Can you cite reputable scientists that have shown Human CO2 levels are causing Global warming?

Question

compared to natural releases of CO2. NOT just someone saying humans emit CO2 and global warming is happening so its humans fault.

heres 3 scientists from 3 different countries for the poster that wants non bush payrolls....

http://eobglossary.gsfc.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2003/2003081215330.html

http://www.talkaboutinvestments.com/group/sci.econ/messages/252722.html

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2006/09/prof_william_gray_global_warming_real_not_caused_by_man/



http://www.sitewave.net/news/s49p725.htm

Answer 1

The mass hysteria over global warming is not a reaction to scientific proof so much as it is due to leftist politics of guilt, redistribution of wealth (see Kyoto Treaty) and mass emotionalism.

It is ironic indeed that advocates of global warming can claim that it is Republicans who are working against science when it is those same Republicans who are holding the global warming mob to scientific standards of proof.

Answer 2

Not even coldfuse disputes some anthropogenic contribution to global warming - that should be enough to scare you to death and checking the evidence all over again! The link below is a list of scientists who oppose the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. Yes, I was lazy enough to let Wikipedia do the work; however, it is well-referenced. The only scientists listed in the "global warming is not occurring or has ceased" category are Timothy Ball, a geographer; Robert Carter, a geologist; and Vincent Gray, a coal chemist. I suppose one might question one or two of their disciplines, but all are apparently passionate about climate change. --------------------------------------... EDIT: You may find a number of the requested quotations in the "Global warming is primarily caused by natural processes" category. Here are some... "global warming since 1900 could well have happened without any effect of CO2. If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035" "This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential." "There has been a real climate change over the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries that can be attributed to natural phenomena. Natural variability of the climate system has been underestimated by IPCC and has, to now, dominated human influences." "I predict that in the coming years, there will be a growing realization among the global warming research community that most of the climate change we have observed is natural, and that mankind’s role is relatively minor".

Answer 3

The UN actually just got 2500 of them together and released a report.

Edit: I have to add that the first 2 articles are scientists proposing alternate causes of global heating... that's all well and good and does not refute the theory that CO2 causes global warming. Anyone claiming that finding an alternate cause is the equal to refuting the fact that CO2 is a cause for global warming is either:

A) Ignorant of the scientific method

or

B) Biased and sensationalizing findings to support a point not supported by the research they are citing.

The third and fourth articles are largely opinion pieces. The third article cites someone who is obviously pushing a political agenda.

Answer 4

Here's some sources with plenty of reputable scientists attached to them:

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/006.htm

J. Hansen, R. Ruedy, M. Sato, and K. Lo
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
and Columbia University Earth Institute
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/

K.W. Thoning, P.P. Tans, and W.D. Komhyr, Atmospheric carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa Observatory 2
http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/index.php#global

Graphs include those that prove solar flares are not the cause of global warming, and graphs showing dramatic increases in co2. Also includes many sources to do your own research into the subject including reputable scientists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Yale dept of geophysics whose department is full of reputable scientists:
http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~sherwood/index.cgi?page-selection=5

Answer 5

In 1995, the world's climate experts in the IPCC concluded for the first time in a cautious consensus, "The balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on the global climate."

In its 2001 assessment, the IPCC strengthened that conclusion considerably, saying, "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."

Scientists have found significant evidence that leads to this conclusion:

The observed warming over the past 100 years is unlikely to be due to natural causes alone; it was unusual even in the context of the last 1,000 years.

There are better techniques to detect climatic changes and attribute them to different causes.

Simulations of the climate's response to natural causes (sun, volcanoes, etc.) over the latter half of the 20th century alone cannot explain the observed trends.

Most simulation models that take into account greenhouse gas emissions and sulphate aerosols (which have a cooling effect) are consistent with observations over the last 50 years.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paleobiologist Scott E. Ishman (One of about a dozen highly respected U.S. experts on Antarctica, he is an associate professor of geology at SlUC) said:

"The global warming we're experiencing today is a matter of great concern because it's not part of any natural cycle we've observed in the last 10,000 years.

"The big increases that have been observed in greenhouse gas production -- which results from burning fossil fuels and factory and auto emissions associated with that - is certainly one of the most likely culprits," he adds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Philip Mote, the Washington state climatologist, said in translating his fellow scientists' language about responsibility: "We did it."

"Scientists are pretty well done arguing about whether the warming in the last 50 years is related to burning fossil fuels," Mote said.

Researchers said they are more than 90 percent certain that global warming is caused by humans -- their most powerful assertion to date. And that conclusion was even stronger until last-minute maneuvering by China, whose exploding energy use stands to exacerbate the problem.

Answer 6

It is axiomatic.

1. Autos, busses and planes that burn fuel, produce CO2.
2. Cutting down forests reduces the amount of CO2 that plants break down into oxygen.

What credible scientists that you know say that putting more CO2 into the air does not increase the amount of CO2 in the air?

What credible scientists that you know say that cutting down trees that take CO2 out of the air, will make them reduce CO2 in the air less?

Answer 7

Are you really trying to tell everyone that burning fossil fuels has no negative effect?

Answer 8

start by going to your states dept of environmental quality or www.epa.gov tons of govts have tons of date. ice cores from the polar regions..

Answer 9

CAN YOU CITE ANY THAT OPPOSE THAT POSITION THAT IS NOT ON THE BUSHCO PAYROL;L.....THOUGHT NOT..

Answer 10

none are REPUBLICAN ah ah ah ah hah ah
Science n republcans dont mix