The scientific consensus on global warming

Remove all ads!

I state my issue yet again....

The consensus you are talking about is a consensus from those scientists whose livelihood is directly tied to human-influenced global warming. Of course THEY would have a consensus. I would be more inclined to take them seriously if they could get other scientists (say, Nobel Laureates) on board. Right now you just have a bunch of scientists -- IN THE SAME GENERAL FIELD -- with an agenda (I concede it may be a good agenda).

EVERY scientist I know is on the bandwagon to reduce pollution. EVERY scientist I know is on the bandwagon for reducing consumption of nonrenewable resources. But not every scientist is on the global warming bandwagon.

I think you would find more scientists in the category of either neutral or against than for the current view of global warming.

 

@T2: I'm not necessarily talking about scientists when I ask about reducing consumptiona nd pollution, but individuals. How much inconvenience and added expense are we willing to incur in our daily lives to encourage a cleaner environment?

For example, my husband can't be bothered to recycle office paper, even when the bin is right in front of him. I know plenty of people who won't even consider taking public transportation. Personally, I'm rarely willing to pay the higher price for organic produce at the grocery, even though I never fail to use my own canvas bags instead of those nasty plastic ones.

On a very personal level, what changes can each of US make to encourage a healthier environment?

 

Organic Foods. Now THAT'S the big deception of the century. Don't get me started on that crock of ... organic waste.

 

Well I guess it's time I chimed in. Through my vast scientific studies(The Science Channel rocks!) I have come to the conclusion that yes the earth is warming(well duh, even those that study other avenues of enviromental science agree with this as it affects their research) and that man is a contributer. The real question is how much do we contribute to the warming. Remember CO2 is a major green house gas. Through the burning of fossil fuels we release this gas into the atmosphere. This is the same CO2 that was naturally trapped within the earth and had never made it to our atmosphere. Contrary to what Tal has said in a previous post(sorry Tal) we can know what the temperature of the earth was like a few hundred years ago thanks to core samples obtained at the polar ice caps. Unfortunately for certain other people these core samples support the views of the scientist in that it is significantly warmer now and that we are part of the reason, however we are not the only reason. Thanks to studies done in other fields of enviromental science we know that we're edging into a naturally warmer period. The thing is that most scientists see us adversely contributing to this. This has resulted(not will result, but has infact happened) in the melting of ice shelves. Yes entire shelves of ice have broken off and melted. I can't think of any better evidence of global warming than that.

On another note for those of you still not convinced about global warming, why is it that you are apt to believe non-scientist political appointees with ties to the oil industry (lobbyists) and an executive branch with such obvious ties to the same oil industry. The people most likely to see a loss if global warming was taken seriously over the views of scientists that devote their life to the study of the climate and enviroments? These scientists are same people that these politicians and appointees are censoring.

[ March 22, 2007, 19:06: Message edited by: Shadow Assassin ]

 

@T2:

108 Nobel Laureates signed this statement in 2002. That enough support from Nobel Laureates for you?

Here's another interesting statement signed all the way back in 1992 by over 1,500 members of national, regional, and international science academies including a majority of the Nobel laureates in the sciences. Warning to Humanity

Not only is there a strong consensus with the support of the majority of Nobel Laureates, but it has been that way since at least '92.

[ March 22, 2007, 23:52: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

I don't really care if we have global warming or are headed for an ice age. I don't really care if the sun is the major contributor to global warming or mankind is.

What I care about is that what we humans do does have an effect on the earth. At the moment this is the only world we have and if we do not take responsibility for it who will?

The sun? The sun is not a sentient being it simply is and obeys natural law. We have choices and can choose to mess up this world or clean it up.

 

Nakia,
it seems the Supreme Court shares your view:

Common sense. Awesome.

 

Wow, I never knew that the nine lawyers who make up the Supreme Court were also trained global climatoligists.

Well, this settles the argument for me. I am now a disciple of the Goracle.

 

First of all, Snook, the head of the EPA isn't a climatologist, either. Second, they merely directed the EPA to make another look at the gases and if they (the climatologists working for the EPA) determine that greenhouse gases cause harm (as they always have) the EPA will need to regulate them under the Clean Air Act (because the clean air act requires that all pollutants be regulated) or provide a reasonable explanation why not.

Regarding the consensus on global warming, if you have read all the research on the subject and still cling to the idea that there is some sort of "controversy" in the scientific community regarding their consensus on Global Warming, you are either hopelessly biased or functionally illiterate. Even the conservative scientists that Bush hired specifically to disprove global warming after pulling out of the Kyoto agreement agreed with the consensus opinion (much to Bush's chagrin), for God's sake.

 

As I said before "Time will tell". I'm guessing it will be 2015 when the "consensus" tells us we are heading towards an ice age.

 

I wonder when the Court/EPA will have the balls to take the next step, and declare cigars, pipes, and cigarettes a source of pollutants that ought to be regulated? The Court already blew it once, IMO, when they refused to let the FDA regulate those things as drug delivery devices, so I'm certainly not holding my breath for them to do the right thing...

...although, considering air quality, maybe I should be.

 

Wasn't it a dinosaur who said: '**** the ice age!'?

 

Please tell me this is some kind of April Fool's joke.

I have a question. How much in dollars would 20 Euros be? I have a feeling this would cause riots here in the U.S. especially now that we are getting closer to the barbecue season.

EDIT: It is a hoax. Phew.

 

Actually, it already does. As the polar ice caps are melted, the temperature of the earth will decrease, thus giving us an ice age waaaay ahead of schedule. You'd know that if you ever read the consensus opinion or looked at the body of research in any meaningful way.

 

What I wonder what incentive would there be for advocating global warming and the lowering of pollution if it is baloney? As for hte opposite, what incentive is there for claiming global warming is a bunch of bull? Me with my limited knowledge and experience can see several powerful and wealth industries who have no interest in the world lowering the carbondioxide emissions.

Looking at the issue as cynically as you can you have god damn hippies on one side and evil oil and coal corporations on the other. Me? I will go with the hippies if notihng else that they actually have no vested interest while the evil corporations have damn good reasons for making us belive the hippies have puffed a bit too deep on the ganja.

 

@TSG: I love that hoax

While it's kind of moot, seeing that it is a hoax, I'll still answer your question. While the exchange rate is constantly shifting, one US dollar is typically worth about 3/4 of a Euro. So 20 Euro is about 26 or 27 bucks. The thing that makes it so damn funny is 100 grams of CO2 is NOTHING in the greater scheme of things. Most people put more CO2 in the atmosphere by driving their car to and from work everyday.

 

Okay, that irks me: a panel approves a report on climate change, but government negotiators have bickered until some of the more alarming phrases had been edited/removed. Niiiiiice. What's next, jailing them?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070406/ts_nm/globalwarming_dc_13;_ylt=AubiAw.wqxou1Ks9IHm8s0lxieAA http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070406/ap_on_sc/climate_report

 

Exactly! It goes back to the old saying "follow the money" or as the Romans used to ask "who benefits?"

The Daily Show sometimes shows video of some Republican congressman on Fox News saying sarcastically "if Global Warming is proven a myth, the Weather Channel will lose ratings!" That's the best these guys can come up with: tree-huggers and a cable channel trying to boost its ratings vs a multi-billion dollar global industry with massive political power.

 

Ok, how about, "If global warming is such a threat why do guys like Al Gore have 3 mansions that each consume more power in a month than the average house uses a year, why do they move around in fleets of Expeditions or Suburbans, and why to they jet set all around the world in private aircraft that use more fuel just getting cruising altitude than a SUV uses driving 2500 miles (an extremely conservative estimate, some jets depending on load, speed of ascent and altitude can use enough fuel to drive an SUV 10's of thousands of miles)."

Oh, that's right, they pay for "carbon offsets"...nice.

And they say that conservatives are the elitists who don't care about the envoronment or conservation.