The Consensus on Global Warming: Science, to Industry & Religion

via http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensus.htm

            Climate change critics like Richard Lindzen try to say “There's no consensus on global warming.” in the Wall Street Journal, in front of Congress, and many other places.  This argument has also been made repeatedly on Fox News.^1,2  Other researchers like Dean Dr. Mark H. Thiemens say this “has nothing to do with reality”.^1,2,3   The following is a list of quotes from scientific organizations, academies, scientists, industry spokesmen, etc supporting the existence of man made climate change and the need to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  Many of these quotes reference the IPCC or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which is widely regarded by mainstream scientists as either the ”most reliable” or one of the most reliable sources for accurate information on climate change.  As you will notice,  the evidence against the consensus critics like Lindzen and pundits on Fox News is overwhelming.  If you are confused as to whose opinion matters, just pay attention to the peer review science journals and the National Academy of Sciences.  For those that don't know, the National Academies are like the Supreme Court of science.  The number of climate scientists in the US can be found by examining the members of the American Geophysical Union (AGU).  As of November 10, 2006 we know that there is a minimum (no official count of foreign climatologists is available) of 20,000 working climatologists worldwide ^1,2.   An important fact to remember is that many high profile critics you see in the news do not qualify as climate scientists when these standards are applied.  Keep both of these concepts in mind the next time you see a handful of self proclaiming “climate scientists” with dissenting opinions.  It is also important to note that Exxon Mobil is funding a $10,000 bounty for climate denialists and skeptics.  If only 2% of the 20,000 climatologists were bought out then we'd have 400 deniers (skeptics are convinced by science not money).  If you have suggestions for the addition of other quotes please post them at our blog.

International Statements
anchor

Below is a list of joint statements calling for action on mitigating climate change.  The National Academies representing the 21 following countries and districts have signed joint statements:

Read more….

Re: The Consensus on Global Warming: Science, to Industry & Relig

I think the argument can be quicker than that.  Otherwise, we spend too much time on a debate that was over as soon as we knew the IPCC panel of hundreds and hundreds of scientists around the world who wrote and peer-reviewed an extremely lengthy, four part sourced report about the issue of climate change.

Most of us are not scientists.  It is enough for me to hear from the IPCC that climate change/global warming is “unequivocal” and that it is “anthropogenic” (caused by humans). The panel was sponsored by the United Nations and the World Meteorological Association. I do not think there is any cause for debate when even business and George W. Bush and Stephen Harper have given up on the “is global warming real or not” question. That is because there is now no question of fact.  Of course, the exact timing or severity of what will happen is only known within a range, though you have to keep in mind that scientists will generally be somewhat conservative in making projections (i.e., they may have slightly understated the problem).

There are always going to be non-believers.  If you tried hard enough, you may still be able to find someone on earth who does not believe the world is round. There will be flat-earthers still for some time to come where global warming is concerned as well. Some are oil company or Conservative far-right think tank schills; some are just wanting to cause trouble; some are far-far right in their religious thinking (the ones who don't believe in evolution for example); and others may just want to play devil's advocate or put something in the spokes of the believers.

I will believe the peer reviewed report of 100's of scientists in a flash before I consider for a moment what one or two flat-earthers are going on about. Fact on one side; opinions on the other?  I'm afraid fact is always going to win with anyone with a rational, reasoning mind.

It is a waste of time to spend on skeptics when there are so many other things to do, individually and as constituents, to stop and then reduce global warming - too much to do to get into trying to refute one excerpt here or there from a skeptic.  You'd have to spend too much time going through all the non-believers in PR Watch online or elsewhere to pin the skeptics down.

I have heard one of Canada's climate change researchers for Environment Canada at a conference on energy and the environment. She talked about how little governments and businesses and individuals have thought about adaptation plans for the short term time when temperatures rise until what is done to stop global warming actually kicks in years and years down the road. She was a quiet, nice looking middle-aged woman with a soft spoken voice. 

I don't ever meet scientists in the climate change field and because she had the authority of being one of the Canadians who took part in writing some of the IPCC report, those who attended the conference are not going to be thinking about whether global warming is real, there are going to think that they must start making plans for their families and their businesses to adapt to global warming in the short term, in addition to doing what they can to mitigate it.