This story is archived
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change »
Posted by: RickyDawkins 2 years, 7 months ago"Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" -National Academy of Sciences report
Read Full Story at sciencemag.org »
Submitted By:
RickyDawkins
Atheism can be either the rejection of theism, or the position that deities do not exist. In the broadest sense, it is the absence of ...
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 38
-
RickyDawkins
May 19, 2007, 10:55 p.m.Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" . Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science. Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.
-
RickyDawkins
May 19, 2007, 10:57 p.m.IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" . The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue".
-
-
Radiofreeeuropa
May 20, 2007, 10:30 a.m.luvmyfascistdictator's definition of a "freak" is any one with more than 2 brain cells and an IQ over 50. Go back to reading Ann Coulter and Mein Kampf. You'll only find "safe" reading there.LOL
-
Macondo
May 20, 2007, 8:26 p.m.LubmyDumbya.
You are closing your eyes to scientific data just for political reasons.
If you are deaf to plain info just because you loveyourprez, it does not mean other peoples are freak.
-
ETproductions
May 20, 2007, 12:30 a.m.Excellent article. The sad fact is that in a country where at least 50% of the population now believe the earth is only 6,000 years old and that Dinosaurs roamed the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve, what science discovers makes little difference.
-
-
RickyDawkins
May 20, 2007, 2:07 a.m.Actually, I looked at the data MYSELF! You can too!
http://www.ipcc.ch/spm0407.htm
http://www.ipcc.ch/figure_1_for_SPM.jpg
-
Natalie1183
May 20, 2007, 7:36 a.m.This article seems so much more credible than the previous one by DR Auer on the homepage. Notice how it included a list of references? but- that's just my opinion.
-
Amazing1
May 20, 2007, 8:59 a.m.We have at least three candidates for president who do not believe in evolution. What does that tell you about the intellectual level of the American Populace? Think they'll ever consider that they might be a part of the problem with climate change? Our only hope is to somehow get them to think that conservation was ordained by God 6000 years ago when he made the earth.
It's a good article. Too bad there are so few who are either willing or able to comprehend.
-
Radiofreeeuropa
May 20, 2007, 10:22 a.m.Thanks, RD,
Very credible piece.
I have yet to hear a credible source suggest that man is not at least partially responsible for climate changes that isn't connected or funded with industries that are major causes of pollution.
Is it surprising these same people who don't believe in Darwin don't believe in Newton either? (For every action there is an oppisite and equal reaction).
-
The first 37 comments are shown. Show all 38 comments »
Submit a Story
Advertisement
