I will update this post more tomorrow, after I have had time to read the report. But briefly, there are a great number of skeptics in the scientific community - some current or former members of the IPCC - who say the science does not support claims by UN IPCC and Al Gore that global warming is human-caused.
Check out the related articles here for some background on some of the skeptics.
More later.
Subscribe to NPI
Specifically, the “consensus” about anthropogenic climate change entails the following:
1) the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;
2) the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;
3) the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels;
4) if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and
5) a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.
These conclusions have been explicitly endorsed by …
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed these conclusions:
NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
I’ll take this “consensus” over the 400 “scientists” handpicked by Sen Inhofe for his minority skeptics report.
I love dialog.
Let me respond briefly here and I’ll update the post with a more detailed response.
Around 1998, most of the organizations you mentioned already had firm ideas of what global warming was and why it was caused. By 2001, these organizations reiterated their belief and set it as policy for action. It is now 2007 and scientists - many who are reviewers or members of PICC - are now refuting certain aspects of the science which “proves” the cause for global warming and question much of the science for determining the impact of global warming.
So, I have a couple of questions:
1) How many of these organizations did their won scientific studies (as opposed to simply peer reviewing someone else’s work)?
2) What are the sources of their determinations about global warming?
These questions are important since much of the skepticism is based upon real scientists, doing real field studies, and only recently (the past several Months) releasing findings to their peers.
When you pose a hypothesis and then ignore challenges by respected members of the scientific community, you are not engaged in science.
If this weather is caused by Global Warming, I say burn some more dinosaurs!
It is beautiful here in the Desert.