Undeniable Global Warming:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A26065-2004Dec25?language=printer

Undeniable Global Warming

By Naomi Oreskes
Sunday, December 26, 2004; Page B07

Many people have the impression that there is significant scientific disagreement about global climate change. It's time to lay that misapprehension to rest. There is a scientific consensus on the fact that Earth's climate is heating up and human activities are part of the reason. We need to stop repeating nonsense about the uncertainty of global warming and start talking seriously about the right approach to address it.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Program, the IPCC is charged with evaluating the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action. In its most recent assessment, the IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities . . . are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents . . . that absorb or scatter radiant energy. . . . ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."

The IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. A National Academy of Sciences report begins unequivocally: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise." The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and it answers yes. Others agree. The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have all issued statements concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling.

Despite recent allegations to the contrary, these statements from the leadership of scientific societies and the IPCC accurately reflect the state of the art in climate science research. The Institute for Scientific Information keeps a database on published scientific articles, which my research assistants and I used to answer that question with respect to global climate change. We read 928 abstracts published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and listed in the database with the keywords "global climate change." Seventy-five percent of the papers either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view. The remaining 25 percent dealt with other facets of the subject, taking no position on whether current climate change is caused by human activity. None of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. There have been arguments to the contrary, but they are not to be found in scientific literature, which is where scientific debates are properly adjudicated. There, the message is clear and unambiguous.

..more..

think evolution is merely a 'theory'. They aren't buying global warming either. Luckily, I think rational people are. Maybe when we have a mini Ice Age due to the stopping of the Gulf Stream will make them change, but I doubt it. With all the glaciars melting, you'd think they would wonder, but it doesn't seem to mean a thing to them.

has taken the lead in front of "knowing"

of them think this environmental change is just a theory, cause it´s our freaking planet too they´re possibly destroying :(
Bush doesn´t really care about the environment either does he? Heard on the news a few weeks ago that he wasn´t really planning to cooperate with Europa to do something about the environment.

First off, I think we can all agree that the Republicans USE the fundies but, except for figurehead in the White House used to attract their votes like honey to flies, there aren't really that many of them MAKING DECISIONS on Capitol Hill based upon some tele-evangelist's interpretation of the new testiment.

OK, I'm new here, is Bill Maher a "right wing nut", and is his show on HBO a "neo-con front"? I don't have that impression. Last season, he had a former Republican congressman (senator?) who was on the board of a committee to investigate global warming (when? sorry, didn't know there'd be a test).

This Republican representative (sorry: details escape) did NOTHING to deny that global warming was indeed HAPPENING.

Rather, he denied that anyone *knew* what was CAUSING it.

Repeat, outside of the wing-nuts, Republicans do NOT deny global warming is happening - the debate is what's CAUSING it...

are a lot of respected atmospheric scientists saying that the best explanation for global warming is greenhouse gases produced as a result of man's activities - and on the other hand there are lots of economists, etc. and a TINY handful of scientists - mostly funded by energy interests - saying otherwise. So, just as with the creation/evolution debate, it is not really a scientific "debate" at all. The scientific consensus may indeed be wrong about man causing global warming but at the moment they have the evidence on their side and it is a pity that the media is not scientifically literate enough to point this out more often. Furthermore - even if excessive production of carbon dioxide is not causing global warming, there are plenty of other good reasons to reduce the dependence on burning fossil fuels for energy and industrialized countries have the most capability to do that. And the effort does not hurt economic growth - to the contrary, it stimilates economic growth as new technologies are adopted and savings from energy conservation are directed elsewhere in the economy. Not to mention the health benefits (and savings on health care costs and lost productivity) of more efficient use of fossil fuels.

global warming was not happening. And how dare the Post print facts and data? /sarcasm off

...In the "create-you-own-reality" group, there is no such thing.

In Heinlein's classic"Blow-ups Happen",a nuclear physicist explains to a board room of a power company;"None of you are nuclear physicists so your opinion does not count". He's trying to tell the board the reactor is unsafe,but they have an emotional bias ,if not the knowledge to support it ,that it is safe.I see that kind of writing above.I don't believe that every person who is unsure of the threat is a Fundamentalist,neocon,evil,etc. Having very strong opinions on complex{and technical}issues without the necessary background to evaluate the data is simply noise.

to suspend rational, logic thought and accept the current disseminated meme. And this (mis)administrations current meme about global warming states that global warming is probably junk science and there is not yet enough information. Even though just about everyone on the planet qualified to render an opinion has resoundingly stated the opposite.

I seriously doubt if the world's top scientists are all coming from the same "emotional bias". You would do well do some real scientific reading yourself. Heinlein is a wonderful writer, but his fiction has no bearing on the hard science we are talking about.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

work of fiction. Imagine that, he had GRAPHS! So - that means .... what, exactly? George Will is such a putz.

is to quit calling it global warming and instead call it global climate change. People in the north east would be hoping for warming what with last week's weather.
Warming is just part of the effect, some areas will get colder due to ocean current changes, extremes of hot, cold wet and dry can be expected...

"global climate change" is far less frightening than "global warming".

It doesn't breathe.

Amazingly, corporate drones will continue to support and maintain the corporate body even though it's actions are ultimately in their worst interests.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/environment/story.jsp?story=596062

Bush left in the cold by climate allies

By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
26 December 2004


George Bush's two closest allies in his attempt to sabotage international action to combat global warning last week dramatically distanced themselves from him.

Saudi Arabia announced that it had approved the Kyoto Protocol, the treaty on climate change which President Bush has been trying to kill. And Australia, while still rejecting it, parted company from the United States by saying that it was prepared to negotiate its successor.

The moves follow a tense international negotiating session in Buenos Aires where, as The Independent on Sunday reported last week, the US brought the talks to the brink of collapse by obstructing even anodyne proposals. This breached an assurance given by President Bush in 2001, when he pulled out of the protocol, that America would not try to stop other countries reaching agreement.

New negotiations are due to begin next year on a successor to Kyoto, which will come into force in February, following Russia's decision to ratify it last autumn. Tony Blair regards progress on climate change as one of the top priorities of Britain's presidency of the G8 group of the world's most powerful nations.

..more..