A good example of the strong scientific support for humanity’s role in climate change is the IPCC Report which has been in the news as of late, and you can see a list of the organizations which endorse the stance given in the report here, which states that there is more than a 90% chance that the current increase in global temperatures is caused by man.

It’s not an absolute statement–the actual language is that it’s “very likely” the case, not that it “is” the case. So in fact the scientists themselves don’t believe that they are absolutely correct, and that there is no chance that they are wrong. They’re pretty sure. But they aren’t ruling other possibilities out entirely.

Is there “consensus”? Not entirely. But supporters of the theory that global temperature increases are probably at least in part attributable to greenhouse gas emissions do seem to significantly outnumber dissenters at the moment.

“there is some strong evidence out there that the globe is getting warmer, and that humans are (at least partly) to blame. There’s also some small but significant disagreement.”

I truly believe that the scientific support for manmade global warnming is overstated (judging by the fact that the “consensus” won’t even identify itself) and that the opposite view is understated. I think there is science on both sides that is equally presuasive and strong. I just wish each side would get past the notion that their “beliefs” (as you put it eloquently) on the matter are absolutely correct.

I find it a little disturbing when questions of science start coming down to what one “believes.” Science isn’t one of those things that should be taken on faith.

That said, there is some strong evidence out there that the globe is getting warmer, and that humans are (at least partly) to blame. There’s also some small but significant disagreement.

What bugs me is that this has been used as an excuse by people with political agendas to point to a bit of the evidence either way and thunder “I’M RIGHT BECAUSE SCIENCE SAYS SO!” in the same sort of manner as the a religious zealot might club his or her enemies with the word of God. This doesn’t help us get at the truth.

As I’ve said before, though, we shouldn’t let whatever disagreements are out there in the scientific world stop us from acting to protect the environment and reduce emissions.

Maybe bold will turn off…

The title of his article was “The Cooling World.” Here are some extracts — do they sound familiar to you?

“There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now.

“Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.“

Genghis, sorry about the bold and italics.

TrueBlue, do you agree with these words?

I’m all for the environment, don’t get me wrong.. I think we have a long way to go in being good caretakers of the land and water.

But there have been much more significant global cooling and heating trends throughout the ages prior to the dawn of man.

As far as “settled science” goes, I’m glad your crowd didn’t settle on the science of the 1970’s claiming we were heading for a global cooling trend and another ice age.

No one is saying, conclusively, that global warming isn’t a “real threat.” No one is also saying, conclusively, that “CO2 emissions don’t need to be reduced.”

(And no one is calling you a “dittohead,” but it’s clear there are different standards for liberals than for conservatives or even objectives on this site.)

This is what we’re saying — the science is NOT settled, and there are thousands of scientists out there who agree that it is not settled.

Let me be perfectly clear on my opinion: more research must be done as to the causes of increasing temperatures on the planet — on both sides of the issue. How could you possibly be against more research?

Are you really joining with Dobb, Len and Stark in denying that Global Warming is a real threat, and also maintaining that the world’s man-made CO2 emissions don’t need to be reduced?

For the rest of you, how many dittoheads are needed in a room to conclude something isn’t settled science? (or fact?)

I think I can answer these questions. What man-made activities could have caused global warming during those pre-automobile years? I think I know:
1850-1880 – Global warming caused by slavery. Also, please note, the nation was under four Republican Presidents (if you include Johnson).
1910-1940- Global Warming caused by Theodore Roosevelt’s safari trips, William Howard Taft’s flatulence, Warren Harding’s affairs and Herbert Hoover’s economy.
1970- today – Watergate, Dick Nixon and cars!

This global warming stuff has been very profitable for Al Gore. He says that it is a more critical issue than the war with terrorists — yet he uses energy as though he’s in a competition to use more energy than every other person on earth. Most important for him is that his bank account has grown tremendously because of this issue.

At the next debate among Democrats, Hillary should be asked whether or not she wished that her husband’s administration would have done much more to help the world combat global warming.

1. The comment was that the planet cooled from 1940 to 1970. Not from 1930 to 1970. Your graph shows that it cooled from 1940 to 1970. I was right.

2. Your graph also shows that the planet warmed from 1850 to 1880, then cooled from 1880 to 1910, then warmed from 1910 to 1940, then cooled from 1940 to 1970, then warmed from 1970 to today. That tells us two things: one, the planet is probably going to cool very soon, and then get warmer than it is today in the next 75-100 years. Two, these increases and decreases have occurred independent of CO2 emissions.

3. Why should Stark or anyone rely on a site called “Global Warming 101″? What would you say if I promoted a site called “Hoax 101″? I’m guessing your reply would sound something like “talking points.”

4. Here’s another question for you: did you know that grapes and figs once grew in England, yet cannot grow there today? I’ll help you on this one, because I don’t feel like waiting three more days: grapes and figs cannot grow there because it is too cold, yet they once grew there… because it was warmer then!

5. CGG, this one’s for you: earlier today, you deleted my post from lunchtime, in which I agreed with Genghis’s comment about finding more clean, efficient energy sources, and I called TrueBlueCT “the poster child for liberal demagoguery.” You chose to delete THAT, but you’ve left up TrueBlue calling Stark “head-up-your-ass stupid” for the last two and a half hours now. What gives?

Only on Connecticut Local Politics.

And yes, global temperatures did decline slightly during the post-war decades. No, that’s not proof that global warming is a myth. Neither is the fact that the last ten years have been the hottest ten year period on record proof that global warming is happening.

The evidence for global warming is measured over larger time scales. Take a look at the last 150 years and what is clear is not only a trend towards significantly warmer temperatures, but an accelerating rate of warming over the last 40 years.

Aw hell. I’m too tired to go on. A very good place to start learning the facts about global warming is the NASA website here.

———————————————————————–

ACR,

you guys gonna “reward Lawbreakers” by “Sticking with Healy”?

Whats Next,Is the Ct Republican State Central Committee going to call for former Rep. Mark Foley to move to CT. to help “raise the ethical Standards and perceptions of our Party”[/quote]

How pathetic is this.

GC, care to weigh in?

I don’t know why you’re hung up on this “cooling from 1940-1970″ bit. Maybe this bit from the generally non-partisan Brookings Institution will help you get unstuck.

If you look at this graph of Global temperatures, you’ll see that the Earth warmed between 1930-1970. So what, it’s all still an idiotic red herring. (and that’s the reason I haven’t bothered to respond to you.)

Maybe if you boned up on GlobalWarming101 you wouldn’t be so beyond the times.

“Increased industrial production in the years between 1940 and 1970 caused an increase in aerosol emissions, most notably sulfates. These particles are highly reflective and created an albedo effect in the upper atmosphere, blocking solar rays. Pollution control implemented during the 1970s caused the concentration of aerosols in the atmosphere to decrease. In fact, if it had not been for the presence of reflective aerosols, the global temperature would have likely risen, not fallen, during that period of time.”

And your whole premise that b/c someone, somewhere is still arguing, a scientific premise isn’t “settled”, well it’s just head-up-your-ass stupid. According to your logic, evolution isn’t “settled”, and for all we know the world might still be flat…”

If the evidence and science is overwhelming that man is causing global warming and that the results will be catastrophic, then shouldn’t you welcome debate on the issue? You’d be able to dispatch with those claims easily – obviously you can’t or you’d be able to dismiss Dobb’s point summarily. Again, the debate isn’t over and the science is not definitive.

Still waiting on your answert to Dobb’s question re: cooling from 1940-1970 and mine re: Alberto. Just a reminder.

It’s not more definitive b/c the Bush administration still won’t make the link between soaring CO2 levels, human activity, and rising global temperatures. (wouldn’t want to offend Big Energy.)