Why do cons continue to deny the scientific consensus on man made global warming?

Question

and why is it cons can't understand the difference between political websites and SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS?

The Geological Society of America (GSA) is a PRIVATE scientific organization founded in 1888 and consisting of over 20,500 geoscience professionals.
http://www.geosociety.org/aboutus/intro.htm

"The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries. Furthermore, the potential implications of global climate change and the time scale over which such changes will likely occur require active, effective, long-term planning. GSA also supports statements on the global climate change issue made by the joint national academies of science (June 2005), American Geophysical Union (December, 2003), and American Chemical Society (2004)."
http://www.geosociety.org/aboutus/position10.htm

The American Meteorology Society (AMS) is a PRIVATE scientific organization founded in 1919 and consisting of over 11,000 meteorology professionals.
http://www.ametsoc.org/aboutams/index.html

"Despite the uncertainties noted above, there is adequate evidence from observations and interpretations of climate simulations to conclude that the atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; that humans have significantly contributed to this change; and that further climate change will continue to have important impacts on human societies, on economies, on ecosystems, and on wildlife through the 21st century and beyond."
http://www.ametsoc.org/POLICY/2007climatechange.html

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was created in 1988 by the World Meteorology Organization and the UN Environment Programme. It is led by government scientists from over 130 nations, as well as several hundred academic scientists and researchers.
http://www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm

"Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (defined in footnotes as greater then 90% likelyhood) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. This is an advance since the TAR’s (previous Third Assessment Report) conclusion that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”. Discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns"
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is an honorary society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific research. Election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded to a scientist or engineer. It has over 2,000 members of whom more then 200 have won a Nobel Prize. The NAS was created by President Abraham Lincoln on March 3, 1863. As mandated in its Act of Incorporation, the NAS has, since 1863, served to "investigate, examine, experiment, and report upon any subject of science or art" whenever called upon to do so by any department of the government.
http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ABOUT_main_page

The NAS along with the national science academies of the G8 nations (France, Russia, Germany, Japan, Italy and Canada) plus those of Brazil, China and India created and adopted the following joint statement on global warming:

"There is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities... The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions."
http://www.academie-sciences.fr/actualites/textes/G8_gb.pdf

The American Geophysical Union is a PRIVATE scientific organization founded in 1919 and consisting of over 45,000 geophysicist professionals.
http://www.agu.org/inside/abt_agu.html

"Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century... A particular concern is that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide may be rising faster than at any time in Earth's history, except possibly following rare events like impacts from large extraterrestrial objects..

Moreover, research indicates that increased levels of carbon dioxide will remain in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years. It is virtually certain that increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will cause global surface climate to be warmer... The unprecedented increases in greenhouse gas concentrations, together with other human influences on climate over the past century and those anticipated for the future, constitute a real basis for concern."
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html

The American Chemical Society is the world's largest (PRIVATE) scientific organization with over 160,000 chemistry professionals. It was founded in 1876.
http://www.chemistry.org/portal/a/c/s/1/acsdisplay.html?DOC=siteinfo\aboutacs.html

"There is now general agreement among scientific experts that the recent warming trend is real (and particularly strong within the past 20 years), that most of the observed warming is likely due to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and that climate change could have serious adverse effects by the end of this century... The overwhelming balance of evidence indicates that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is the prudent and responsible course of action at this time.

Although vigorous climate research is certainly needed to reduce uncertainties and to identify potential adverse effects, it should not forestall prudentaction now to address the issue. ACS believes that public and private efforts today are essential to protect the global climate system for the well-being of future generations."
http://www.chemistry.org/portal/resources/ACS/ACSContent/government/statements/2004_statements/2004_07_global_climate_chg_env.pdf

PROOF CONS ARE CLUELESS:

"It has a lot to do with the lack of creditability of the inventor of Global Warming,...Al Gore "

Al Gore didn't come up with global warming. It was James Hansen from NASA. He came up with it YEARS AGO.

IOWA CITY, Iowa Oct 26, 2004 — The Bush administration is trying to stifle scientific evidence of the dangers of global warming in an effort to keep the public uninformed, a NASA scientist said Tuesday night.

"In my more than three decades in government, I have never seen anything approaching the degree to which information flow from scientists to the public has been screened and controlled as it is now," James E. Hansen told a University of Iowa audience.

Hansen is director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and has twice briefed a task force headed by Vice President Dick Cheney on global warming.

Hansen said the administration wants to hear only scientific results that "fit predetermined, inflexible positions." Evidence that would raise concerns about the dangers of climate change is often dismissed as not being of sufficient interest to the public.

http://www.space.com/news/bush_warming_041027.html

chuck,

Why is it cons think they know more then the scientists? Read the last official statement from the American Geophysical Union. The rate of climate change is happening too fast to be explained by natural causes alone. Scientists are well aware of the ice ages, warming trends and Michivelli cycles of the past. They didn't just plain forgot to include them in their analyses.

Answer 1

Several points with regard to your "question," which is really not a question, but a rant.

1 - "Consensus" is not science. It is a majority. The majority of "scientists" once thought the earth was the center of the universe. A majority of scientists once thought we were entering a period of global cooling...a coming ice age, and this was only thirty years ago. So your "consensus" point of view demands that people be lemmings...which is what you are.

2 - Show that natural variation of the output of the sun has no current impact on global warming.

3 - Explain why, even when *RANDOM* data are used for input of past temperatures, that global climate models predict future warming.

4 - Tell us how you validate estimates for temperature data prior to 1700.

I have challenged you on these questions before...you still ignore them...maybe because "consensus" guides your thinking more than science.

Answer 2

The body of evidence is against artificial global warming. The warming which is occurring is natural. Just look at history for the past 20,000 years or so. There was an Ice Age. We are still coming out of that period. What do you think the environment was like before the Ice Age? How do you explain the Medieval temps? How do you explain the fact that France quit having ice skating weather long before cars were in use to any great extent or any such type of industry? You can't unless you admit that global warming is natural and not man made.

Answer 3

It's bizarre. What does it cost any of us to believe it and act on it. If it's not real...no loss...just a cleaner planet which benefits us all...and if it is true and we act...well then maybe we can slow it and ultimately restore the planet's balance.

Other than the coal guys, what does it really cost us to support the notion that Global Warming is a real problem??

HBO's Real Sports did a great spot on asthma (sp?) and showed how it has spiked in recent decades consistent with the relaxation of scrubber requirements for coal fired power generator plants.

Folks, we are paying a real price for pollution...and guess what Chinese pollution finds its way to our nation.

Why don't we just lose the Global Warming moniker and just call it pollution....can't we all agree that reducing pollution is in our best interest.

I mean c'mon folks the end of the world may not come as soon as you think....

Answer 4

Just one simple question...

How did we come out of the last ice age and how does that relate to global warming? Can't blame that one on humans. Climate changes, now the argument is what causes it, not who causes it. Until this is figured out, it is a theory. 20 million people saying so doesn't make it right.

Answer 5

I can do that too.



Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

Powerful Documentary Trounces Man-Made Warming Hoax
Climate change is natural and has been happening since the Earth began

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Friday, March 9, 2007


An astounding documentary that was broadcast in the UK last night completely trounced the man-made explanation for global warming, not with emotionally-laden propaganda or by attacking the messenger as its adherants resort to, but by presenting carefully considered and rational science.

The Great Global Warming Swindle brought together a plethora of scientists, professors, climatologists and weather experts to expose the myths about climate change that have been promulgated in order to hoodwink the world into accepting the man-made theory of global warming.

Watch the video in full below.



- Earth's 4.5 billion year history is one long story of climate change. There were several periods in history, notably the Medieval Warm Period and the Holocene Maximum, which were much warmer than today. In the 17th century, Europe experienced the Little Ice Age, where temperatures were so consistently chilly that ice skaters revelled on the completely frozen London Thames.

- From the 1940's until the 1980's, the Earth experienced a significant cooling period, despite the fact that industrial production and release of CO2 vastly accelerated during this time. This led to political and media scaremongering about global cooling, the threat that the earth was in the midst of a new ice age. The documentary featured telling clips from alarmist documentaries at the time that implored us to try and reverse the trend of worldwide temparature decrease or face meterological apocalypse.

- Antarctic ice core samples show that the rise in carbon dioxide levels lags behind temperature rise by 800 years, therefore cannot be the cause of it. The documentary exposes how Al Gore, in his film Inconvenient Truth, deliberately reverses these figures to claim CO2 causes temperature change, when in fact the opposite is the case.

- If the Earth was laboring under an accelerated greenhouse effect caused by human produced CO2, the troposphere (the layer of the earth's atmosphere roughly 10-15km above us) should heat up faster than the surface of the planet, but data collected from satellites and weather balloons doesn't support this fundamental presumption.

- The human contribution to carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is minimal in comparison to other natural means, including volcanic emmission and CO2 produced by animals, bacteria, decaying vegetation and the ocean. The human "carbon footprint" is vastly outweighed by all of these factors.

- Sun spot and solar radiation activity almost exactly parralel temperature change on the Earth. "Solar activity very precisely matches the plot of temperature change over the last 100 years. It correlates well with the anomalous post-war temperature dip, when global carbon dioxide levels were rising." The increase of cosmic rays produced by the Sun prevents the formation of clouds, which have a cooling effect on the planet, therefore the temperature rises.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/090307warminghoax.htm

"They've been brainwashing us for 20 years," Gray says. "Starting with the nuclear winter and now with the global warming. This scare will also run its course. In 15-20 years, we'll look back and see what a hoax this was."

Gray directs me to a 1975 Newsweek article that whipped up a different fear: a coming ice age.

http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807

DeWeese warns that the Climate Change Protocol is "a legally binding international treaty through which signing nations agree to cut back their energy emissions to 15 percent below 1990 levels." He insists that "it doesn't matter" if the final version is somewhat modified. "Such a massive disruption in the American economy, particularly since it has nothing to do with protecting the environment, will devastate this nation," DeWeese predicts. "To meet such drastically reduced energy standards will, in the short run, cost the United States over one million jobs."

DeWeese emphasizes that "only developed industrial nations will be bound by the treaty. Undeveloped Third World nations will be free to produce whatever they want. These will include China, India, Brazil, and Mexico," he observes, noting that "eighty-two percent of the projected emissions growth in coming years is from these countries." That fact alone proves that the Climate Change Treaty is not designed to protect the environment. "The truth, of course," says DeWeese, "is that the treaty is really about redistribution of wealth," from America to the rest of the world.

http://www.americasfuture.net/1997/nov97/97-1123a.html

Answer 6

Tell your buddy Gore to lead by example and stop flying in private jets and to sell off his SUV and maybe I'll be willing to consider your stand on global warming.

I would rather see this planet burn in a fiery ball of fire than to change my life to fight global warming while elitist pigs like Gore continue their privileged lifestyle.

Could I possibly be any more clear on my position?

Answer 7

Because its all crap. Thats why. These organizations have sold their profession very well, I must say. Global warming is a natural occurrance. It was millions of years ago and will always be.

Answer 8

Whatever happened to global cooling.

Answer 9

Because a Democrat said it.

Answer 10

To be fair, many (perhaps even most) conservatives accept the reality of human-caused climate change. It's really only the ditto-heads and their ilk that deny it, but sadly they seem to infest this board.

Here's a few more links to add to your list:

Scientific Consensus
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/warming_climate_report
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/scientists_climate;_ylt=AniBFJBV0xn8yus3w3EmFToDW7oF


Myth Correction sites
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070103/ap_on_bi_ge/exxonmobil_global_warming (Exxon misleads public)
http://www.globalcentres.org/cgcp/english/html_documents/climate/1-5.htm
http://info-pollution.com/warming.htm
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/ (global cooling debunking)
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/20/climate-scientist-to-cei/ (Antarctic getting thicker debunking)
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/current-volcanic-activity-and-climate/ (myth that volcanoes have more impact than humans)
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html (myth that volcanoes have more impact than humans)
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html (myth that sun is causing warming)


Widespread Political Support for action (even among Republican candidates for 2008 presidency)
http://mccain.senate.gov/press_office/view_article.cfm?id=412 (McCain proposes cap/trade system)
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/02/12/BAGPIO3E3O4.DTL (Giuliani: consensus on human impact is overwhelming)
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/jan/31/brownback_its_time_tackle_global_warming/?politics (Sam Brownback)
http://www.humanevents.com/rightangle/index.php?p=21960 (Gingrich)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2023835.stm (Bush)
http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/articles/br_1945.asp?t=t (Bush)