FrostCloud Forums  

Go Back   FrostCloud Forums > Politics > Politics and World Events

Greetings!

Politics and World Events A place for all you liberals, conservatives, and even radicals.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-13-2007, 05:14 AM
ArghMonkey's Avatar
ArghMonkey ArghMonkey is offline
•••
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 14,434
The Denial Machine

More information for the "less than educated" that think global warming isent real ...

Heres a documentary about the idiots that are lying and fooling the stupid in our society ...




http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?doc...84499045867811
__________________
**************
*************************

Dragon busted on his lies ... HERE!

**
*******
**************
*******
**

"I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's” - Mark Twain

*************************
**************
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 06-13-2007, 01:05 PM
culinarean culinarean is offline
Cultural Infidel
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,795
Send a message via MSN to culinarean
Another Global warming thread?

Why not just stick to one GW thread....
__________________
Evolution: From goo, to you, through the zoo...
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-13-2007, 02:33 PM
IamJoseph IamJoseph is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 22,527
Thumbs up NOT ALL ARE IN DENIAL

Here's a Britsh leader who's a converted Zionist. He must be a masochist.



British leader backs Israel


UK Conservative party head supports Israel’s right to exist, considers himself a Zionist

Hagit Klaiman Published: 06.13.07, 14:47 / Israel News




LONDON – David Cameron, leader of the UK Conservative party, backed Israel’s struggle against those who do not acknowledge its right to exist Tuesday afternoon. Cameron spoke of his support at a luncheon organized by Israel supporters within the conservative party.



“If what you mean by Zionist, someone who believes that the Jews have a right to a homeland in Israel and a right to their country then yes, I am a Zionist,” Cameron said.



“The West has to understand that there isn’t an equivalence between a democratically elected Government of Israel, a state of Israel that is a democracy, that’s a member of the United Nations, that has a totally legitimate right to exist and defend itself – there is no equivalence between that and a group like Hamas,” he added.



Cameron said that his visit to Israel in February left a deep impression on him, but admitted that he had mixed feelings regarding the peace process.



He said he was disappointed by the situation created by Hamas. However, despite his awareness of the difficulties caused by the separation fence, he believed it was justified, and that it has already brought about change.



He also said less popular things as a “friend of Israel”. For example, he said that Israel should refrain from establishing more settlements that would make it harder to reach a two state solution, which thought the best solution for the region.



According to Cameron, British Prime Minister Tony Blair was “right in that he sees with absolute clarity that point that Israel is a democracy and that Israel is a country that has a right to its own legitimate self defense, to protect itself and he understands there is no equivalence between that and terrorist groups”.



The conservative leader said that many politicians were naïve in their belief that a solution between Israel and the Palestinians would solve the conflict between militant Islam and the West.




When asked his opinion about Israel’s actions during the Second Lebanon War, Cameron said that he was among the few politicians in the world who did not call for an immediate ceasefire, but supported Israel’s right to protect itself against Hizbullah’s rockets.




However, he added, again as a “friend of Israel”, that he thought the use of cluster bombs and Israel’s responses in general were disproportional.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-13-2007, 02:39 PM
IamJoseph IamJoseph is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 22,527
Thumbs up

BUT THE GLOWBAL WARMING BS HAS NOW BEEN PROVEN AS BS - BY MOST SCIENTISTS. AL GORE IS NO SCIENTIST BUT A FAILED POLITICIAN - I WOULD'NT BUY A USED CAR FROM HIM.


We bad humans have only been here recently, at least 1 m years (?). The planet is 5 billion years old. This should signal who the looneys are.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-13-2007, 03:32 PM
Dragon's Avatar
Dragon Dragon is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 29,365
Send a message via AIM to Dragon Send a message via MSN to Dragon Send a message via Yahoo to Dragon
Quote:
Originally Posted by culinarean
Another Global warming thread?

Why not just stick to one GW thread....
If i had my way these type of people would be banned for spamming.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-18-2007, 12:31 AM
ArghMonkey's Avatar
ArghMonkey ArghMonkey is offline
•••
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 14,434
We know ur pro-censorship dragon, u just want to silence ppl u disagree with, we all know this *L*

Thanks for coming out fuck nut ...
__________________
**************
*************************

Dragon busted on his lies ... HERE!

**
*******
**************
*******
**

"I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's” - Mark Twain

*************************
**************
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-18-2007, 01:44 AM
Dragon's Avatar
Dragon Dragon is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 29,365
Send a message via AIM to Dragon Send a message via MSN to Dragon Send a message via Yahoo to Dragon
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArghMonkey
We know ur pro-censorship dragon, u just want to silence ppl u disagree with, we all know this *L*

Thanks for coming out fuck nut ...
Oh it has nothing to do with censorship at all Monkey Boy, it has to do with ridding garbage posts that have no content at all.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-18-2007, 02:00 AM
IamJoseph IamJoseph is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 22,527
Thumbs up THE WREAL DENIAL MACHINE.

Not a single sentence of the arab terror should go unreported - because media like the BBC have offices in these areas, and are never short on reporting the smallest item against Israel. There is nothing unusual about what Hamas is doing in gaza - its normal everyday fare about the terorrists here. But because it is not against Israel and a inter-group war - every European media has either been silent of it - or glossed it over with candy-coated terms. I wait the day Europe and the leftys will pay the highest price heaven has, in response to their covert holocaust design upon the Jews.

I would place today's best world journalist as Aaron Klien - remember this name - he is worth 10,000 European Journo sicos!

Hamas wakes up to grim reality

ANNETTE YOUNG IN JERUSALEM

"GAZA is becoming the Mogadishu of the Mediterranean," said one Palestinian official who refused to be named. "People thrown off the rooftops of 10-storey buildings, Palestinians shooting other Palestinians at point blank, others shot in front of their families. So Hamas is in control but do they really think people won't forget what has happened given our culture of pay-back and revenge?"

Yesterday, as locals awoke to the reality of a Hamas-controlled Gaza, people were beginning to count the cost of last week's fighting. Some shops began opening, university students returned to classes and people nervously left their homes for the first time in five days.

With Israel having closed the Erez and Karni border crossings, and Egypt having done the same with the Rafah crossing, Gaza is effectively sealed off from the rest of the world, with its 1.5 million residents having no choice in the past week but to stay in their homes as gun battles raged on the streets outside.

"I still haven't yet been outside my building in the last week. None of my family has," said Professor Naji Shurab, a lecturer in political science at Al Azhar University. "All we did is sit in front of the television trying to work out what was going on as we heard gunfire outside.

"While Hamas has the ability to keep the gangs in control, that is not the problem. It's whether they will be able to ensure the hospitals have enough supplies, people have food and that salaries are being paid.

"And are they going to talk to the Israelis about reopening the border crossings to get aid in and also ensure that water and electricity is still supplied to Gaza?"

Yesterday, Hamas officials called on Palestinians to bring an end to the looting of Fatah military bases and homes belonging to Fatah officials.

In a scene which one bystander likened to looting in Baghdad after the fall of Saddam Hussein, hundreds of people swarmed through the unoccupied villa of former Fatah security chief, Mohammed Dahlan (now based in the West Bank), after his neighbourhood fell to Hamas, stripping everything, including windows, doors and flower pots.

"The battle is over. Hamas is in control of the streets but the main issue for Palestinians is to push both sides to understand that the only way to achieve victory is through dialogue and not with violence," said Ahmad Shawa, the Gaza co-ordinator for the Palestinian NGO Network. "But with the border crossings closed - which are our lifeline - we are facing a shortage of food and medicine and the situation is becoming more critical by the day."

It was a resounding military achievement for the Islamist movement which, although numerically smaller in number than Fatah forces, overturned its opponents within a matter of days. Awaiting word from President Mahmoud Abbas whether to fire back, Fatah soldiers, despite support from the United States, crumbled in the face of the determined Hamas fighters who, having taken over key Fatah bases such as the Preventative Security Forces headquarters, would kneel down, with their foreheads touching the ground, and pray.

As Khaled Abu Toameh, the Palestinian Affairs editor for the Jerusalem Post, wrote: "Fatah lost the battle for the Gaza Strip because it lost the confidence and support of many Palestinians a long time ago... The decline of Fatah actually began with the day Yasser Arafat died in November 2004."

Despite declaring his determination to bring an end to corruption and lawlessness when he came president in January 2005, Abbas did anything but. Instead, Toameh argues, the Palestinian president surrounded himself with symbols of corruption and former Arafat cronies, promoted notorious warlords and, for the first time, the number of Palestinians killed in internal fighting was higher than those killed by Israel.

It's no surprise, says Toameh, that more and more Palestinians, especially those living in poverty-stricken Gaza, began to believe "Islam is the solution" and turned to Hamas.

Following their victory in the January 2006 elections, Hamas viewed the subsequent international aid boycott as part of a Western conspiracy to remove it from power.

When the United States gave nearly £30m to train the Fatah-affiliated presidential guard, Hamas became furious since it had been battling with Fatah to gain control of its bloated security forces after its election victory.

The Hamas victory in Gaza is a major concern for Washington as it also watches al-Qaeda-inspired Fatah al-Islam fighters battle Lebanese troops in Nahr al-Barad refugee camp near Tripoli for the fourth week in a row.

One leading expert has raised the prospect of the West having to contend with militants inspired or even linked to bin Laden having the ascendency in Gaza.

Jonathan Alterman, of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, said: "One of the things we haven't seen yet in the Palestinian community is the rise of al-Qaeda or Qaeda-like groups. We could well have that in Gaza, not in three years' time, but in one year's time."

Yossi Mekelburg, a Middle East analyst at the Chatham House think-tank in London, said: "We said that Arafat was not a partner and we got Hamas. We said that Hamas is not a partner and we might get al-Qaeda - we already see signs of this."

Both events are part of a worrying global trend whereby groups signing on to the global Jihad movement are seizing power - or attempting to - said Dr Boaz Ganor, the executive director of the International Policy Institute for Counter Terrorism, based in Israel.

In the past, Hamas has been careful to distance itself from al-Qaeda but, after signing the Mecca agreement to join Fatah in an unity government last February, it came under fierce criticism from al-Qaeda supporters who claimed Hamas was departing from its Islamist principles by accepting such an agreement.

"Within weeks, we saw Hamas officials starting to declare not only that they wanted to 'free Palestine', but also to promote global Jihad with its ultimate aim of establishing a worldwide Islamic republic ruled by Sharia law," Ganor said.

While Syria has played a major role in offering support to Hamas, it is Iran - with its supply of weapons and offers of training to Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups in Gaza and the West Bank - that is the mastermind behind the military rise of these groups. "Just like Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, Israel will now have Iran-by-proxy ruling Gaza," said Ganor.

"Yes, the global Jihad movement may be Sunni-based and Iran is a Shia regime but what people need to realise is that there is far more in common between those two elements than people think.

"We are witnessing a third world war between global Jihadists and those against them. It's not just a case of Muslim versus the infidel but Islamic extremists against those who don't accept their view, including moderate Muslims."

For Israel, the key issue will be the sealing off of tunnels dug underneath the Gaza-Egyptian border which have been used to smuggle weapons including longer-range rockets.

Israel is looking towards Egypt to take pro-active measures and seal off the tunnels. The Israelis fear that the crudely made Qassams, which have a limited range, are being replaced with much longer-range rockets whose reach could extend well into Israel.

But hopes for an international force based along the Gaza-Egypt border were dashed late last week when the Organisation of Islamic Conference, the world's biggest grouping of Islamic nations, opposed the idea.

"What is needed is not external forces. It needs a better understanding between internal forces," said the OIC secretary-general Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu. "I do think that there is a need for a strong leadership on behalf of all political leaders and the situation cannot be allowed to further deteriorate."

Hamas immediately rejected the idea. "The movement would regard those forces as occupation forces no different to the Israeli occupation, regardless of their nationality," Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri said.

But an international force will be on the agenda for Tuesday's meeting between Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and US President George Bush as the two leaders discuss how to ensure violence does not spill over to the West Bank.

In order to bolster a weakened Abbas, Washington will put pressure on Israel to release tax revenues that have been frozen since Hamas came to power in March last year and to begin making serious concessions in the West Bank, including the removal of road blocks and lifting of restrictions. Israel last night said would allow humanitarian aid into the area.

Back on the West Bank, Fatah militants torched Hamas offices and warned of more reprisals if comrades were harmed in Gaza.

Now the Palestinian territories and its four million residents are well and truly divided into two distinct regions which are separated by 30 miles of Israel. Palestinians are now referring to it as a three-state solution.

And in Gaza, Hamas will need to deal with the reality of governing an area where some 65% of people live below the poverty line. Its economy, already shattered by the last intifada, has been devastated by the international aid boycott which came into effect after Hamas, which still refuses to renounce violence or to recognise Israel's right to exist, came to power in early 2006.

With the rise in kidnappings of foreigners along with worsening violence, most international aid organisations no longer operate in Gaza, which also gets its water and electricity from Israel and Egypt.

Palestinians in Gaza say they are facing shortages of basic food and medical supplies.

"Hamas will find it difficult to translate their military victory into a political achievement given the way they imposed their power on to Gaza," said Mouin Rabbani, a senior analyst with the International Crisis Group.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-18-2007, 02:00 AM
IamJoseph IamJoseph is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 22,527
Thumbs up THE WREAL DENIAL MACHINE.

Not a single sentence of the arab terror should go unreported - because media like the BBC have offices in these areas, and are never short on reporting the smallest item against Israel. There is nothing unusual about what Hamas is doing in gaza - its normal everyday fare about the terorrists here. But because it is not against Israel and a inter-group war - every European media has either been silent of it - or glossed it over with candy-coated terms. I wait the day Europe and the leftys will pay the highest price heaven has, in response to their covert holocaust design upon the Jews.

I would place today's best world journalist as Aaron Klien - remember this name - he is worth 10,000 European Journo sicos!

Hamas wakes up to grim reality

ANNETTE YOUNG IN JERUSALEM

"GAZA is becoming the Mogadishu of the Mediterranean," said one Palestinian official who refused to be named. "People thrown off the rooftops of 10-storey buildings, Palestinians shooting other Palestinians at point blank, others shot in front of their families. So Hamas is in control but do they really think people won't forget what has happened given our culture of pay-back and revenge?"

Yesterday, as locals awoke to the reality of a Hamas-controlled Gaza, people were beginning to count the cost of last week's fighting. Some shops began opening, university students returned to classes and people nervously left their homes for the first time in five days.

With Israel having closed the Erez and Karni border crossings, and Egypt having done the same with the Rafah crossing, Gaza is effectively sealed off from the rest of the world, with its 1.5 million residents having no choice in the past week but to stay in their homes as gun battles raged on the streets outside.

"I still haven't yet been outside my building in the last week. None of my family has," said Professor Naji Shurab, a lecturer in political science at Al Azhar University. "All we did is sit in front of the television trying to work out what was going on as we heard gunfire outside.

"While Hamas has the ability to keep the gangs in control, that is not the problem. It's whether they will be able to ensure the hospitals have enough supplies, people have food and that salaries are being paid.

"And are they going to talk to the Israelis about reopening the border crossings to get aid in and also ensure that water and electricity is still supplied to Gaza?"

Yesterday, Hamas officials called on Palestinians to bring an end to the looting of Fatah military bases and homes belonging to Fatah officials.

In a scene which one bystander likened to looting in Baghdad after the fall of Saddam Hussein, hundreds of people swarmed through the unoccupied villa of former Fatah security chief, Mohammed Dahlan (now based in the West Bank), after his neighbourhood fell to Hamas, stripping everything, including windows, doors and flower pots.

"The battle is over. Hamas is in control of the streets but the main issue for Palestinians is to push both sides to understand that the only way to achieve victory is through dialogue and not with violence," said Ahmad Shawa, the Gaza co-ordinator for the Palestinian NGO Network. "But with the border crossings closed - which are our lifeline - we are facing a shortage of food and medicine and the situation is becoming more critical by the day."

It was a resounding military achievement for the Islamist movement which, although numerically smaller in number than Fatah forces, overturned its opponents within a matter of days. Awaiting word from President Mahmoud Abbas whether to fire back, Fatah soldiers, despite support from the United States, crumbled in the face of the determined Hamas fighters who, having taken over key Fatah bases such as the Preventative Security Forces headquarters, would kneel down, with their foreheads touching the ground, and pray.

As Khaled Abu Toameh, the Palestinian Affairs editor for the Jerusalem Post, wrote: "Fatah lost the battle for the Gaza Strip because it lost the confidence and support of many Palestinians a long time ago... The decline of Fatah actually began with the day Yasser Arafat died in November 2004."

Despite declaring his determination to bring an end to corruption and lawlessness when he came president in January 2005, Abbas did anything but. Instead, Toameh argues, the Palestinian president surrounded himself with symbols of corruption and former Arafat cronies, promoted notorious warlords and, for the first time, the number of Palestinians killed in internal fighting was higher than those killed by Israel.

It's no surprise, says Toameh, that more and more Palestinians, especially those living in poverty-stricken Gaza, began to believe "Islam is the solution" and turned to Hamas.

Following their victory in the January 2006 elections, Hamas viewed the subsequent international aid boycott as part of a Western conspiracy to remove it from power.

When the United States gave nearly £30m to train the Fatah-affiliated presidential guard, Hamas became furious since it had been battling with Fatah to gain control of its bloated security forces after its election victory.

The Hamas victory in Gaza is a major concern for Washington as it also watches al-Qaeda-inspired Fatah al-Islam fighters battle Lebanese troops in Nahr al-Barad refugee camp near Tripoli for the fourth week in a row.

One leading expert has raised the prospect of the West having to contend with militants inspired or even linked to bin Laden having the ascendency in Gaza.

Jonathan Alterman, of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, said: "One of the things we haven't seen yet in the Palestinian community is the rise of al-Qaeda or Qaeda-like groups. We could well have that in Gaza, not in three years' time, but in one year's time."

Yossi Mekelburg, a Middle East analyst at the Chatham House think-tank in London, said: "We said that Arafat was not a partner and we got Hamas. We said that Hamas is not a partner and we might get al-Qaeda - we already see signs of this."

Both events are part of a worrying global trend whereby groups signing on to the global Jihad movement are seizing power - or attempting to - said Dr Boaz Ganor, the executive director of the International Policy Institute for Counter Terrorism, based in Israel.

In the past, Hamas has been careful to distance itself from al-Qaeda but, after signing the Mecca agreement to join Fatah in an unity government last February, it came under fierce criticism from al-Qaeda supporters who claimed Hamas was departing from its Islamist principles by accepting such an agreement.

"Within weeks, we saw Hamas officials starting to declare not only that they wanted to 'free Palestine', but also to promote global Jihad with its ultimate aim of establishing a worldwide Islamic republic ruled by Sharia law," Ganor said.

While Syria has played a major role in offering support to Hamas, it is Iran - with its supply of weapons and offers of training to Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups in Gaza and the West Bank - that is the mastermind behind the military rise of these groups. "Just like Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, Israel will now have Iran-by-proxy ruling Gaza," said Ganor.

"Yes, the global Jihad movement may be Sunni-based and Iran is a Shia regime but what people need to realise is that there is far more in common between those two elements than people think.

"We are witnessing a third world war between global Jihadists and those against them. It's not just a case of Muslim versus the infidel but Islamic extremists against those who don't accept their view, including moderate Muslims."

For Israel, the key issue will be the sealing off of tunnels dug underneath the Gaza-Egyptian border which have been used to smuggle weapons including longer-range rockets.

Israel is looking towards Egypt to take pro-active measures and seal off the tunnels. The Israelis fear that the crudely made Qassams, which have a limited range, are being replaced with much longer-range rockets whose reach could extend well into Israel.

But hopes for an international force based along the Gaza-Egypt border were dashed late last week when the Organisation of Islamic Conference, the world's biggest grouping of Islamic nations, opposed the idea.

"What is needed is not external forces. It needs a better understanding between internal forces," said the OIC secretary-general Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu. "I do think that there is a need for a strong leadership on behalf of all political leaders and the situation cannot be allowed to further deteriorate."

Hamas immediately rejected the idea. "The movement would regard those forces as occupation forces no different to the Israeli occupation, regardless of their nationality," Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri said.

But an international force will be on the agenda for Tuesday's meeting between Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and US President George Bush as the two leaders discuss how to ensure violence does not spill over to the West Bank.

In order to bolster a weakened Abbas, Washington will put pressure on Israel to release tax revenues that have been frozen since Hamas came to power in March last year and to begin making serious concessions in the West Bank, including the removal of road blocks and lifting of restrictions. Israel last night said would allow humanitarian aid into the area.

Back on the West Bank, Fatah militants torched Hamas offices and warned of more reprisals if comrades were harmed in Gaza.

Now the Palestinian territories and its four million residents are well and truly divided into two distinct regions which are separated by 30 miles of Israel. Palestinians are now referring to it as a three-state solution.

And in Gaza, Hamas will need to deal with the reality of governing an area where some 65% of people live below the poverty line. Its economy, already shattered by the last intifada, has been devastated by the international aid boycott which came into effect after Hamas, which still refuses to renounce violence or to recognise Israel's right to exist, came to power in early 2006.

With the rise in kidnappings of foreigners along with worsening violence, most international aid organisations no longer operate in Gaza, which also gets its water and electricity from Israel and Egypt.

Palestinians in Gaza say they are facing shortages of basic food and medical supplies.

"Hamas will find it difficult to translate their military victory into a political achievement given the way they imposed their power on to Gaza," said Mouin Rabbani, a senior analyst with the International Crisis Group.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-18-2007, 02:12 AM
ArghMonkey's Avatar
ArghMonkey ArghMonkey is offline
•••
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 14,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon
Oh it has nothing to do with censorship at all Monkey Boy, it has to do with ridding garbage posts that have no content at all.
Your insane, this is a documentary full of scientific fact showing how american conservatives who are global warming deniers are infact being paid millions by oil companies to lie on the record *L*

Your a FOOL !!!! *L*
__________________
**************
*************************

Dragon busted on his lies ... HERE!

**
*******
**************
*******
**

"I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's” - Mark Twain

*************************
**************
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 06-18-2007, 02:13 AM
ArghMonkey's Avatar
ArghMonkey ArghMonkey is offline
•••
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 14,434
More information for the "less than educated" that think global warming isent real ...

Heres a documentary about the idiots that are lying and fooling the stupid in our society ...




http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?doc...84499045867811
__________________
**************
*************************

Dragon busted on his lies ... HERE!

**
*******
**************
*******
**

"I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's” - Mark Twain

*************************
**************
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-18-2007, 02:15 AM
Dragon's Avatar
Dragon Dragon is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 29,365
Send a message via AIM to Dragon Send a message via MSN to Dragon Send a message via Yahoo to Dragon
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArghMonkey
Your insane, this is a documentary full of scientific fact showing how american conservatives who are global warming deniers are infact being paid millions by oil companies to lie on the record *L*

Your a FOOL !!!! *L*

Scientific fact huh, where again?
Just like i provided you and that otehr person, name again? DimensionQ? Ah yes him. Well anyways i showed you guys scientists, yes scientists, that said OTHERWISE to your "side" of the arguement.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-18-2007, 02:24 AM
kyman's Avatar
kyman kyman is offline
snarf
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: limbo
Posts: 11,035
Blog Entries: 1
This issue is similar to the connection cigarettes have to lung cancer.

Do you think cigarettes do not or are not highly related to lung cancer?
__________________
Worlds of difference between everything and nothing.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-18-2007, 02:28 AM
ArghMonkey's Avatar
ArghMonkey ArghMonkey is offline
•••
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 14,434
There is no debate about global warming with scientists because the evidence is overwhelming !!!

Your like the ppl who still wanted to believe the world was flat against all the evidence ...

Its a FACT as much as evolution is a fact *L*


Quote:
National and international science academies and professional societies have assessed the current scientific opinion on climate change, in particular recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the IPCC postition that "An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities".[1]


This page documents scientific opinion as given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. It does not document the views of individual scientists or self-selected lists of individuals such as petitions.

Yet more scientific data for ur stupid stupid stupid ass ...

Quote:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

Main article: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

In February 2007, the IPCC released a summary of the forthcoming Fourth Assessment Report. According to this summary, the Fourth Assessment Report finds that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability.[2]

"The world's leading climate scientists said global warming has begun, is very likely caused by man, and will be unstoppable for centuries, ... . The phrase very likely translates to a more than 90 percent certainty that global warming is caused by man's burning of fossil fuels. That was the strongest conclusion to date, making it nearly impossible to say natural forces are to blame."[6]

"The report said that an increase in hurricane and tropical cyclone strength since 1970 more likely than not can be attributed to man-made global warming. The scientists said global warming's connection varies with storms in different parts of the world, but that the storms that strike the Americas are global warming-influenced."[7]

"On sea levels, the report projects rises of 7-23 inches by the end of the century. That could be augmented by an additional 4-8 inches if recent surprising polar ice sheet melt continues."[8]

Joint science academies’ statement 2005

In 2005 the national science academies of the G8 nations, plus Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, signed a statement on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action [9], and explicitly endorsed the IPCC consensus.

Joint science academies’ statement 2001

In 2001, following the publication of the IPCC Third Assessment Report, sixteen national science academies issued a joint statement explicitly acknowledging the IPCC position as representing the scientific conensus on climate change science. Among the signatories are the science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Carribean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.[10]

U.S. National Research Council, 2001

In 2001 the Committee on the Science of Climate Change of the National Research Council published Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions [11]. This report explicitly endorses the IPCC view of attribution of recent climate change as representing the view of the scientific community:

The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century... 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. [12]

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. [13]

American Geophysical Union

The American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement [3] adopted by the society in 2003 declares its virtual certainty that rising levels of greenhouse gases will cause the global surface temperature to be warmer:

"Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century.

Human impacts on the climate system include increasing concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases (e.g., carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons and their substitutes, methane, nitrous oxide, etc.), air pollution, increasing concentrations of airborne particles, and land alteration. A particular concern is that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide may be rising faster than at any time in Earth's history, except possibly following rare events like impacts from large extraterrestrial objects.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have increased since the mid-1700s through fossil fuel burning and changes in land use, with more than 80% of this increase occurring since 1900. Moreover, research indicates that increased levels of carbon dioxide will remain in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years. It is virtually certain that increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will cause global surface climate to be warmer."

American Institute of Physics

The Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics endorsed the AGU statement on human-induced climate change:[4]

"The Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics has endorsed a position statement on climate change adopted by the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Council in December 2003."

American Astronomical Society

The American Astronomical Society has endorsed the AGU statement:[5]

"In endorsing the "Human Impacts on Climate" statement, the AAS recognizes the collective expertise of the AGU in scientific subfields central to assessing and understanding global change, and acknowledges the strength of agreement among our AGU colleagues that the global climate is changing and human activities are contributing to that change."

Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006

On May 2, 2006, the Federal Climate Change Science Program commissioned by the Bush administration in 2002 released the first of 21 assessments that concluded that there is clear evidence of human influences on the climate system (due to changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols, and stratospheric ozone) [14]. The study said that observed patterns of change over the past 50 years cannot be explained by natural processes alone, though it did not state what percentage of climate change might be anthropogenic in nature.

American Association for the Advancement of Science

The American Association for the Advancement of Science stated, "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." [15]

Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London

The Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London stated, "We find that the evidence for human-induced climate change is now persuasive, and the need for direct action compelling." [16]

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. Furthermore, the potential implications of global climate change and the time scale over which such changes will likely occur require active, effective, long-term planning." [17]

American Association of State Climatologists

The statement from the American Association of State Climatologists noted the difficulties with predicting impacts due to climate change, while acknowledging that human activities are having an effect on climate: "Climate prediction is difficult because it involves complex, nonlinear interactions among all components of the earth’s environmental system. (...) The AASC recognizes that human activities have an influence on the climate system. Such activities, however, are not limited to greenhouse gas forcing and include changing land use and sulfate emissions, which further complicates the issue of climate prediction. Furthermore, climate predictions have not demonstrated skill in projecting future variability and changes in such important climate conditions as growing season, drought, flood-producing rainfall, heat waves, tropical cyclones and winter storms. These are the type of events that have a more significant impact on society than annual average global temperature trends. Policy responses to climate variability and change should be flexible and sensible – The difficulty of prediction and the impossibility of verification of predictions decades into the future are important factors that allow for competing views of the long-term climate future. Therefore, the AASC recommends that policies related to long-term climate not be based on particular predictions, but instead should focus on policy alternatives that make sense for a wide range of plausible climatic conditions regardless of future climate." [18]

American Chemical Society

The American Chemical Society stated, "The overwhelming balance of evidence indicates that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is the prudent and responsible course of action at this time. Although vigorous climate research is certainly needed to reduce uncertainties and to identify potential adverse effects, it should not forestall prudent action now to address the issue. ACS believes that public and private efforts today are essential to protect the global climate system for the well-being of future generations." [19]

American Quaternary Association

The American Quaternary Association stated, "Few credible scientists now doubt that humans have influenced the documented rise in global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution. The first government-led U.S. Climate Change Science Program synthesis and assessment report supports the growing body of evidence that warming of the atmosphere, especially over the past 50 years, is directly impacted by human activity." [20]

Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)

"Engineers Australia believes that Australia must act swiftly and proactively in line with global expectations to address climate change as an economic, social and environmental risk... We believe that addressing the costs of atmospheric emissions will lead to increasing our competitive advantage by minimising risks and creating new economic opportunities.Engineers Australia believes the Australian Government should ratify the Kyoto Protocol."[21]

Statements by dissenting organizations

American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG)

The only major scientific organization that presently rejects the finding of significant human influence on recent climate is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG), according to a statement by the Council of the American Quaternary Association.[6] The AAPG Policy Statement on Climate Change Policy,[22] adopted in 1999,[23] states

"Recently published research results do not support the supposition of an anthropogenic cause of global climate change...Detailed examination of current climate data strongly suggests that current observations do not correlate with the assumptions or supportable projections of human-induced greenhouse effects."

As of May 2007, the AAPG is in the process of updating its statement, in part because "the current policy statement is not supported by a significant number of our members and prospective members." [24] A proposed statement [25] includes:

"Humans, simply by virtue of the size of the world's population, represent a new agent of change through our significant modifications related to land use, urbanization, industrial activity, and through changes in atmospheric composition related to fuel combustion and deforestation. The size and continued growth of the world's population indicates that continued change to the planet is inevitable."

The proposed statement lists increased greenhouse gases as one of "several contributing factors" to climate change but makes no comment on whether recent global warming is or is not primarily anthropogenic. It notes that the AAPG "respects the conclusions of [the IPCC]".

Scientific consensus

A question which frequently arises in conveying the scientific opinion to a broader audience is to what extent that opinion rises to the level of a consensus. Several scientific organizations have explicitly used the term "consensus" in their statements:

* American Association for the Advancement of Science: "The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Joint National Academies' statement." [26]
* US National Academy of Science: "In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth’s warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. ... On climate change, [the National Academies’ reports] have assessed consensus findings on the science..." [27]
* Joint Science Academies: "We recognise the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)." [28]
* American Meteorological Society: "The nature of science is such that there is rarely total agreement among scientists. Individual scientific statements and papers—the validity of some of which has yet to be assessed adequately—can be exploited in the policy debate and can leave the impression that the scientific community is sharply divided on issues where there is, in reality, a strong scientific consensus. The IPCC was established ... to fulfill the critical role of providing objective scientific, technical, and economic assessments of the current state of knowledge about various aspects of climate change. IPCC assessment reports are prepared at approximately five-year intervals by a large international group of experts who represent the broad range of expertise and perspectives relevant to the issues. The reports strive to reflect a consensus evaluation of the results of the full body of peer-reviewed research. ... They provide an analysis of what is known and not known, the degree of consensus, and some indication of the degree of confidence that can be placed on the various statements and conclusions." [29]

Recent surveys of scientists and scientific literature

Various surveys have been conducted to determine a scientific consensus on global warming. Few have been conducted within the last ten years.

Oreskes, 2004

A 2004 article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[7] 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; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change; none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". It was also pointed out, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."

Bray and von Storch, 2003

A survey was conducted in 2003 by Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch.[8] Bray's submission to Science on December 22, 2004 was rejected,[9] but the survey's results were reported through non-scientific venues.[10] [11] [12] The survey has been criticized on the grounds that it was performed on the web with no means to verify that the respondents were climate scientists or to prevent multiple submissions by the same individual. The survey required entry of a username and password, but this information was circulated to a climate skeptics mailing list and elsewhere on the internet.[13][14] The survey received 530 responses from 27 different countries. One of the questions asked was "To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes?", with a value of 1 indicating strongly agree and a value of 7 indicating strongly disagree. The results showed a mean of 3.62, with 50 responses (9.4%) indicating "strongly agree" and 54 responses (9.7%) indicating "strongly disagree". The same survey indicates a 72% to 20% endorsement of the IPCC reports as accurate, and a 15% to 80% rejection of the thesis that "there is enough uncertainty about the phenomenon of global warming that there is no need for immediate policy decisions."

Older surveys

Survey of U.S. state climatologists 1997

In 1997, the anti-regulation think tank Citizens for a Sound Economy surveyed America's 48 official state climatologists on questions related to climate change [30]. Of the 36 respondents, 44% considered global warming to be a largely natural phenomenon, compared to 17% who considered warming to be largely manmade. The survey further found that 58% disagreed or somewhat disagreed with then-President Clinton's assertion that "the overwhelming balance of evidence and scientific opinion is that it is no longer a theory, but now fact, that global warming is for real". Eighty-nine percent agreed that "current science is unable to isolate and measure variations in global temperatures caused ONLY by man-made factors," and 61% said that historical data do not indicate "that fluctuations in global temperatures are attributable to human influences such as burning fossil fuels."

60% of the respondents said that reducing man-made CO2 emissions by 15% below 1990 levels would not prevent global temperatures from rising, and 86% said that reducing emissions to 1990 levels would not prevent rising temperatures. 39% agreed and 33% disagreed that "evidence exists to suggest that the earth is headed for another glacial period," [31] though the time scale for the next glacial period was not specified.

Bray and von Storch, 1996

In 1996, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch undertook a survery of climate scientists on attitudes towards global warming and related matters. The results were subsequently published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. [32] The paper addressed the views of climate scientists, with a response rate of 40% from a mail survey questionnaire to 1000 scientists in Germany, the USA and Canada. Most of the scientists believed that global warming was occurring and appropriate policy action should be taken, but there was wide disagreement about the likely effects on society and almost all agreed that the predictive ability of currently existing models was limited.

The abstract says:

The international consensus was, however, apparent regarding the utility of the knowledge to date: climate science has provided enough knowledge so that the initiation of abatement measures is warranted. However, consensus also existed regarding the current inability to explicitly specify detrimental effects that might result from climate change. This incompatibility between the state of knowledge and the calls for action suggests that, to some degree at least, scientific advice is a product of both scientific knowledge and normative judgment, suggesting a socioscientific construction of the climate change issue.

The survey was extensive, and asked numerous questions on many aspects of climate science, model formulation, and utility, and science/public/policy interactions. To pick out some of the more vital topics, from the body of the paper:

The resulting questionnaire, consisting of 74 questions, was pre-tested in a German institution and after revisions, distributed to a total of 1,000 scientists in North America and Germany... The number of completed returns was as follows: USA 149, Canada 35, and Germany 228, a response rate of approximately 40%...

...With a value of 1 indicating the highest level of belief that predictions are possible and a value of 7 expressing the least faith in the predictive capabilities of the current state of climate science knowledge, the mean of the entire sample of 4.6 for the ability to make reasonable predictions of inter-annual variability tends to indicate that scientists feel that reasonable prediction is not yet a possibility... mean of 4.8 for reasonable predictions of 10 years... mean of 5.2 for periods of 100 years...

...a response of a value of 1 indicates a strong level of agreement with the statement of certainty that global warming is already underway or will occur without modification to human behavior... the mean response for the entire sample was 3.3 indicating a slight tendency towards the position that global warming has indeed been detected and is underway.... Regarding global warming as being a possible future event, there is a higher expression of confidence as indicated by the mean of 2.6.

Other older surveys of scientists

Note that the following surveys are over 15 years old. The state of climate science and the beliefs of climate scientists have changed radically since their time, as demonstrated by the reviews cited above.

* Global Environmental Change Report, 1990: GECR climate survey shows strong agreement on action, less so on warming. Global Environmental Change Report 2, No. 9, pp. 1-3
* Stewart, T.R., Mumpower, J.L., and Reagan-Cirincione, P. (1992). Scientists' opinions about global climate change: Summary of the results of a survey. NAEP (National Association of Environmental Professionals) Newsletter, 17(2), 6-7.
* A 1991 Gallup poll of 400 members of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society[citation needed]
o Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting states that the report said that 66 % of the scientists said that human-induced global warming was occurring, with 10 % disagreeing and the rest undecided. In a correction Gallup stated: "Most scientists involved in research in this area believe that human-induced global warming is occurring now."
o George Will reported "53 percent do not believe warming has occurred, and another 30 percent are uncertain." (Washington Post, September 3, 1992)
o A 1993 publication by the Heartland Institute states: "A Gallup poll conducted on February 13, 1992 of members of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society - the two professional societies whose members are most likely to be involved in climate research - found that 18 percent thought some global warming had occurred, 33 percent said insufficient information existed to tell, and 49 percent believed no warming had taken place."[33]

See also

* Australian Medical Association position statement on climate change
* National Registry of Environmental Professionals survey on climate change
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change
__________________
**************
*************************

Dragon busted on his lies ... HERE!

**
*******
**************
*******
**

"I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's” - Mark Twain

*************************
**************
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-18-2007, 02:28 AM
ArghMonkey's Avatar
ArghMonkey ArghMonkey is offline
•••
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 14,434
There is no debate about global warming with scientists because the evidence is overwhelming !!!

Your like the ppl who still wanted to believe the world was flat against all the evidence ...

Its a FACT as much as evolution is a fact *L*


Quote:
National and international science academies and professional societies have assessed the current scientific opinion on climate change, in particular recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the IPCC postition that "An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities".[1]


This page documents scientific opinion as given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. It does not document the views of individual scientists or self-selected lists of individuals such as petitions.

Yet more scientific data for ur stupid stupid stupid ass ...

Quote:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

Main article: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

In February 2007, the IPCC released a summary of the forthcoming Fourth Assessment Report. According to this summary, the Fourth Assessment Report finds that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability.[2]

"The world's leading climate scientists said global warming has begun, is very likely caused by man, and will be unstoppable for centuries, ... . The phrase very likely translates to a more than 90 percent certainty that global warming is caused by man's burning of fossil fuels. That was the strongest conclusion to date, making it nearly impossible to say natural forces are to blame."[6]

"The report said that an increase in hurricane and tropical cyclone strength since 1970 more likely than not can be attributed to man-made global warming. The scientists said global warming's connection varies with storms in different parts of the world, but that the storms that strike the Americas are global warming-influenced."[7]

"On sea levels, the report projects rises of 7-23 inches by the end of the century. That could be augmented by an additional 4-8 inches if recent surprising polar ice sheet melt continues."[8]

Joint science academies’ statement 2005

In 2005 the national science academies of the G8 nations, plus Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, signed a statement on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action [9], and explicitly endorsed the IPCC consensus.

Joint science academies’ statement 2001

In 2001, following the publication of the IPCC Third Assessment Report, sixteen national science academies issued a joint statement explicitly acknowledging the IPCC position as representing the scientific conensus on climate change science. Among the signatories are the science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Carribean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.[10]

U.S. National Research Council, 2001

In 2001 the Committee on the Science of Climate Change of the National Research Council published Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions [11]. This report explicitly endorses the IPCC view of attribution of recent climate change as representing the view of the scientific community:

The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century... 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. [12]

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. [13]

American Geophysical Union

The American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement [3] adopted by the society in 2003 declares its virtual certainty that rising levels of greenhouse gases will cause the global surface temperature to be warmer:

"Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century.

Human impacts on the climate system include increasing concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases (e.g., carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons and their substitutes, methane, nitrous oxide, etc.), air pollution, increasing concentrations of airborne particles, and land alteration. A particular concern is that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide may be rising faster than at any time in Earth's history, except possibly following rare events like impacts from large extraterrestrial objects.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have increased since the mid-1700s through fossil fuel burning and changes in land use, with more than 80% of this increase occurring since 1900. Moreover, research indicates that increased levels of carbon dioxide will remain in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years. It is virtually certain that increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will cause global surface climate to be warmer."

American Institute of Physics

The Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics endorsed the AGU statement on human-induced climate change:[4]

"The Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics has endorsed a position statement on climate change adopted by the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Council in December 2003."

American Astronomical Society

The American Astronomical Society has endorsed the AGU statement:[5]

"In endorsing the "Human Impacts on Climate" statement, the AAS recognizes the collective expertise of the AGU in scientific subfields central to assessing and understanding global change, and acknowledges the strength of agreement among our AGU colleagues that the global climate is changing and human activities are contributing to that change."

Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006

On May 2, 2006, the Federal Climate Change Science Program commissioned by the Bush administration in 2002 released the first of 21 assessments that concluded that there is clear evidence of human influences on the climate system (due to changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols, and stratospheric ozone) [14]. The study said that observed patterns of change over the past 50 years cannot be explained by natural processes alone, though it did not state what percentage of climate change might be anthropogenic in nature.

American Association for the Advancement of Science

The American Association for the Advancement of Science stated, "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." [15]

Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London

The Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London stated, "We find that the evidence for human-induced climate change is now persuasive, and the need for direct action compelling." [16]

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. Furthermore, the potential implications of global climate change and the time scale over which such changes will likely occur require active, effective, long-term planning." [17]

American Association of State Climatologists

The statement from the American Association of State Climatologists noted the difficulties with predicting impacts due to climate change, while acknowledging that human activities are having an effect on climate: "Climate prediction is difficult because it involves complex, nonlinear interactions among all components of the earth’s environmental system. (...) The AASC recognizes that human activities have an influence on the climate system. Such activities, however, are not limited to greenhouse gas forcing and include changing land use and sulfate emissions, which further complicates the issue of climate prediction. Furthermore, climate predictions have not demonstrated skill in projecting future variability and changes in such important climate conditions as growing season, drought, flood-producing rainfall, heat waves, tropical cyclones and winter storms. These are the type of events that have a more significant impact on society than annual average global temperature trends. Policy responses to climate variability and change should be flexible and sensible – The difficulty of prediction and the impossibility of verification of predictions decades into the future are important factors that allow for competing views of the long-term climate future. Therefore, the AASC recommends that policies related to long-term climate not be based on particular predictions, but instead should focus on policy alternatives that make sense for a wide range of plausible climatic conditions regardless of future climate." [18]

American Chemical Society

The American Chemical Society stated, "The overwhelming balance of evidence indicates that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is the prudent and responsible course of action at this time. Although vigorous climate research is certainly needed to reduce uncertainties and to identify potential adverse effects, it should not forestall prudent action now to address the issue. ACS believes that public and private efforts today are essential to protect the global climate system for the well-being of future generations." [19]

American Quaternary Association

The American Quaternary Association stated, "Few credible scientists now doubt that humans have influenced the documented rise in global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution. The first government-led U.S. Climate Change Science Program synthesis and assessment report supports the growing body of evidence that warming of the atmosphere, especially over the past 50 years, is directly impacted by human activity." [20]

Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)

"Engineers Australia believes that Australia must act swiftly and proactively in line with global expectations to address climate change as an economic, social and environmental risk... We believe that addressing the costs of atmospheric emissions will lead to increasing our competitive advantage by minimising risks and creating new economic opportunities.Engineers Australia believes the Australian Government should ratify the Kyoto Protocol."[21]

Statements by dissenting organizations

American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG)

The only major scientific organization that presently rejects the finding of significant human influence on recent climate is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG), according to a statement by the Council of the American Quaternary Association.[6] The AAPG Policy Statement on Climate Change Policy,[22] adopted in 1999,[23] states

"Recently published research results do not support the supposition of an anthropogenic cause of global climate change...Detailed examination of current climate data strongly suggests that current observations do not correlate with the assumptions or supportable projections of human-induced greenhouse effects."

As of May 2007, the AAPG is in the process of updating its statement, in part because "the current policy statement is not supported by a significant number of our members and prospective members." [24] A proposed statement [25] includes:

"Humans, simply by virtue of the size of the world's population, represent a new agent of change through our significant modifications related to land use, urbanization, industrial activity, and through changes in atmospheric composition related to fuel combustion and deforestation. The size and continued growth of the world's population indicates that continued change to the planet is inevitable."

The proposed statement lists increased greenhouse gases as one of "several contributing factors" to climate change but makes no comment on whether recent global warming is or is not primarily anthropogenic. It notes that the AAPG "respects the conclusions of [the IPCC]".

Scientific consensus

A question which frequently arises in conveying the scientific opinion to a broader audience is to what extent that opinion rises to the level of a consensus. Several scientific organizations have explicitly used the term "consensus" in their statements:

* American Association for the Advancement of Science: "The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Joint National Academies' statement." [26]
* US National Academy of Science: "In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth’s warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. ... On climate change, [the National Academies’ reports] have assessed consensus findings on the science..." [27]
* Joint Science Academies: "We recognise the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)." [28]
* American Meteorological Society: "The nature of science is such that there is rarely total agreement among scientists. Individual scientific statements and papers—the validity of some of which has yet to be assessed adequately—can be exploited in the policy debate and can leave the impression that the scientific community is sharply divided on issues where there is, in reality, a strong scientific consensus. The IPCC was established ... to fulfill the critical role of providing objective scientific, technical, and economic assessments of the current state of knowledge about various aspects of climate change. IPCC assessment reports are prepared at approximately five-year intervals by a large international group of experts who represent the broad range of expertise and perspectives relevant to the issues. The reports strive to reflect a consensus evaluation of the results of the full body of peer-reviewed research. ... They provide an analysis of what is known and not known, the degree of consensus, and some indication of the degree of confidence that can be placed on the various statements and conclusions." [29]

Recent surveys of scientists and scientific literature

Various surveys have been conducted to determine a scientific consensus on global warming. Few have been conducted within the last ten years.

Oreskes, 2004

A 2004 article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[7] 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; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change; none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". It was also pointed out, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."

Bray and von Storch, 2003

A survey was conducted in 2003 by Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch.[8] Bray's submission to Science on December 22, 2004 was rejected,[9] but the survey's results were reported through non-scientific venues.[10] [11] [12] The survey has been criticized on the grounds that it was performed on the web with no means to verify that the respondents were climate scientists or to prevent multiple submissions by the same individual. The survey required entry of a username and password, but this information was circulated to a climate skeptics mailing list and elsewhere on the internet.[13][14] The survey received 530 responses from 27 different countries. One of the questions asked was "To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes?", with a value of 1 indicating strongly agree and a value of 7 indicating strongly disagree. The results showed a mean of 3.62, with 50 responses (9.4%) indicating "strongly agree" and 54 responses (9.7%) indicating "strongly disagree". The same survey indicates a 72% to 20% endorsement of the IPCC reports as accurate, and a 15% to 80% rejection of the thesis that "there is enough uncertainty about the phenomenon of global warming that there is no need for immediate policy decisions."

Older surveys

Survey of U.S. state climatologists 1997

In 1997, the anti-regulation think tank Citizens for a Sound Economy surveyed America's 48 official state climatologists on questions related to climate change [30]. Of the 36 respondents, 44% considered global warming to be a largely natural phenomenon, compared to 17% who considered warming to be largely manmade. The survey further found that 58% disagreed or somewhat disagreed with then-President Clinton's assertion that "the overwhelming balance of evidence and scientific opinion is that it is no longer a theory, but now fact, that global warming is for real". Eighty-nine percent agreed that "current science is unable to isolate and measure variations in global temperatures caused ONLY by man-made factors," and 61% said that historical data do not indicate "that fluctuations in global temperatures are attributable to human influences such as burning fossil fuels."

60% of the respondents said that reducing man-made CO2 emissions by 15% below 1990 levels would not prevent global temperatures from rising, and 86% said that reducing emissions to 1990 levels would not prevent rising temperatures. 39% agreed and 33% disagreed that "evidence exists to suggest that the earth is headed for another glacial period," [31] though the time scale for the next glacial period was not specified.

Bray and von Storch, 1996

In 1996, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch undertook a survery of climate scientists on attitudes towards global warming and related matters. The results were subsequently published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. [32] The paper addressed the views of climate scientists, with a response rate of 40% from a mail survey questionnaire to 1000 scientists in Germany, the USA and Canada. Most of the scientists believed that global warming was occurring and appropriate policy action should be taken, but there was wide disagreement about the likely effects on society and almost all agreed that the predictive ability of currently existing models was limited.

The abstract says:

The international consensus was, however, apparent regarding the utility of the knowledge to date: climate science has provided enough knowledge so that the initiation of abatement measures is warranted. However, consensus also existed regarding the current inability to explicitly specify detrimental effects that might result from climate change. This incompatibility between the state of knowledge and the calls for action suggests that, to some degree at least, scientific advice is a product of both scientific knowledge and normative judgment, suggesting a socioscientific construction of the climate change issue.

The survey was extensive, and asked numerous questions on many aspects of climate science, model formulation, and utility, and science/public/policy interactions. To pick out some of the more vital topics, from the body of the paper:

The resulting questionnaire, consisting of 74 questions, was pre-tested in a German institution and after revisions, distributed to a total of 1,000 scientists in North America and Germany... The number of completed returns was as follows: USA 149, Canada 35, and Germany 228, a response rate of approximately 40%...

...With a value of 1 indicating the highest level of belief that predictions are possible and a value of 7 expressing the least faith in the predictive capabilities of the current state of climate science knowledge, the mean of the entire sample of 4.6 for the ability to make reasonable predictions of inter-annual variability tends to indicate that scientists feel that reasonable prediction is not yet a possibility... mean of 4.8 for reasonable predictions of 10 years... mean of 5.2 for periods of 100 years...

...a response of a value of 1 indicates a strong level of agreement with the statement of certainty that global warming is already underway or will occur without modification to human behavior... the mean response for the entire sample was 3.3 indicating a slight tendency towards the position that global warming has indeed been detected and is underway.... Regarding global warming as being a possible future event, there is a higher expression of confidence as indicated by the mean of 2.6.

Other older surveys of scientists

Note that the following surveys are over 15 years old. The state of climate science and the beliefs of climate scientists have changed radically since their time, as demonstrated by the reviews cited above.

* Global Environmental Change Report, 1990: GECR climate survey shows strong agreement on action, less so on warming. Global Environmental Change Report 2, No. 9, pp. 1-3
* Stewart, T.R., Mumpower, J.L., and Reagan-Cirincione, P. (1992). Scientists' opinions about global climate change: Summary of the results of a survey. NAEP (National Association of Environmental Professionals) Newsletter, 17(2), 6-7.
* A 1991 Gallup poll of 400 members of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society[citation needed]
o Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting states that the report said that 66 % of the scientists said that human-induced global warming was occurring, with 10 % disagreeing and the rest undecided. In a correction Gallup stated: "Most scientists involved in research in this area believe that human-induced global warming is occurring now."
o George Will reported "53 percent do not believe warming has occurred, and another 30 percent are uncertain." (Washington Post, September 3, 1992)
o A 1993 publication by the Heartland Institute states: "A Gallup poll conducted on February 13, 1992 of members of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society - the two professional societies whose members are most likely to be involved in climate research - found that 18 percent thought some global warming had occurred, 33 percent said insufficient information existed to tell, and 49 percent believed no warming had taken place."[33]

See also

* Australian Medical Association position statement on climate change
* National Registry of Environmental Professionals survey on climate change
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change
__________________
**************
*************************

Dragon busted on his lies ... HERE!

**
*******
**************
*******
**

"I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's” - Mark Twain

*************************
**************
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A Walking Macromolecular Machine jerrywickey Biology and Genetics 1 04-30-2008 03:33 AM
THE TASTE MACHINE Andy Creative Writing and Artwork 8 03-03-2008 08:23 PM
Atheists live in denial and Existential Despair Mike Dubbeld General Philosophy 28 10-21-2007 03:58 PM
Money Machine luna333 Creative Writing and Artwork 0 04-05-2006 01:01 AM
If you had a time machine... icest0rm Space and Time 21 05-24-2004 07:31 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:22 AM.



Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2008 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
Hosted and Maintained by The IceStorm Network