What is the Science consensus / official position on global warming climate change? Truth or Hoax evidence?

In 1990... less than half the world's scientists believed in anthropogenic climate change but most agreed we should increase research for it. By 1999, it was more than half. Today it is the overwhelming majority and "no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change" [1]

Just a few examples...

Global Environmental Change Report (GECR climate survey), 1990:

"National and international science academies and professional societies have assessed the current scientific opinion on climate change, in particular recent global warming"

Global Environmental Change Report 2, No. 9, pp. 1-3

Oreskes, 2004:

A 2004 article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[30] The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, listed with the keywords "global climate change". Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories, thus either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view

Joint science academies’ statement 2007:

In preparation for the 2007 G8 summit, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a declaration referencing the position of the 2005 joint science academies' statement, and acknowledging the confirmation of their previous conclusion by recent research. Following the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, the declaration states:

"It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken."

American Meteorological Society:

The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2003 said:

"There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the Earth's surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years. There is also clear evidence that the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased over the same period. In the past decade, significant progress has been made toward a better understanding of the climate system and toward improved projections of long-term climate change... Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems."

Geological Society of America:

"The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries."

The American Association of Petroleum Geologist Position Statement:

Recently to the adoption of this statement, the AAPG was the only major scientific organization that rejected the finding of significant human influence on recent climate, according to a statement by the Council of the American Quaternary Association. The AAPG updated its statement in part because the previous statement was "not supported by a significant number of our members and prospective members".[2]

Statements by dissenting organizations:

"With the July 2007 release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists [2], no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change."

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8641

Another poll done by two Germans showed that only 55% of climate researchers agreed that man is the cause for climate change. Only eight per cent strongly agreed.

So why are all of these organizations coming out in support, when there is still scientific debate? But it cannot be political, can it?

More

I don't know the answer. What is very obvious though is that a lot, probably the majority, of "information" on the subject being sold to us is based an false premise, the subject has been taken over by politicians who see it as a way of making

some money, and the "Greens" (and I don't mean that in a

disrespectful way) have turned it into a new religion, and it's well known that it is almost impossible to alter the mind set

of a "believer".

I have read a lot about the subject, including ALL the IPPC

reports, and have come to the conclusion that the views of

the scientists "on the ground" are being ignored because they do not fit with the already established line.

Problem: NO ONE HAS ANY INFORMATION THAT SUPPORTS ONE SIDE ENOUGH, TO RULE THE OTHER ONE OUT.

The heated topic of global warming has gone from real, to unreal, and back again so many times. Since no one has enough information, you just have to trust, and think about what's logical.

I think, its not real. Why? Because, the Earth is a natural, and complex world with many, many varying cycles. For instance, every now and then, the water is shaken by an underground volcano, making a huge wave, that will soon crash into the side of a country or continent. The water cycle puts water in the air from the ground, underground, and drops the water from the air, occasionally, this cycle goes extremely fast from unknown causes, could be because of man, or nature, which cause a hurricane. These cycles can't be stopped. Where as its proven, that naturally, in this world, cycles of extreme climate change have occurred, this doesn't mean it was our fault every time, or anytime at all! How would we disrupt this giant mass, the earth? Or cause something so powerful with our little power compared to the earths?

The consensus is this:

1. The earth has risen about 1-1.5 deg over the past 150 years and that most of that warming occurred in the first part of the 1900's ( 1900-1945)

2. Co2 does not drive temperature or climate on the planet.

That is what all scientist can agree on because that is what the best data has shown. When it comes to "man made climate change" science is ALL over the map , THE MEDIA however is not and will not report that FACT.

There is global warming. Been happening for ten or twenty thousand years. After all, the five-mile-thick sheet of ice over central Canada is... gone! But the cause or causes is another thing. No concensus at all. Groups that want the truth are still searching; groups that stand to make money, lose money, or shift political power have The Answer. Not usually the same Answer, of course.

Man is part of nature, the change of climate is the result of natural forces. The idea that man is apart from nature and making climate changes contradicts the the logic that man is part of nature. Which we are. It seems we are focusing on CO2 when we are not thinking of the man made poisons in our envirement, homes, food, healthcare products. CO2 is an essential nutrient. In the oceans plankton use CO2 which in turn is what fish eat, which we eat. It has become political, meaning power, money, control, taxation, regulation. I guess it is not a waste of time for the people who are making large amounts of money off of this hysteria, but for the rest of us it is a waste of money, when the cost of energy continues to go up and poor people are paying. On the plus side it may spur the development of energy alternatives because we are going to run out of fuel even natural gas, not in our life time but maybe in our great great grand childrens life time. I think it will be some inventor in his basement that will come up with a solution not throwing billions at the problem which people steal. If this continues it won t be billions it will be trillions involved.

*sigh* Michael Crichton:

"Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus.

"Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus."

HA! That's like if you asked if people knew back in 1960 if cigarettes were bad for you. You're never going to get a straight answer.

If you want my opinion, we are causing global warming. The reason is convoluted, though. I think that scientists want to get paychecks (funding) and nobody wants to fund scientists to say that (cars, aerosol, etc.) cause global warming. Many people, on the other hand, want to fund scientitst to say the opposite. Therefore, if you look at the crappy poor scientists you will see they are the ones saying that those things DO cause global warming. That's why I think they're right. Anyway, you can poke about 110,000,000,000 (eleventy billion) holes in my logic, but then again, who really cares to argue with my lunacy anyway??

ill just answer with this link.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/570...

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change -- Oreskes 306 (5702): 1686 -- Science