You are bringing up one point that is irrelevant to the other to try to act as if the second is not valid.

If you’re interested, here’s a piece by a physical chemist on the issue: http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/12/31/207268/the-physical-chemistry-of-carbon-dioxide-absorption/

And here’s an actual climate scientists talking about the matter: http://planetsave.com/2011/12/19/radiative-properties-of-greenhouse-gases-video/

Oh,.. nvm.

(Yes, I removed your website link — spamming our site by putting your website in tons of comments is not accepted.)

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm 

http://planetsave.com/2011/10/06/global-warming-videos/

look into it, 97% of climate scientists conclude humans are causing global warming based on the obvious evidence, as well as these scientific bodies:

Scientific organizations endorsing the consensus
The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that “most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities”:
American Association for the Advancement of ScienceAmerican Astronomical SocietyAmerican Chemical SocietyAmerican Geophysical UnionAmerican Institute of PhysicsAmerican Meteorological SocietyAmerican Physical SocietyAustralian Coral Reef SocietyAustralian Meteorological and Oceanographic SocietyAustralian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIROBritish Antarctic SurveyCanadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric SciencesCanadian Meteorological and Oceanographic SocietyEnvironmental Protection AgencyEuropean Federation of GeologistsEuropean Geosciences UnionEuropean Physical SocietyFederation of American ScientistsFederation of Australian Scientific and Technological SocietiesGeological Society of AmericaGeological Society of AustraliaInternational Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)International Union of Geodesy and GeophysicsNational Center for Atmospheric ResearchNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationRoyal Meteorological SocietyRoyal Society of the UK
The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:
Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)Royal Society of CanadaChinese Academy of SciencesAcademie des Sciences (France)Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)Indian National Science AcademyAccademia dei Lincei (Italy)Science Council of JapanRussian Academy of SciencesRoyal Society (United Kingdom)National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)
A letter from 18 scientific organizations to US Congress states:
“Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science.”
The consensus is also endorsed by a Joint statement by the Network of African Science Academies (NASAC), including the following bodies:
African Academy of SciencesCameroon Academy of SciencesGhana Academy of Arts and SciencesKenya National Academy of SciencesMadagascar’s National Academy of Arts, Letters and SciencesNigerian Academy of Sciencesl’Académie des Sciences et Techniques du SénégalUganda National Academy of SciencesAcademy of Science of South AfricaTanzania Academy of SciencesZimbabwe Academy of SciencesZambia Academy of SciencesSudan Academy of Sciences
Two other Academies of Sciences that endorse the consensus:
Royal Society of New ZealandPolish Academy of Sciences

97% of climate scientists conclude that humans are causing global warming. nearly every overarching scientific body in the world agrees:

Scientific organizations endorsing the consensus
The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that “most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities”:
American Association for the Advancement of ScienceAmerican Astronomical SocietyAmerican Chemical SocietyAmerican Geophysical UnionAmerican Institute of PhysicsAmerican Meteorological SocietyAmerican Physical SocietyAustralian Coral Reef SocietyAustralian Meteorological and Oceanographic SocietyAustralian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIROBritish Antarctic SurveyCanadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric SciencesCanadian Meteorological and Oceanographic SocietyEnvironmental Protection AgencyEuropean Federation of GeologistsEuropean Geosciences UnionEuropean Physical SocietyFederation of American ScientistsFederation of Australian Scientific and Technological SocietiesGeological Society of AmericaGeological Society of AustraliaInternational Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)International Union of Geodesy and GeophysicsNational Center for Atmospheric ResearchNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationRoyal Meteorological SocietyRoyal Society of the UK
The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:
Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)Royal Society of CanadaChinese Academy of SciencesAcademie des Sciences (France)Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)Indian National Science AcademyAccademia dei Lincei (Italy)Science Council of JapanRussian Academy of SciencesRoyal Society (United Kingdom)National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)
A letter from 18 scientific organizations to US Congress states:
“Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science.”
The consensus is also endorsed by a Joint statement by the Network of African Science Academies (NASAC), including the following bodies:
African Academy of SciencesCameroon Academy of SciencesGhana Academy of Arts and SciencesKenya National Academy of SciencesMadagascar’s National Academy of Arts, Letters and SciencesNigerian Academy of Sciencesl’Académie des Sciences et Techniques du SénégalUganda National Academy of SciencesAcademy of Science of South AfricaTanzania Academy of SciencesZimbabwe Academy of SciencesZambia Academy of SciencesSudan Academy of Sciences
Two other Academies of Sciences that endorse the consensus:
Royal Society of New ZealandPolish Academy of Sciences
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm 

for a great look at the swindle that is “great global warming swindle,” check this out: 

woops, this one isn’t cheating!

Keep up the good work!

Why does joe average seem to know more about climate change than someone who has been studying it their whole adult life? Yeah sure there are some scientists out there on payrolls with their own agena, but you can’t tar all of them with that same brush.

Any scientist worth their salt will tell you that a theory is exactly that, a likely explanation given the evidence but not 100% sure because there is no way to be sure. Yet science and technology has always forged ahead regardless of the lack of undisputed truth because all there is to go with is a best guess. Climate change deniers however are 200% certain that it’s all a load of BS and why? because there is absolutely nothing scientific in their thinking.

PERHAPS my great grandchildren one day might ask me why we did nothing back when we could have, PERHAPS they will peer out from their grass hut at war and famine all around them and feel sick when my answer is “Well darling, we weren’t 100% sure…”

The key word above is PERHAPS! If we act on climate change and it does in fact turn out to be false, then what’s the worst that could happen? We delay the inevitable depletion of non-renewable energy resources, sweet! We chop down the carbon sequestering plantations and roast some marshmallows! Yeee Haaaw!

STOP SEEKING OUT THE MOST UNINFORMED OPINIONS ! !

Mankind is resposabal for less than 5% of all the CO2 in the air.

CO2 was patented as a refrigernt in 1897 after 62 years of study.

What would be the effect of “Global Warming” on the Winter side of the earth. Warming could be expected, logicaly, to expand the atmospheric envelope on the warm side.
And So…

On the winter side one could expect to see upper level phenomena aproaching the surface. As the recent east coast storms.
Any denial?

I am not expressing any opinion on the Global Warming issue, just on your writing…

“Proof” and in the next sentence “most likely causing”??? You have to see how rediculous that is!!!

> “There are plenty of reasons to doubt the scientists starting with the simple and absolute fact that they do not have a perfect track record and if anything quite far from it. Scientists were once convinced the earth was flat. They were convinced for some time the Sun revolves around the Earth. They have manipulated data throughout history. …”

Tom you are obviously confused and/or intentionally spreading falsehoods.

Scientists were never convinced that the earth was flat; although ancient peoples often assumed that it was. Numerous scientists, philosophers and astronomers were persecuted for promoting the idea that earth is a sphere.

More recently; scientists, including most notably Galileo, were persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church for publishing his theory that earth revolves around the sun … and not the other way around.

Although he was persuaded to recant by the RC Church, he re-published his theories in 1632 and was found guilty of heresy, and placed under house arrest under orders from the Pope and died of heart and other disease 10 years later, still under house arrest.

In short, your statements are not only absurd, but utterly false and in fact diametrically opposite to the truth.

You are obviously not a scientist. In science, theory has a quite different meaning that compared to the way a police detective uses the word theory.

In science, accepted theories are as good as facts. They may not be the final and ultimate truth, but they are far from being suspect or false.

Take for example, the theory of general relativity, which, amongst other things, defines gravity.

I don’t think there is anyone who doubts gravity exists, even if we don’t (yet) fully understand what it is and how it works.

There are numerous other “theories” which are accepted canon and are beyond dispute. It just means that we still have more to learn, it does not mean that the accepted theory is possibly false or wrong, just that we still have more to learn.

In terms of global climate change, there is overwhelming evidence from literally hundreds if not thousands of accredited and reputable research facilities that concur that global climate change is real and it is happening already.

While these different teams use different methods and techniques and their results and predictions are not always identical, the conclusions are all essentially the same.

In predicting the future, there is always uncertainty and so it should not be surprising that different researchers reach different conclusions, but rarely if ever do they contradict each other.

If you look at the whole body of research, there is overwhelming evidence for global warming in general and climate change and climate instability in particular.

This is why we are seeing an increase in the frequency and severity of extreme weather events (could be hot or cold) including cyclones (hurricanes, typhoons, etc.)

While it is impossible to link any specific event to global warming (such as Hurricane Katrina), events such as this are exactly what climate change theory predicts.

~~

‘…I see:
“Human activities are most likely causing global warming according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report.”

“is primarily” and “most likely” are opposing statements which means:
We do not know. So, how can any government base sound policy on inconclusive science?
…’

How on earth (pun intended) do you come to the conclusion that”

“is primarily” and “most likely” are opposing statements

… these are entirely consistent with each other and are not at all opposing statements.

It is true that there is a lot we still do not know, but the bottom line is that we know far than enough to be sure that mankind is making a profound impact on the global climate.

This is not to say that natural forces have ceased to act … but what it does mean that mankind’s activities are no longer insignificant on the global climate scene.

We don’t exactly know what the future climate will be, but we sure it will be generally hotter, more unstable and unpredictable and also we expect to see significant increases in sea level that threaten most coastal and even many inland cities.

Never mind Tuvalu, many other countries are threatened, including The Netherlands (much of which is already below sea level), Florida, Bangladesh, Manhattan, City of London … the list goes on.

If these cities, states and countries disappear below the waves, the economic and social costs are utterly unfathomable.

While it is true that there is no certainty exactly what will happen or how soon, we know the direction we are heading.

It is true that it was hotter before with much higher CO2, but that was in the early history of this planet when the atmosphere was toxic to life as we know it today. Do we want to re-create a toxic atmosphere?

The reason that the atmosphere is no longer toxic is that early life forms and microbes consumed the toxic CO2 and other gases and sequestered these gases underground as oil, gas and coal.

If we continue to liberate these fossil fuels that took literally billions of years to sequester hamlessly undergound, then we are on track to recreate a primordial atmosphere that will destroy life as we know it.

It is insane to argue about the minutiae of details, the big picture is that we are heading into a period of rapid, man-made, climatic uncertainty.

It is like building a house of wood in a fire zone or a house on sand dunes by the beach … you cannot “prove” when the fire will strike or when a storm will wash your house into the sea, but you know its going to happen sooner or later … those are the risks.

Those who demand absolute “proof” are playing with fire. We can’t prove exactly what will happen, but we know more than enough that civilization is at great risk of catastrophic change.

We also know that there are ways to reduce the risks and to adjust to the inevitable change. Obviously, the sooner we act the better.

If we wait till every last soul on this planet accepts that climate changes is upon us, it will be too late.

~~

No self-respecting post graduate fellow would write such drivel as “I have a PhD and am a Dr.” … a Ph.D. confers the title “doctor” so it is clear that you are neither.

Q.E.D.
–

However, unless you approach the speed of light, Newton’s Law is an excellent approximation. These days, scientists rarely, if ever, call their discoveries “Laws” because they recognize that, sooner or later, someone will come-up with a deeper and more comprehensive understanding.

That does not mean that Newton was wrong, just that he didn’t fully understand what was later discovered by Einstein. Einstein also understood that while his theory was a great improvement on Newton’s “Law” … it was not the final solution, in fact he spent the rest of his life trying to get to a deeper understanding. Now scientists have string and other theories that reach beyond Einstein’s discoveries.

And so it goes in science. A theory caries great weight and should not be dismissed as just a whim as some would think.

With climate change, there are tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of scientists who accept that this is real and that it is man-made. These are people who devote their lives to science, not because their is money in it (generally there is not), not because of profits (rarely there is) … and certainly not because they would not have a job if climate change was not happening. They would be doing it regardless.

However, there are many entrenched interests whose historical profits were as a direct result of exploitation of fossil fuels and environmental damage to the public good. Understandably, these interests are worried about if and how they can adapt to the new reality.

There will be winners and loosers. Those that insist on continuing to plunder the eath’s limited resources will loose. Those that adapt to sustainable business practices will prosper.

However, we cannot afford to take any more risks with our planet. If we screw-up, the economy will become irrelevant because the whole eco-system will change more rapidly than it has ever before, and far to fast for plant and animal life as we know it to survive. Do you want to gamble with your children’s and grand-children’s future?

Yes, we can adapt and evolve, but that is a painfully slow process and the rates of environmental changes that are projected are far faster than natural evolution can cope with.

We have no choice, we have to change.

And that is not a theory or law, it is a fact of life … we cannot afford to take any more risks.

~~

and finally, I have a PhD and am a Dr. I fully know what a scientific theory is and know it’s not proven. but i have seen no evidence that shows anything but temp’s are rising. so what? wouldn’t it be better for NYC to have Virginia like temperatures? would be for me.

thanks for reading.

take home point: need the facts doc’s. just the facts. not the opinions.

FACT: methane in the atmosphere has increased 145% in the last century

FACT: there are ignorant assbags who try to deny all the proof that global warming is real. they are too lazy to try to change their ways to be a more cleaner generation. they dont care for their children and grandchildren. partly because of the above reasons, partly because they are lonely and
wont ever get married.

the ignorant idiots are either stupid or retarded. there is so much proof its impossible to ignore it all. whether u believe it or not, its your desision. and for the people who say g warming isnt real and havent visited any sites: YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO SAY “global warming isnt real because i dont think it is. drrrrRRrrRRRRRrrrRR.” stop being so biased. have any of you visited at LEAST 1 reliable site? have you watvhed 1 reliable movie or read and article? no? then please stop making yourself look like a dumbass. i like good, smart arguments, unlike what i see here. it makes me wonder. if you care at all, i put some good sites

http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_evd.htm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article516033.ece

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming
/science_and_impacts/science/global-warming-faq.html

QUESTION: do u at least think we should change our ways? suppose g warming isnt real. should we at least stop burning fossil fuels and stop wasting energy?

oh yea and you can be a christian and still believe in global warming. i am one.