at least the last ten millennia, and that warming was caused by the buildup of greenhouse gases from human activity. The consensus itself was at least a century in the making.

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/WEADIS.html

 

[Wildcard]

how many times do we have to debunk this myth?

about 90% of all concerned scientists agree. the myth that there is no meanigful consensus on this is just that, a myth

the minority here is overwhelmingly outmatched ... it's not even funny

Just because something is said again and again does NOT make it true. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman".....

"The story of how scientists reached their conclusion--by way of unexpected twists and turns and in the face of formidable intellectual, financial, and political obstacles--is told for the first time in The Discovery of Global Warming."

Id like to read this book. Panels are much like statistics, outcome often depends on who is on it. Is the "human activity" just petro products or is it including otehr byproducts of human life?
I will look for this book when I get home, Id be intrested inhearing what they have to say.

 

[H2Andy]

Just becouse something is said again and again does NOT make it true. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman".....

well, it would have been more credible if it had been said by the National Academy of Sciences, The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union and its parent organization, the American Institute of Physics, the national science academies of the G8 nations, Brazil, China, and India, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science:


The consensus among climate researchers is outlined by the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:

Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. Most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.

This conclusion is endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences, The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union and its parent organization, the American Institute of Physics, the national science academies of the G8 nations, Brazil, China, and India. and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

http://norvig.com/oreskes.html

nah.... there's no consensus

 

[H2Andy]

A recent study found only 35% of newspaper stories on global warming accurately described the scientific consensus, with the majority implying that scientists who believed in global warming were just as common as global warming deniers (of which there were only a tiny handful, almost all of whom had received funding from energy companies or associated groups).

http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/shifting1

 

[H2Andy]

Having just reviewed the 4th Scientific Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was vetted by more than 1,500 scientists worldwide, I can tell you there's much to worry about. And there are some opportunities as well.

A scientific consensus has formed around the fact that the Earth is warming rapidly and that it's due primarily to human activities. Among scientists, there is no controversy about the warming or its cause - only uncertainty about how great the warming will be.

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061221/OPINION01/612210369

 

[H2Andy]

Climate sceptics are also at odds with virtually all of the leading scientific authorities on global warming, including the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Further, as this article in Mother Jones points out, they are frequently allied with or directly supported by fossil-fuel interests and pro-industry think-tanks.

http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization-climate_change_debate/2579.jsp

 

[H2Andy]

An Op-Ed article in the Wall Street Journal a month ago claimed that a published study affirming the existence of a scientific consensus on the reality of global warming had been refuted. This charge was repeated again last week, in a hearing of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

I am the author of that study, which appeared two years ago in the journal Science, and I'm here to tell you that the consensus stands. The argument put forward in the Wall Street Journal was based on an Internet posting; it has not appeared in a peer-reviewed journal - the normal way to challenge an academic finding. (The Wall Street Journal didn't even get my name right!)

http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/072406EA.shtml

 

[H2Andy]

In 1988, the World Meteorological Assn. and the United Nations Environment Program joined forces to create the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action. The panel has issued three assessments (1990, 1995, 2001), representing the combined expertise of 2,000 scientists from more than 100 countries, and a fourth report is due out shortly. Its conclusions - global warming is occurring, humans have a major role in it - have been ratified by scientists around the world in published scientific papers, in statements issued by professional scientific societies and in reports of the National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society and many other national and royal academies of science worldwide. Even the Bush administration accepts the fundamental findings. As President Bush's science advisor, John Marburger III, said last year in a speech: "The climate is changing; the Earth is warming."

To be sure, there are a handful of scientists, including MIT professor Richard Lindzen, the author of the Wall Street Journal editorial, who disagree with the rest of the scientific community. To a historian of science like me, this is not surprising. In any scientific community, there are always some individuals who simply refuse to accept new ideas and evidence. This is especially true when the new evidence strikes at their core beliefs and values.

http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/072406EA.shtml

 

[Wildcard]

A recent study found only 35% of newspaper stories on global warming accurately described the scientific consensus, with the majority implying that scientists who believed in global warming were just as common as global warming deniers (of which there were only a tiny handful, almost all of whom had received funding from energy companies or associated groups).

http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/shifting1

Thats exactly what Im talking about.
" (of which there were only a tiny handful, almost all of whom had received funding from energy companies or associated groups)."

Both sides are slanted. I think a big problem here is the perception of what global warming is. Is it an all consuming end to mankind or is it a short term natural elevation of the global temp? The problem with many people is an expectatation that things should remain the same. The same temp, the same CO2, the same population, ect.
I dont thnk anyone is saying we are not warming, are they? We have to be warming or cooling, no other choices here.

 

[H2Andy]

President George W. Bush yesterday acknowledged more openly than in the past the role of human activity in causing global warming, as he travelled to Scotland for the summit of the Group of Eight industrialised nations.

"I recognise the surface of the earth is warmer and that an increase in greenhouse gases caused by humans is contributing to the problem," he said during a visit to Denmark en route to Gleneagles.

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/34/12476