Global warming - natural? Can anyone name a scientific organization that thinks it's a natural phenomena?

Question

Here's an article that lists a number of eminent scientific organizations that think man is responsible for a major and worrisome amount of global warming.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Peter Darbee of Pacific Gas and Electric, says:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/01/business/01energy.html?pagewanted=print

“The evidence in the scientific community is lopsided — it’s not even close,” Mr. Darbee said. “Climate change is a problem.”

Can anyone cite a global warming opponent of comparable scientific stature to the organizations listed in the article?
Or a cite to a peer reviewed scientific journal article saying global warming is natural?

Answer 1

A lady in my choir says, that 30 years ago, "Ice Age" was the cry's from scientists. However, my Uncle (Nuclear physists) agree's that Global Warming is an issue; and he's a little too scientific.

A good student always researches pro's and con's to get true enlightenment. Here's what I found on the skeptics of Global Warming. They're convincing too.

Answer 2

This question can be broken down into four parts:

1) Has the surface temperature of the Earth been rising, on average, over the past few decades?

2) Is the composition of the Earth's atmosphere changing , so as to increase the Greenhouse effect?

3) If so, is that change man-made?

4) If the answer to question 1 is "yes", can this temperature increase be attributed to the man-made changes in Greenhouse gasses?

The first part is an objective question of measurement, and the answer is: "yes, most measurements of temperature across the globe indicate a long-term rise". Some people will, at this point, bring in irrelevant anecdotal evidence: "Well, there's this glacier in Switzerland that's actually getting longer...", but that does not address the measurement. There are scientists who are willing to argue that the temperature measurements are in some way incorrectly calibrated, but they are a small minority.

The second question is also a one of objective measurement. Again, the answer is almost certainly: "Yes, all measurements of the composition of the atmosphere, taken over decades, reveal an increase in Greenhouse gasses, Carbon Dioxide in particular." Again, a few scientists are willing to question this, since the data are accurate and overwhelming.

The third question is a matter of calculation, and this calculation is rather uncertain. We do know, approximately, how much fossil fuel has been burned in the past few centuries, based on economic records. One answer is: "All the fossil fuels burned in the past few centuries should have raised the Carbon Dioxide levels twice as much as actually observed." This is rather curious: something has gotten rid of half the fossil fuel gasses since the Industrial Revolution. Maybe it dissolved in the oceans. Maybe there is increased forest and coral growth. But it does seem likely that the increase in Greenhouse gasses is man-made. Since we don't entirely understand the situation, there is some room for doubt.

The fourth question, is the temperature increase due to man-made changes in the atmosphere, is also a result of calculation. You need some kind of planetary atmospheres model to make the argument. Certainly the zero-order model is clear: if you increase Greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere of a planet, its surface will get warmer. The Greenhouse gasses are a transparent, insulating blanket, and the net effect has got to be a warming on the surface. Complex computer models of the Earth's atmophere do tend to show that the human-induced Greenhouse gasses are, in part, the cause of the recent warming. Some of the warming is natural. Some computer models do a really good job of fitting all the data and matching the observations. Unfortunately, there is no way of independently verifying the accuracy of these complicated computer programs against observations of a variety of real-life scenarios for the Earth. There is certainly room for skepticism---the track record of complicated computer programs being correct in all particulars is not good. So again, there is room for doubt.

If these were questions about some other planet's atmosphere, the normal scientific process could take place outside of politics, and the concensus answer would be "Yes, there is global warming, and yes, it is caused by the burning of fossil fuels." Like all scientific conclusions, this would be tentative, and people would try to become famous by invalidating the concensus theory. People's opinion on the concensus theory would not have political implications if it were some other planet we were talking about. With Earth's global warming, however, the consequences of the concensus theory are so profound, and have so many economic and political effects that the scientific process cannot proceed in the usual way. In particular, people with economic interests in the fossil fuel status quo are willing to distort the scientific process. The philosophically-required doubt that is an integral part of the scientific method is used to attack and thow doubt on the conclusion.

In general, organizations of scientists do not make collective judgements about scientific theories. The recent International Astronomical Union vote about Pluto might seem to be a counter-example, but this was just a question of nomenclature, not a question of fact. The National Academy of Sciences and its various sub-committees will sometimes produce a "finding" if one is requested by the government (usually Congress), but that is really not a part of the scientific process, it is politics.

Answer 3

Consensus does not symbolize evidence. call one valid Sicientific organisation that has reported that "worldwide Warming" has been shown to be our (mankinds) fault and easily no longer purely component of the organic climate cycles. scientific Consensus reported there became into no such undertaking because of the fact the Mountain or Lowland Gorilla. scientific Consesus reported the Coelacanths were EXTINCT for over 6 million years till fisherman have been develop stay specimens scientific Consesus reported all dinosaurs have been chilly blooded, now that opinion is changing. scientific Consesus reported that guy might by no skill fly, orbit the earth or walk on the moon. Opps technology proved itself incorrect there too. basically curious, if Evolution is a actuality as you declare (i've got yet to hearken to a scientist make that assertion) why is it nevertheless referred to as the assumption of Evolution ? The be conscious thought basically skill it is not a actuality yet.

Answer 4

Green House Gases makes up 1% of atmosphere.
Of that 1%, water vapor is 97%, plants and other natural activity make up 2.72%, and us humans .28%.

So we are responsible for less than 1/100 of 1% of the ennvironment.

The optimistic forecast laid out by Tom Wigley, Gore's sideman, if the Kyoto treaty was signed (of course, China and India magically given a bye) would be .07 (less than 1/10 of one percent) temperature by 2050.

It would cost us 5 million jobs and billions in company productivity and the bureaucracy that would be crawling through every corporation in the country to ensure they are in compliance of a meaningless joke of a treaty designed to create govt grants for scientists and scare people into voting left.

Answer 5

The green house effect that part of the atmosphere is less than 1%. They base a large part of that on the amount of CO2 that we as the world produce ,that should produce billion's of cf. of CO2 accept that and just go and measure the CO2 that is present in our atmosphere now. U will find 1 to 2 parts per million and no more,where did it all go. Thanks to the green plants or we would all be dead.