Consensus Reality

[Abraham3]

The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate
system is unequivocally warming, and it is extremely likely (at least
95% probability) that humans are causing most of it through activities
that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such
as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. In addition, it is likely
that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by
increased aerosols.[1][2][3][4] 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 summarized in these
high level reports and surveys.

National and international science academies and scientific societies
have assessed current scientific opinion on climate change. These
assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), summarized below:

o Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by
increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread
melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[5]
o Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely
due to human activities.[6]
o "Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary
widely by location and scale.[7] Some of the effects in temperate and
polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[7]
Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger
or more rapid warming."[7]
o "[...] the range of published evidence indicates that the net damage
costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase
over time"[8]
o "The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this
century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated
disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean
acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change,
pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of
resources)"[9]

No scientific body of national or international standing
maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main
points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum
Geologists,[10] which in 2007[11] updated its 1999 statement rejecting
the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current
non-committal position.[12] Some other organizations, primarily those
focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.

ORGANIZATIONS HOLDING CONCURRING POSITION STATEMENTS

Since 2001 34 national science academies, three regional academies, and
both the international Inter Academy Council and International Council
of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences have made formal
declarations confirming human induced global warming and urging nations
to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The 34 national science academy
statements include 33 who have signed joint science academy statements
and one individual declaration by the Polish Academy of Sciences in
2007.

[As you look at the many and varied organizations on this list,
try to justify for each of these, the charge they are all falsely
supporting the IPCC and AGW theory simply to get grant money - for
instance, how much climate change research money flows into the coffers
of America's pediatricians?]

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
United States National Research Council
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
U.S. Global Change Research Program
Arctic Climate Impact Assessment
Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Society of the United Kingdom
African Academy of Sciences
European Academy of Science and Arts
European Science Foundation
Inter Academy Council
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological
Sciences
American Chemical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Physical Society
Australian Institute of Physics
European Physical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Society of Agronomy
Crop Science Society of America
Soil Science Society of America
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of London
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
American Meteorological Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
World Meteorological Organization
American Quaternary Association
International Union for Quaternary Research
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Society for Microbiology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Institute of Biology (UK)
Society of American Foresters
The Wildlife Society
American Academy of Pediatrics
American College of Preventative Medicine
American Medical Association
American Public Health Association
Australian Medical Association
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Health Organization
American Astronomical Society
American Statistical Association
Engineers Canada
The Institution of Engineers Australia
International Association for Great Lakes Research
Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
The World Federation of Engineering Organizations

ORGANIZATIONS HOLDING NON-COMMITTAL POSITION STATEMENTS

American Association of Petroleum Geologists (formerly the only
major organization rejecting AGW). Their statement now reads:

the AAPG membership is divided on the degree of influence that
anthropogenic CO2 has on recent and potential global temperature
increases ... Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming
trend will continue, as reported through NAS, AGU, AAAS and AMS. AAPG
respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current
climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural
variations in past climate and observed temperature data. These data do
not necessarily support the maximum case scenarios forecast in some
models.[97]

Prior to the adoption of this statement, the AAPG was the only major
scientific organization that rejected the finding of significant human
influence on recent climate, according to a statement by the Council of
the American Quaternary Association.[10] Explaining the plan for a
revision, AAPG president Lee Billingsly wrote in March 2007:

Members have threatened to not renew their memberships... if AAPG
does not alter its position on global climate change... And I have been
told of members who already have resigned in previous years because of
our current global climate change position... The current policy
statement is not supported by a significant number of our members and
prospective members.[98]

AAPG President John Lorenz announced the "sunsetting" of AAPG's Global
Climate Change Committee in January 2010. The AAPG Executive Committee
determined:

Climate change is peripheral at best to our science [...] AAPG does
not have credibility in that field [...] and as a group we have no
particular knowledge of global atmospheric geophysics.[99]

American Geological Institute "...strongly supports education
concerning... the potential for future climate change due to the current
building of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases..."

American Institute of Professional Geologists "...professionals
in AIPG recognize that climate change is occurring and has the
potential to yield catastrophic impacts if humanity is not prepared..."

Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences "The level of CO2 in our
atmosphere is now greater than at any time in the past 500,000 years;
there will be consequences for our global climate and natural systems as
a result".

DISSENTING

None.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Reality: Consensus is political, not scientific.

You can look it up.

Yogi Berra

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Abraham: You could do more to unify participation in saving the earth
by focusing on getting rid of POLLUTION and cleaning up KNOWN SITES of
toxic or plastic waste, and investing resources in buying up wilderness to
preserve the habitats and migration paths of endangered wildlife.

All that is better than wasting money printing books and running media propaganda about "global warming" which has been sold out as benefiting people profiting from the carbon credit system.

Why argue about global warming, whether or not it is proven, and whether or not which group has dissented, changed their minds, or been proven faulty? I've heard it all.

And it has not done ONE THING to clean up oceans filled with a sea of shards of garbage.
Or saved a SINGLE endangered species. Or bought land to save an indigenous forest or river from clearcutting and logging roads.

Please have mercy on the Planet and focus attention on points of real action and agreement. Not on fighting over these issues that only divide people politically.

By saving specific cases of species, forests or other endangered sites, you can make all the same arguments and changes as you would with global warming but WITHOUT any division.

How can you waste resources fighting, while arguing against wasting resources?

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Reality: Consensus is political, not scientific.

You can look it up.

Yogi Berra

True Consensus requires true forgiveness in order to overcome conflicts to reach it.

The healing process is spiritual but it follows natural laws which can be demonstrated scientifically to follow a universal pattern of reconciliation documented by empirical statistics.

None of which is scientific, either.

Thank you for your support.

 

[westwall]

The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate
system is unequivocally warming, and it is extremely likely (at least
95% probability) that humans are causing most of it through activities
that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such
as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. In addition, it is likely
that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by
increased aerosols.[1][2][3][4] 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 summarized in these
high level reports and surveys.

National and international science academies and scientific societies
have assessed current scientific opinion on climate change. These
assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), summarized below:

o Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by
increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread
melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[5]
o Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely
due to human activities.[6]
o "Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary
widely by location and scale.[7] Some of the effects in temperate and
polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[7]
Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger
or more rapid warming."[7]
o "[...] the range of published evidence indicates that the net damage
costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase
over time"[8]
o "The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this
century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated
disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean
acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change,
pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of
resources)"[9]

No scientific body of national or international standing
maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main
points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum
Geologists,[10] which in 2007[11] updated its 1999 statement rejecting
the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current
non-committal position.[12] Some other organizations, primarily those
focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.

ORGANIZATIONS HOLDING CONCURRING POSITION STATEMENTS

Since 2001 34 national science academies, three regional academies, and
both the international Inter Academy Council and International Council
of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences have made formal
declarations confirming human induced global warming and urging nations
to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The 34 national science academy
statements include 33 who have signed joint science academy statements
and one individual declaration by the Polish Academy of Sciences in
2007.

[As you look at the many and varied organizations on this list,
try to justify for each of these, the charge they are all falsely
supporting the IPCC and AGW theory simply to get grant money - for
instance, how much climate change research money flows into the coffers
of America's pediatricians?]

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
United States National Research Council
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
U.S. Global Change Research Program
Arctic Climate Impact Assessment
Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Society of the United Kingdom
African Academy of Sciences
European Academy of Science and Arts
European Science Foundation
Inter Academy Council
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological
Sciences
American Chemical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Physical Society
Australian Institute of Physics
European Physical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Society of Agronomy
Crop Science Society of America
Soil Science Society of America
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of London
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
American Meteorological Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
World Meteorological Organization
American Quaternary Association
International Union for Quaternary Research
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Society for Microbiology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Institute of Biology (UK)
Society of American Foresters
The Wildlife Society
American Academy of Pediatrics
American College of Preventative Medicine
American Medical Association
American Public Health Association
Australian Medical Association
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Health Organization
American Astronomical Society
American Statistical Association
Engineers Canada
The Institution of Engineers Australia
International Association for Great Lakes Research
Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
The World Federation of Engineering Organizations

ORGANIZATIONS HOLDING NON-COMMITTAL POSITION STATEMENTS

American Association of Petroleum Geologists (formerly the only
major organization rejecting AGW). Their statement now reads:

the AAPG membership is divided on the degree of influence that
anthropogenic CO2 has on recent and potential global temperature
increases ... Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming
trend will continue, as reported through NAS, AGU, AAAS and AMS. AAPG
respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current
climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural
variations in past climate and observed temperature data. These data do
not necessarily support the maximum case scenarios forecast in some
models.[97]

Prior to the adoption of this statement, the AAPG was the only major
scientific organization that rejected the finding of significant human
influence on recent climate, according to a statement by the Council of
the American Quaternary Association.[10] Explaining the plan for a
revision, AAPG president Lee Billingsly wrote in March 2007:

Members have threatened to not renew their memberships... if AAPG
does not alter its position on global climate change... And I have been
told of members who already have resigned in previous years because of
our current global climate change position... The current policy
statement is not supported by a significant number of our members and
prospective members.[98]

AAPG President John Lorenz announced the "sunsetting" of AAPG's Global
Climate Change Committee in January 2010. The AAPG Executive Committee
determined:

Climate change is peripheral at best to our science [...] AAPG does
not have credibility in that field [...] and as a group we have no
particular knowledge of global atmospheric geophysics.[99]

American Geological Institute "...strongly supports education
concerning... the potential for future climate change due to the current
building of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases..."

American Institute of Professional Geologists "...professionals
in AIPG recognize that climate change is occurring and has the
potential to yield catastrophic impacts if humanity is not prepared..."

Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences "The level of CO2 in our
atmosphere is now greater than at any time in the past 500,000 years;
there will be consequences for our global climate and natural systems as
a result".

DISSENTING

None.

Big deal. Opinions are like assholes.....everybody's got one.

 

[SSDD]

Big deal. Opinions are like assholes.....everybody's got one.

When they have to resort to that sort of bilge, you know that they are running on empty and they know it. Dying gasps of a dying hoax.

 

[Mr. H.]

A good start would be to plow up the 39 million acres of U.S. farmland that are dedicated to growing ethanol-bound corn.... and planting 39 million acres of trees.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

A good start would be to plow up the 39 million acres of U.S. farmland that are dedicated to growing ethanol-bound corn.... and planting 39 million acres of trees.

Grassland is a better CO2 sink.

Grow more wheat and alfalfa.

 

[Abraham3]

Dear Abraham: You could do more to unify participation in saving the earth
by focusing on getting rid of POLLUTION and cleaning up KNOWN SITES of
toxic or plastic waste, and investing resources in buying up wilderness to
preserve the habitats and migration paths of endangered wildlife.

All that is better than wasting money printing books and running media propaganda about "global warming" which has been sold out as benefiting people profiting from the carbon credit system.

Why argue about global warming, whether or not it is proven, and whether or not which group has dissented, changed their minds, or been proven faulty? I've heard it all.

And it has not done ONE THING to clean up oceans filled with a sea of shards of garbage.
Or saved a SINGLE endangered species. Or bought land to save an indigenous forest or river from clearcutting and logging roads.

Please have mercy on the Planet and focus attention on points of real action and agreement. Not on fighting over these issues that only divide people politically.

By saving specific cases of species, forests or other endangered sites, you can make all the same arguments and changes as you would with global warming but WITHOUT any division.

How can you waste resources fighting, while arguing against wasting resources?

We are different. We do not know each other. So we come here to fight.

 

[Abraham3]

The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate
system is unequivocally warming, and it is extremely likely (at least
95% probability) that humans are causing most of it through activities
that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such
as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. In addition, it is likely
that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by
increased aerosols.[1][2][3][4] 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 summarized in these
high level reports and surveys.

National and international science academies and scientific societies
have assessed current scientific opinion on climate change. These
assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), summarized below:

o Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by
increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread
melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[5]
o Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely
due to human activities.[6]
o "Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary
widely by location and scale.[7] Some of the effects in temperate and
polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[7]
Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger
or more rapid warming."[7]
o "[...] the range of published evidence indicates that the net damage
costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase
over time"[8]
o "The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this
century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated
disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean
acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change,
pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of
resources)"[9]

No scientific body of national or international standing
maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main
points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum
Geologists,[10] which in 2007[11] updated its 1999 statement rejecting
the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current
non-committal position.[12] Some other organizations, primarily those
focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.

ORGANIZATIONS HOLDING CONCURRING POSITION STATEMENTS

Since 2001 34 national science academies, three regional academies, and
both the international Inter Academy Council and International Council
of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences have made formal
declarations confirming human induced global warming and urging nations
to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The 34 national science academy
statements include 33 who have signed joint science academy statements
and one individual declaration by the Polish Academy of Sciences in
2007.

[As you look at the many and varied organizations on this list,
try to justify for each of these, the charge they are all falsely
supporting the IPCC and AGW theory simply to get grant money - for
instance, how much climate change research money flows into the coffers
of America's pediatricians?]

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
United States National Research Council
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
U.S. Global Change Research Program
Arctic Climate Impact Assessment
Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Society of the United Kingdom
African Academy of Sciences
European Academy of Science and Arts
European Science Foundation
Inter Academy Council
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological
Sciences
American Chemical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Physical Society
Australian Institute of Physics
European Physical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Society of Agronomy
Crop Science Society of America
Soil Science Society of America
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of London
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
American Meteorological Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
World Meteorological Organization
American Quaternary Association
International Union for Quaternary Research
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Society for Microbiology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Institute of Biology (UK)
Society of American Foresters
The Wildlife Society
American Academy of Pediatrics
American College of Preventative Medicine
American Medical Association
American Public Health Association
Australian Medical Association
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Health Organization
American Astronomical Society
American Statistical Association
Engineers Canada
The Institution of Engineers Australia
International Association for Great Lakes Research
Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
The World Federation of Engineering Organizations

ORGANIZATIONS HOLDING NON-COMMITTAL POSITION STATEMENTS

American Association of Petroleum Geologists (formerly the only
major organization rejecting AGW). Their statement now reads:

the AAPG membership is divided on the degree of influence that
anthropogenic CO2 has on recent and potential global temperature
increases ... Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming
trend will continue, as reported through NAS, AGU, AAAS and AMS. AAPG
respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current
climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural
variations in past climate and observed temperature data. These data do
not necessarily support the maximum case scenarios forecast in some
models.[97]

Prior to the adoption of this statement, the AAPG was the only major
scientific organization that rejected the finding of significant human
influence on recent climate, according to a statement by the Council of
the American Quaternary Association.[10] Explaining the plan for a
revision, AAPG president Lee Billingsly wrote in March 2007:

Members have threatened to not renew their memberships... if AAPG
does not alter its position on global climate change... And I have been
told of members who already have resigned in previous years because of
our current global climate change position... The current policy
statement is not supported by a significant number of our members and
prospective members.[98]

AAPG President John Lorenz announced the "sunsetting" of AAPG's Global
Climate Change Committee in January 2010. The AAPG Executive Committee
determined:

Climate change is peripheral at best to our science [...] AAPG does
not have credibility in that field [...] and as a group we have no
particular knowledge of global atmospheric geophysics.[99]

American Geological Institute "...strongly supports education
concerning... the potential for future climate change due to the current
building of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases..."

American Institute of Professional Geologists "...professionals
in AIPG recognize that climate change is occurring and has the
potential to yield catastrophic impacts if humanity is not prepared..."

Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences "The level of CO2 in our
atmosphere is now greater than at any time in the past 500,000 years;
there will be consequences for our global climate and natural systems as
a result".

DISSENTING

None.

Big deal. Opinions are like assholes.....everybody's got one.

Except my side has about a gazillion more than your side. And the smarter someone is, the more likely they are to be on my side. That makes me feel way better than it make you feel.

 

[flacaltenn]

Nice OP man.. Give me the IPCC CONSENSUS forecast for the 2076 temperature anomaly.. When 97% of all those folks you listed agree within 0.1degC --- THEN you have a real consensus. Right now all you got is a bunch of pointers and pretenders with a political mission...

Heck -- get 97% to agree within 0.25degC -- and you got a deal..
Can we toss in sea level anomaly to the nearest inch?

 

[Abraham3]

Big deal. Opinions are like assholes.....everybody's got one.

When they have to resort to that sort of bilge, you know that they are running on empty and they know it. Dying gasps of a dying hoax.

How do you stretch "Dissenting: None" into a PoV you claim to be catching on and supported by the facts? What sort of intellectual flexibility does that actually take?

 

[Abraham3]

Nice OP man.. Give me the IPCC CONSENSUS forecast for the 2056 temperature anomaly.. When 97% of all those folks you listed agree within 0.1degC --- THEN you have a real consensus. Right now all you got is a bunch of pointers and pretenders with a political mission...

97% of them are infinitely closer to the IPCC position than they are to ANYTHING like yours.

 

[westwall]

Nice OP man.. Give me the IPCC CONSENSUS forecast for the 2056 temperature anomaly.. When 97% of all those folks you listed agree within 0.1degC --- THEN you have a real consensus. Right now all you got is a bunch of pointers and pretenders with a political mission...

97% of them are infinitely closer to the IPCC position than they are to ANYTHING like yours.

And once again, who cares. The only people who care about your "97% (what's the matter, didn't want to sound too much like Zimbabwe so opted away from 100%) are the chuckleheads benefitting from it.

Look at any AGW story on Yahoo and see how 97% of the comments are anti consensus. It has become so bad that more than a few of the websites will no longer allow comments. Nice to know you support PRAVDA, nothing like pure propaganda to get your point across......or expose it for the laughable fraud it is.

 

[Mr. H.]

A good start would be to plow up the 39 million acres of U.S. farmland that are dedicated to growing ethanol-bound corn.... and planting 39 million acres of trees.

Grassland is a better CO2 sink.

Grow more wheat and alfalfa.

TOTAY!

 

[Old Rocks]

Reality: Consensus is political, not scientific.

You can look it up.

Yogi Berra

So, consensus on Newtonian Physics, Einstein' Relitivity, and Evolution are all political. You people are a hoot.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Reality: Consensus is political, not scientific.

You can look it up.

Yogi Berra

So, consensus on Newtonian Physics, Einstein' Relitivity, and Evolution are all political. You people are a hoot.

I might make a thread putting Newtonian Physics the same way as Organicman did for Evolution. I'd like to see them say it is all bull shit As you approach light speed (c) or at very cold temperatures it can be shown to be lacking....This is why Einstein made relativity.

 

[Old Rocks]

The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate
system is unequivocally warming, and it is extremely likely (at least
95% probability) that humans are causing most of it through activities
that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such
as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. In addition, it is likely
that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by
increased aerosols.[1][2][3][4] 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 summarized in these
high level reports and surveys.

National and international science academies and scientific societies
have assessed current scientific opinion on climate change. These
assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), summarized below:

o Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by
increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread
melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[5]
o Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely
due to human activities.[6]
o "Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary
widely by location and scale.[7] Some of the effects in temperate and
polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[7]
Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger
or more rapid warming."[7]
o "[...] the range of published evidence indicates that the net damage
costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase
over time"[8]
o "The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this
century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated
disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean
acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change,
pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of
resources)"[9]

No scientific body of national or international standing
maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main
points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum
Geologists,[10] which in 2007[11] updated its 1999 statement rejecting
the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current
non-committal position.[12] Some other organizations, primarily those
focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.

ORGANIZATIONS HOLDING CONCURRING POSITION STATEMENTS

Since 2001 34 national science academies, three regional academies, and
both the international Inter Academy Council and International Council
of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences have made formal
declarations confirming human induced global warming and urging nations
to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The 34 national science academy
statements include 33 who have signed joint science academy statements
and one individual declaration by the Polish Academy of Sciences in
2007.

[As you look at the many and varied organizations on this list,
try to justify for each of these, the charge they are all falsely
supporting the IPCC and AGW theory simply to get grant money - for
instance, how much climate change research money flows into the coffers
of America's pediatricians?]

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
United States National Research Council
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
U.S. Global Change Research Program
Arctic Climate Impact Assessment
Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Society of the United Kingdom
African Academy of Sciences
European Academy of Science and Arts
European Science Foundation
Inter Academy Council
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological
Sciences
American Chemical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Physical Society
Australian Institute of Physics
European Physical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Society of Agronomy
Crop Science Society of America
Soil Science Society of America
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of London
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
American Meteorological Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
World Meteorological Organization
American Quaternary Association
International Union for Quaternary Research
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Society for Microbiology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Institute of Biology (UK)
Society of American Foresters
The Wildlife Society
American Academy of Pediatrics
American College of Preventative Medicine
American Medical Association
American Public Health Association
Australian Medical Association
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Health Organization
American Astronomical Society
American Statistical Association
Engineers Canada
The Institution of Engineers Australia
International Association for Great Lakes Research
Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
The World Federation of Engineering Organizations

ORGANIZATIONS HOLDING NON-COMMITTAL POSITION STATEMENTS

American Association of Petroleum Geologists (formerly the only
major organization rejecting AGW). Their statement now reads:

the AAPG membership is divided on the degree of influence that
anthropogenic CO2 has on recent and potential global temperature
increases ... Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming
trend will continue, as reported through NAS, AGU, AAAS and AMS. AAPG
respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current
climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural
variations in past climate and observed temperature data. These data do
not necessarily support the maximum case scenarios forecast in some
models.[97]

Prior to the adoption of this statement, the AAPG was the only major
scientific organization that rejected the finding of significant human
influence on recent climate, according to a statement by the Council of
the American Quaternary Association.[10] Explaining the plan for a
revision, AAPG president Lee Billingsly wrote in March 2007:

Members have threatened to not renew their memberships... if AAPG
does not alter its position on global climate change... And I have been
told of members who already have resigned in previous years because of
our current global climate change position... The current policy
statement is not supported by a significant number of our members and
prospective members.[98]

AAPG President John Lorenz announced the "sunsetting" of AAPG's Global
Climate Change Committee in January 2010. The AAPG Executive Committee
determined:

Climate change is peripheral at best to our science [...] AAPG does
not have credibility in that field [...] and as a group we have no
particular knowledge of global atmospheric geophysics.[99]

American Geological Institute "...strongly supports education
concerning... the potential for future climate change due to the current
building of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases..."

American Institute of Professional Geologists "...professionals
in AIPG recognize that climate change is occurring and has the
potential to yield catastrophic impacts if humanity is not prepared..."

Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences "The level of CO2 in our
atmosphere is now greater than at any time in the past 500,000 years;
there will be consequences for our global climate and natural systems as
a result".

DISSENTING

None.

Big deal. Opinions are like assholes.....everybody's got one.

Yes, big deal. When you have that much of the scientific community agreeing on a subject, the few dissidents are usually complete cranks. In this case, cranks supported by very rich corperations.

 

[westwall]

Reality: Consensus is political, not scientific.

You can look it up.

Yogi Berra

So, consensus on Newtonian Physics, Einstein' Relitivity, and Evolution are all political. You people are a hoot.

Nope, those are all (well evolution isn't yet, but there is enough other supporting facts to make it nearly so) falsifiable. AGW is not falsifiable (not even close). That makes it fiction.

 

[westwall]

The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate
system is unequivocally warming, and it is extremely likely (at least
95% probability) that humans are causing most of it through activities
that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such
as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. In addition, it is likely
that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by
increased aerosols.[1][2][3][4] 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 summarized in these
high level reports and surveys.

National and international science academies and scientific societies
have assessed current scientific opinion on climate change. These
assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), summarized below:

o Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by
increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread
melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[5]
o Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely
due to human activities.[6]
o "Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary
widely by location and scale.[7] Some of the effects in temperate and
polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[7]
Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger
or more rapid warming."[7]
o "[...] the range of published evidence indicates that the net damage
costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase
over time"[8]
o "The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this
century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated
disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean
acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change,
pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of
resources)"[9]

No scientific body of national or international standing
maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main
points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum
Geologists,[10] which in 2007[11] updated its 1999 statement rejecting
the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current
non-committal position.[12] Some other organizations, primarily those
focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.

ORGANIZATIONS HOLDING CONCURRING POSITION STATEMENTS

Since 2001 34 national science academies, three regional academies, and
both the international Inter Academy Council and International Council
of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences have made formal
declarations confirming human induced global warming and urging nations
to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The 34 national science academy
statements include 33 who have signed joint science academy statements
and one individual declaration by the Polish Academy of Sciences in
2007.

[As you look at the many and varied organizations on this list,
try to justify for each of these, the charge they are all falsely
supporting the IPCC and AGW theory simply to get grant money - for
instance, how much climate change research money flows into the coffers
of America's pediatricians?]

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
United States National Research Council
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
U.S. Global Change Research Program
Arctic Climate Impact Assessment
Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Society of the United Kingdom
African Academy of Sciences
European Academy of Science and Arts
European Science Foundation
Inter Academy Council
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological
Sciences
American Chemical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Physical Society
Australian Institute of Physics
European Physical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Society of Agronomy
Crop Science Society of America
Soil Science Society of America
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of London
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
American Meteorological Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
World Meteorological Organization
American Quaternary Association
International Union for Quaternary Research
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Society for Microbiology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Institute of Biology (UK)
Society of American Foresters
The Wildlife Society
American Academy of Pediatrics
American College of Preventative Medicine
American Medical Association
American Public Health Association
Australian Medical Association
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Health Organization
American Astronomical Society
American Statistical Association
Engineers Canada
The Institution of Engineers Australia
International Association for Great Lakes Research
Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
The World Federation of Engineering Organizations

ORGANIZATIONS HOLDING NON-COMMITTAL POSITION STATEMENTS

American Association of Petroleum Geologists (formerly the only
major organization rejecting AGW). Their statement now reads:

the AAPG membership is divided on the degree of influence that
anthropogenic CO2 has on recent and potential global temperature
increases ... Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming
trend will continue, as reported through NAS, AGU, AAAS and AMS. AAPG
respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current
climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural
variations in past climate and observed temperature data. These data do
not necessarily support the maximum case scenarios forecast in some
models.[97]

Prior to the adoption of this statement, the AAPG was the only major
scientific organization that rejected the finding of significant human
influence on recent climate, according to a statement by the Council of
the American Quaternary Association.[10] Explaining the plan for a
revision, AAPG president Lee Billingsly wrote in March 2007:

Members have threatened to not renew their memberships... if AAPG
does not alter its position on global climate change... And I have been
told of members who already have resigned in previous years because of
our current global climate change position... The current policy
statement is not supported by a significant number of our members and
prospective members.[98]

AAPG President John Lorenz announced the "sunsetting" of AAPG's Global
Climate Change Committee in January 2010. The AAPG Executive Committee
determined:

Climate change is peripheral at best to our science [...] AAPG does
not have credibility in that field [...] and as a group we have no
particular knowledge of global atmospheric geophysics.[99]

American Geological Institute "...strongly supports education
concerning... the potential for future climate change due to the current
building of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases..."

American Institute of Professional Geologists "...professionals
in AIPG recognize that climate change is occurring and has the
potential to yield catastrophic impacts if humanity is not prepared..."

Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences "The level of CO2 in our
atmosphere is now greater than at any time in the past 500,000 years;
there will be consequences for our global climate and natural systems as
a result".

DISSENTING

None.

Big deal. Opinions are like assholes.....everybody's got one.

Yes, big deal. When you have that much of the scientific community agreeing on a subject, the few dissidents are usually complete cranks. In this case, cranks supported by very rich corperations.

Nope, those are a majority of climatologists whose wealth and prestige are tied up in the fraud. The majority of scientists now know they are full of crap. And look at all those big oil companies invested in "green" energy. Hmmmm, I wonder why you guys never mention them???