If you believe that global warming is not happening, then name one credible scientific body that supports your views. Seriously, can you do it? And conservative think tanks or "Dr. Joe Bob's Institute for the Advancement in Truth in Scientificology" don't count. I'll bet you can't. For your benefit, I've compiled links to the the views and evidence of major scientific bodies and categorized them according to their views.
Human activity responsible for current global climate change:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change : http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration : http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2787.htm
American Association for the Advancement of Science : http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2007/0202ipcc.shtml
American Geophysical Union : http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html
American Institute of Physics : http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html
National Climate Data Center : http://www.senate.gov/~govt-aff/071801_karl.htm
National Research Council : http://books.nap.edu/html/climatechange/
National Academy of Sciences (US), Royal Society (UK), Russian Academy of Sciences (Russia), Science Council of Japan (Japan), Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Indian National Science Academy (India), Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany), Academiee des Sciences (France), Chinese Academy of Sciences (China), Royal Society of Canada (Canada), Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil): http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/displaypagedoc.asp?id=20742
The Royal Society of Great Britain : http://www.royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13619
US Federal Climate Change Science Program :
American Meteorological Society : http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html
National Center for Atmospheric Research :
Environmental Protection Agency : http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basicinfo.html
World Meteorological Organization : http://uutisruutu.eduskunta.fi/dman/Document.phx?documentId=hp16306121632192
Does not take a strong position:
American Chemical Society : http://www.chemistry.org/portal/resources/ACS/ACSContent/government/statements/2004_statements/2004_07_global_climate_chg_env.pdf
American Association of State Climatologists:
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies *(see endnote) : http://eospso.gsfc.nasa.gov/ftp_docs/Global_Warming.pdf
Rejects human influence on climate change
American Association of Petroleum Geologists ** (see endnote): http://dpa.aapg.org/gac/papers/climate_change.cfm
In conclusion, instead of simply believing everything that Rush Limbaugh tells you, try pulling your head out of the sand and reading what the scientists have to say about climate change.
PS Yes, they have reviewed possible positive impacts of global warming (not many), ice caps on Mars are irrelevant, and your belief about the ocean giving off CO2 is just plain wrong. Seriously, try reading a book sometime.
* NASA officially takes an ambivalent stance on global warming. However, NASA’s lead climatologist and the director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, James Hansen, is one of the most vocal proponents of immediate action to reduce human influenced climate change (http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/DukeEdin_21Nov2006_complete.pdf and http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/). He claims that NASA findings on climate change are being distorted and downplayed by the Bush administration. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml
** From Wikipedia: “The AAPG is the only major professional organization in the natural sciences that has formally rejected the finding of human influence on recent climate.”
In response to Bryan:
You seem to be very well intentioned, but I have to say that I think you've been misled. If you think that scientists are trying to silence opposing viewpoints, I suggest you search through the links I've provided to see if these scientists don't take take a balanced approach to their research and their findings. Genuine debate and alternate views are welcomed. However, there are many who are subverting the honest global warming debate with pseudoscience and arguments that intentionally mislead on behalf of think tanks, corporations, etc. Just the other day, I read in a conservative journal a compelling sounding argument about how the ocean wasn't rising. The author had a number of figures about ice melting or freezing at different locations at the world, and he concluded from his figures that the rate of ocean rise was close to zero. It seemed like a scientifically sound argument. However, nowhere in the article did it mention that they have actually measured the height of the oeans (put a stick in water, mark it at the waterline, not difficult science), and we know without any doubt that the oceans are rising at a rate of 2-3 mm/year, 30 times the average rate of the last 2,000 years. These people put false science next to real science and say, "well, I guess it's just a matter of opinion," trusting that the average American can't tell the difference. ExxonMobil, for example, has been criticized by the Royal Academy, among others, for paying groups to produce false anti-global warming arguments. (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0920-04.htm ) Exxon had a revenue of $100.7 billion last year (larger than the GDP all but 38 of the world's nations), and they spend millions on lobbyists and donations to conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise, etc. in order to buy public opinion and public policy favorable to the oil industry. Ask yourself this: Who really stands to gain from distorting the science of global warming? The climatologists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or Exxon?
You can always find some scientist to support an argument (global warming, intelligent design, moon landing hoax, etc.), but gaining the support of the credible scientific organizations requires a strong and compelling argument. If there is legitimate doubt about the science of global warming, why is there no one (except the petrolium geologists) disputing the global warming case? Trust the scientists; they are the experts. The evidence is real, it is compelling, and it speaks for itself.
· 1 decade ago