[hoovs]

Of course there are always other experts who say different things, but in the case above, they are a species at the brink of extinction.

And you say this based on what?

[clulup]

And you say this based on what?

Holland, director of the Mesoscale and Microscale Meteorology Division of the federal research center, said tropical storm anomalies in the 1940s and 1950s can be explained by natural variability.

But he said carbon dioxide started changing traceable patterns in the 1970s and by the early 1990s, the atmospheric results were affecting the storm numbers and intensities.

"What we're seeing right now in global climate temperature is a signature of climate change," said Holland, a native of Australia. "The large bulk of the scientific community say what we are seeing now is linked directly to greenhouse gases."

The link between global warming and stronger hurricanes is still debated to some extent (even if newer data and scientific papers have come to the conclusion that global warming is the major contributor to stronger/more frequent hurricanes), but global warming, greenhouse gas emissions and the link between the two is not really an open question any more. There is a broad consensus there.

[cardio]

The link between global warming and stronger hurricanes is still debated to some extent (even if newer data and scientific papers have come to the conclusion that global warming is the major contributor to stronger/more frequent hurricanes), but global warming, greenhouse gas emissions and the link between the two is not really an open question any more. There is a broad consensus there.

In reality your view of the broad concenus will be drawn form the journals you read. There are 2 large, very opposing groups, one that says it the majority of climate change is from an increase in green house gas, global warming etc and the other that says it is a cycle, and point to recorded history as indications of the cycle we are in. The group who at first denied the cycles are now admitting that the cycles are there, but dismiss the cycle as being important. If I am not mistaken, the temps were actually lower for the last reporting period after holding steady for several reports which would indicate the concept of global warming is reversing.

[daThomas]

In reality your view of the broad concenus will be drawn form the journals you read. There are 2 large, very opposing groups, one that says it the majority of climate change is from an increase in green house gas, global warming etc and the other that says it is a cycle, and point to recorded history as indications of the cycle we are in. The group who at first denied the cycles are now admitting that the cycles are there, but dismiss the cycle as being important. If I am not mistaken, the temps were actually lower for the last reporting period after holding steady for several reports which would indicate the concept of global warming is reversing.

I used to ride this same fence. Now, I'm afraid we may be past a tipping point in the sense that there is nothing we can do to correct it.

The scientific consensus is absolutely OVERWHELMING. The only naysayers are paid by the energy companies.

[HobbesIsReal]

Found this interesting:


Congressional Opinions on Climate Science and Policy

1) The poll asks, “Do you think it’s been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth is warming because of man-made pollution?” The replies are interesting with 98% of Democrats saying “Yes” and only 23% of Republicans saying “Yes.” Presumably, “beyond a reasonable doubt” means with greater than 95% certainty, so the question requests a level of certainty greater than that expressed by the 2001 IPCC which expressed a 64%-90% certainty on the same question. So members of both parties need to go beyond the most recent IPCC to answer this question. They could be steeped in the most recent science, but I’d guess there is more than a small ideological element at play here, on both sides. I haven’t seen the most recent drafts of the 2007 IPCC, but I assume that it will come out much more consistent with what the Democrats believe. Nonetheless, an important observation here is that, as has been found in many areas, the views of members of Congress are more ideologically determined than those of their party membership among the general population. In opinion polls of the public asking the same question, Democrats do not show such unanimity of opinion, and Republican views are not so consolidated. I chalk this down to the effects of gerrymandering of Congressional districts which has often been pointed to as a key factor in a legislature far more ideological than the people who they actually represent.

FULL STORY: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/pr...al_opinio.html

PDF of the results with comments by congress members: http://www.envsci.rutgers.edu/~weave...1_insiders.pdf

[samkim]

The scientific consensus is absolutely OVERWHELMING. The only naysayers are paid by the energy companies.

I haven't received my check yet. I wonder if they have my current address...

[KRamsauer]

Isn't it a big, leap from "the earth is warming" (which most reasonable people agree on) to "it's our fault" (which most scientists agree on) and even a bigger leap from that to "it's going to kill us all"?

[KRamsauer]

The scientific consensus is absolutely OVERWHELMING. The only naysayers are paid by the energy companies.

So overwhelming that Nature decided to publish an entire volume in all caps.

[theBlaze74]

Isn't it a big, leap from "the earth is warming" (which most reasonable people agree on) to "it's our fault" (which most scientists agree on) and even a bigger leap from that to "it's going to kill us all"?

Imagine you just opened the refrigerator to grab one of your favorite energy drink when you heard ...

"This just in, Red Bull may actually kill you." And then a spokesman from the White House came on directly after and said that it had been all exaggerated and they werent sure anyway. And it "needs more study".

Would you drink the rest of the case?

[Advance The Man]

I'd still drink it. The media frenzy goes with whatever sounds most disastrous. They would go with that story if a zit faced 8th grader concluded the findings in a science fair project. btw, the analogy sucked.

Imagine you just opened the refrigerator to grab one of your favorite energy drink when you heard ...

"This just in, Red Bull may actually kill you." And then a spokesman from the White House came on directly after and said that it had been all exaggerated and they werent sure anyway. And it "needs more study".

Would you drink the rest of the case?

[theBlaze74]

I'd still drink it. The media frenzy goes with whatever sounds most disastrous. They would go with that story if a zit faced 8th grader concluded the findings in a science fair project. btw, the analogy sucked.

I've got a science experiment for you to taste.

[hoovs]

The link between global warming and stronger hurricanes is still debated to some extent (even if newer data and scientific papers have come to the conclusion that global warming is the major contributor to stronger/more frequent hurricanes), but global warming, greenhouse gas emissions and the link between the two is not really an open question any more. There is a broad consensus there.

Sorry I missed this earlier. Your quote doesn't really give anything except one scientist's opinion. That may be many scientist's options as well, but you state that those who say differently are "on the brink of extinction". I don't see that statement being supported anywhere.

[Advance The Man]

Ozone coming back

Not that I believe it, but figured the doomsdayers provide a link to every bad news, figured I'd pile on. My thought is our earth is constantly in a cycle and the ozone levels fluctuate just like global warming.

[theBlaze74]

Ozone coming back

Not that I believe it, but figured the doomsdayers provide a link to every bad news, figured I'd pile on. My thought is our earth is constantly in a cycle and the ozone levels fluctuate just like global warming.

LONDON - Scientists have revealed that the protective ozone layer appears to be slowly but surely mending thanks to the ban imposed worldwide on chlorine pollutants.

Hmm, i wonder if advance would have supported the ban.

[theBlaze74]

Sorry I missed this earlier. Your quote doesn't really give anything except one scientist's opinion. That may be many scientist's options as well, but you state that those who say differently are "on the brink of extinction". I don't see that statement being supported anywhere.

Hmm, not offering any ideas of your own, just attempting to impune the credibility of others. I see.

[Advance The Man]

I'm for clean air, I'm against blaming pollution as the major contributor for global warming.

Hmm, i wonder if advance would have supported the ban.

[clulup]

My thought is our earth is constantly in a cycle and the ozone levels fluctuate just like global warming.

And what is the relevance of your thoughts in these matters? Please list your credentials regarding "fluctuating ozone levels" and ozone depletion due to chlorofluorocarbon compounds.

[clulup]

I'm for clean air, I'm against blaming pollution as the major contributor for global warming.

But then again, what do you know? Please state significant scientific bodies or organisations (not just single voices among hundreds of scientist) who deny that greenhouse gas emissions are the major contributor to global warming. Please refer to recent, not out-dated publications.

In the meanwhile:

Consensus grows on climate change
Wednesday, 1 March 2006
By Roger Harrabin
Environment Correspondent, BBC News

The global scientific body on climate change will report soon that only greenhouse gas emissions can explain freak weather patterns.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4761804.stm

[Advance The Man]

I checked my office library, I unfortunately have not one publication on Global Warming.

But then again, what do you know? Please state significant scientific bodies or organisations (not just single voices among hundreds of scientist) who deny that greenhouse gas emissions are the major contributor to global warming. Please refer to recent, not out-dated publications.

In the meanwhile:

[theBlaze74]

I'm for clean air, I'm against blaming pollution as the major contributor for global warming.

I'm for not flying off in to outers space, i am just against blaming gravity for holding my feet to the ground.