Poor Canadians

[open.seas at verizon.net (Chris)]

There are prominent well respected scientific organizations that support 
the global warming theory. There are also highly credentialed scientists 
that the opposite view. If you have ever tried to get an organization to 
agree on a position statement you may know how difficult this can be. 
Thus, the pendulum may swing toward those supporting the theory. On the 
other hand, two of the opponents are from UVA so it is doubtful that 
they are wrong. :-)

Chris
Alexandria, VA

PS With all the pollutants we dump into the air we will probably choke 
to death on those long before global warming has a chance to kill us.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Supporters of the global warming theory

Organisations that support the global warming theory (or at least that 
have issued supportive declarations) include:

     * The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
     * The national academies of science of the G8 countries and Brazil, 
China and India [20].
     * The US National Academy of Sciences, both in its 2002 report to 
President George W. Bush, and in its latest publications, has strongly 
endorsed evidence of an average global temperature increase in the 20th 
century and stated that human activity is heavily implicated in causing 
this increase.
     * The American Meteorological Society (AMS statement).
     * The American Geophysical Union (AGU statement). John Christy, who 
is usually placed in the skeptics camp, has signed the AGU statement on 
climate change.
     * The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). [21]
     * The Union of Concerned Scientists

It should be noted that these groups, far from advocating an unusual 
position, represent the mainstream position (consensus) that is the 
scientific opinion on climate change.
[edit]

Opponents of the global warming theory

     Main article: List of scientists opposing global warming consensus

A small number of climate scientists and scientists in related fields 
have expressed opposition to the scientific consensus on global warming. 
Several of the most prominent are the following:

     * Patrick Michaels from the Department of Environmental Sciences at 
the University of Virginia
     * Robert Balling of Arizona State University
     * Sherwood B. Idso of the U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory [22]
     * S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist and professor emeritus of 
environmental sciences at the University of Virginia
     * Richard Lindzen of Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
     * Frederick Seitz (anti-global warming treaties, accepts the 
temperature rise as real, but not yet properly explained)
     * William M. Gray, emeritus professor at Colorado State University 
and one of the world's leading experts on tropical storms. Claims that 
there is no link between increasing ocean temperatures and more intense 
hurricanes in recent decades and dismisses computer climate models. [23].
     * Roy Spencer, known for his satellite-based temperature monitoring 
work
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy



David Utley wrote:
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris [mailto:open.seas@verizon.net] 
> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 10:11 PM
> To: 'Org, Scirocco'
> Subject: Re: Poor Canadians
> 
> Published on Monday, July 24, 2006 by the Los Angeles Times
> Global Warming-- Signed, Sealed, and Delivered
> Scientists agree: The Earth is warming, and human activities are the 
> principal cause.
> by Naomi Oreskes
> 
> An Op-Ed article in the Wall Street Journal a month ago claimed that a 
> published study affirming the existence of a scientific consensus on the 
> reality of global warming had been refuted. This charge was repeated 
> again last week, in a hearing of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
> 
> I am the author of that study, which appeared two years ago in the 
> journal Science, and I'm here to tell you that the consensus stands. 
> 
> -------------------
> 
> It stands?  Then would these folks agree with you?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_cons
> ensus
> 
>>From the page above...
> 
> This page lists scientists who have expressed doubt regarding the scientific
> opinion on global warming. The consensus has been summarized by the UN
> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as follows:
> 
>    1. The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ? 0.2?C since the
> late 19th century, and 0.17?C per decade in the last 30 years.
>    2. "Most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable
> to human activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon
> dioxide and methane.
>    3. If greenhouse gas emissions continue, the warming will continue and
> indeed accelerate, with temperatures increasing by 1.4?C to 5.8?C between
> 1990 and 2100, causing sea level rise and increasing extreme weather events
> like hurricanes. On balance, the impacts of global warming will be
> significantly negative.
> 
> These main points are held by the majority of climate scientists and those
> doing research in closely related fields; however, there are also a small
> number of scientists who actively disagree. This page is intended to
> highlight those scientists who have, since the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment
> Report, published research or made public comments openly opposing at least
> one of the conclusions listed above.
> 
> Only scientists with a record of scholarship are included, and they must
> have been making specific statements, not merely participating in a poll or
> survey of opinion. This list is intended to be comprehensive, but is likely
> to be incomplete.
> -----------------------------------------
> 
> My study demonstrated that there is no significant disagreement within 
> the scientific community that the Earth is warming and that human 
> activities are the principal cause.
> ----------------------------------------
> 
> 'Significance' is decided by the interpreter of the information gathered,
> but in this case I believe it is better interpreted by the reader, not the
> writer or the interpreter.  After all, none of us have a clue.  We have
> never been here before.  I leave an open door because of that fact, no one
> knows.  I tend to like to try to refute those who believe they -do- know.
> Nothing personal, but I don't believe this topic will be solved anytime
> soon...
> 
> Why do I argue both sides?  Mostly because I knew of things to counter the
> arguments posted, and I am curious of you all's responses...
> 
> Cheers,
>   David
> 
> 
> 
> 
>