en.wikipedia.org
Opposing (The AGW Consensus)
Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[29] NO national or international scientific body any longer rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.".."[28][30]..
`
`
You started this out all VERY UNscientifically.. In science, a consensus requires a SINGLE very specific question.. What QUESTION is this consensus BASED ON? Can't give you references to authors or papers UNLESS YOU KNOW THE SPECIFIC QUESTION..
Because GW ACTUALLY REQUIRES about 100 KEY QUESTIONS to have a "consensus" on the ENTIRE TOPIC.
Answer me this -- Is there a consensus on what the temperature is GONNA BE in 2100? Has it CHANGED in the past decade? Is there a consensus on the question of the ACCURACY of modeling to PREDICT even 50 or 100 years out?
I know the answers to THOSE questions -- NO !!! For the Temperature in 2100 -- Not within numbers that dont' have a 3:1 range of estimation.. And the RESULTS of those models have been constantly REVISED DOWN over 35 years.. Even in the past DECADE...
As to endorsements -- you're stuck in Climate Change kindergarten rhetoric.. All of those body endorsement are useless.. Haven't been REVISED in a couple decades, while all the hysterical, hair on fire projections have been beaten down..
WHY??? Because those statements are Front Office politics in those orgs. NARY A ONE was "voted on" or took contributions from the 1000s of members. I know. One of the two orgs I belong to has a GW statement. No members EVER contacted...
In FACT -- back in 2000s when the Australian Geophys Union ASKED for member input to REVISE their 15 yr old statement -- There was nastiness, and revolt and turmoil SOOO BAD -- they just dropped the prospect of UPDATING that statement..
So you're OP is wrong because you don't understand the PROCESS of fielding those statements or the timeline OR EVEN THE QUESTION that they answer as a CONSENSUS..
Try again later dude...
I;'ve got more than the citation below to back me up.. Show me you're interested..
www.theaustralian.com.au
AUSTRALIA’S peak body of earth scientists has declared itself unable to publish a position statement on climate change due to the deep divisions within its membership on the issue.
After more than five years of debate and two false starts, Geological Society of Australia president Laurie Hutton said a statement on climate change was too difficult to achieve.
Mr Hutton said the issue “had the potential to be too divisive and would not serve the best interests of the society as a whole.”
The backdown, published in the GSA quarterly newsletter, is the culmination of two rejected position statements and years of furious correspondence among members. Some members believe the failure to make a strong statement on climate change is an embarrassment that puts Australian earth scientists at odds with their international peers.
It undermines the often cited stance that there is near unanimity among climate scientists on the issue.
GSA represents more than 2000 Australian earth scientists from academe, industry, government and research organisations.
“As evidenced by recent letters to the editor … society members have diverse opinions on the human impact on climate change. However, diversity of opinion can also be divisive, especially when such views are strongly held.
“The executive committee has therefore concluded that a climate change position statement has the potential to be far too divisive and would not serve the best interests of the society as a whole ,” the statement says.
Folded rather quickly this time...
