Organizations Concurring That Global Warming Evidence Exists

[rockmom]

Contents

 

[hide]

• 1 Statements by concurring organizations
  • 1.1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007
  • 1.2 InterAcademy Council
  • 1.3 Joint science academies’ statement 2007
  • 1.4 Joint science academies’ statement 2005
  • 1.5 Joint science academies’ statement 2001
  • 1.6 International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
  • 1.7 European Academy of Sciences and Arts
  • 1.8 Network of African Science Academies
  • 1.9 International Council for Science
  • 1.10 European Science Foundation
  • 1.11 American Association for the Advancement of Science
  • 1.12 Federation of American Scientists
  • 1.13 World Meteorological Organization
  • 1.14 American Meteorological Society
  • 1.15 Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
  • 1.16 Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
  • 1.17 Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
  • 1.18 Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
  • 1.19 American Geophysical Union
  • 1.20 American Institute of Physics
  • 1.21 American Astronomical Society
  • 1.22 American Physical Society
  • 1.23 American Chemical Society
  • 1.24 National Research Council (US)
  • 1.25 Federal Climate Change Science Program (US)
  • 1.26 American Quaternary Association
  • 1.27 Geological Society of America
  • 1.28 Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
  • 1.29 Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
  • 1.30 European Geosciences Union
  • 1.31 International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
    
  • 1.32 International Union of Geological Sciences

• 2 Noncommittal statements
  • 2.1 American Association of State Climatologists
    
  • 2.2 American Association of Petroleum Geologists

• 3 Statements by dissenting organizations
• 4 Scientific consensus
• 5 Surveys of scientists and scientific literature
  • 5.1 Oreskes, 2004
  • 5.2 Bray and von Storch, 2003
  • 5.3 Survey of U.S. state climatologists 1997
  • 5.4 Bray and von Storch, 1996
    
  • 5.5 Other older surveys of scientists

• 6 See also
• 7 References

  [*]8 External links

[rockmom]

List source is Wikipedia.

 

If it's good enough to cite for sources against Global Warming, it's good enoug to cite for sources for the same

[the mathemagician]

Please guys, no four -letter words beginning with "G", or I will have to counter with a four-letter word starting with "B" . You'll never be able to do it.:lol:

[cch5432]

List source is Wikipedia.

 

If it's good enough to cite for sources against Global Warming, it's good enoug to cite for sources for the same

 

And I thought that you liked me. :cry:

 

Boy, that is a lot of sources. There are a lot that disagree as well. Surely, we can agree that more, unbiased research needs to be done, before we go ahead putting rash regulations on ourselves that hurt the working man and weaken this country, right?

 

And that both sides can keep an open-mind, rather than everyone having already picked a side?

 

I, for one, take a position that is as honest as I can be. I have no idea if it is man-made. I know that some guy has some interesting motives, but who knows, maybe he truly believes he is saving the world. I don't see the other sides' motives. Maybe both sides are just pining for votes- one is appealing to voter's emotion, the other is appealing to voters hatred of one man and willingness to disagree with him. But I am not against more research.

 

And I love Wikipedia. They cite their sources, it is basically just a website that organizes rather than produces new info.

[rockmom]

And I thought that you liked me. :cry:

 

Boy, that is a lot of sources. There are a lot that disagree as well. Surely, we can agree that more, unbiased research needs to be done, before we go ahead putting rash regulations on ourselves that hurt the working man and weaken this country, right?

 

And that both sides can keep an open-mind, rather than everyone having already picked a side?

 

I, for one, take a position that is as honest as I can be. I have no idea if it is man-made. I know that some guy has some interesting motives, but who knows, maybe he truly believes he is saving the world. I don't see the other sides' motives. Maybe both sides are just pining for votes- one is appealing to voter's emotion, the other is appealing to voters hatred of one man and willingness to disagree with him. But I am not against more research.

 

And I love Wikipedia. They cite their sources, it is basically just a website that organizes rather than produces new info.

 

To be honest, to me, the salient observation to make is not how many, but which sources are agreeing or disagreeing. For example, the World Meteorolical Society strikes me as a credible organization. It's not a new, or fly-by-night society.

 

 

I'll be honest...I had picked my side long, LONG before the current hoopla. I have done my research and concluded that while there are definitely trends in the earth's cycle that one can expect, it's the effect on the acceleration of those trends by the human effect that concern me the most. The issue isn't that natural global warming would occur, but that humans should do more to impact the acceleartion less.

 

Does that make any sense?

 

And, until the current hoopla, very few people that I personally know gave even one thought to it. The current coverage and push at least have people talking about it, and of my own circle, a lot trying to lessen their impact.

[cch5432]

To be honest, to me, the salient observation to make is not how many, but which sources are agreeing or disagreeing. For example, the World Meteorolical Society strikes me as a credible organization. It's not a new, or fly-by-night society.

 

 

I'll be honest...I had picked my side long, LONG before the current hoopla. I have done my research and concluded that while there are definitely trends in the earth's cycle that one can expect, it's the effect on the acceleration of those trends by the human effect that concern me the most. The issue isn't that natural global warming would occur, but that humans should do more to impact the acceleartion less.

 

Does that make any sense?

 

And, until the current hoopla, very few people that I personally know gave even one thought to it. The current coverage and push at least have people talking about it, and of my own circle, a lot trying to lessen their impact.

But the sources are credible on the other side as well, such as Richard Lindzen, professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT. Surely he is credible as well?

 

And I agree that maybe the man from Tennessee just wants some attention to the issue, but his methods can get irritating. But I guess everyone does it.

[rockmom]

But the sources are credible on the other side as well, such as Richard Lindzen, professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT. Surely he is credible as well?

 

And I agree that maybe the man from Tennessee just wants some attention to the issue, but his methods can get irritating. But I guess everyone does it.

 

 

Yes, I can agree there are credible sources on both sides.

 

But, I contend that erring on the side of caution is the prudent choice here. Ignoring something that is being debated, but could have such devestating impact on our earth, and our future generations is irresponsible.

[cch5432]

Yes, I can agree there are credible sources on both sides.

 

But, I contend that erring on the side of caution is the prudent choice here. Ignoring something that is being debated, but could have such devestating impact on our earth, and our future generations is irresponsible.

 

Then that is where our true disagreement is. I am all for personal conservation and buying energy safe products and finding alternative energy sources that don't cause global warming, and maybe the former VP's tactics will make people want to do that sort of thing, which is great.

 

But IMO his stated desires go beyond caution and would cause economic problems that would outweigh the benefits. And those economic problems would in turn keep the standard of living down for many of the poorest people around, and I am not willing to support that on the basis of an idea that is not even close to being accepted by most scientists.

[rockmom]

Then that is where our true disagreement is. I am all for personal conservation and buying energy safe products and finding alternative energy sources that don't cause global warming, and maybe the former VP's tactics will make people want to do that sort of thing, which is great.

 

But IMO his stated desires go beyond caution and would cause economic problems that would outweigh the benefits. And those economic problems would in turn keep the standard of living down for many of the poorest people around, and I am not willing to support that on the basis of an idea that is not even close to being accepted by most scientists.

 

 

I refuse to base my opinion on what one man says, even the former VP. Like I said, I was aware of, and concerned about, global warming before he made it his cause. And, to me, it's irresponsible to be deciding not to believe the premise, simply because you don't like the messenger. (I use the word "you" here in a broad sense, not as a personal directive)

[ladiesbballcoach]

Please guys, no four -letter words beginning with "G", or I will have to counter with a four-letter word starting with "B" . You'll never be able to do it.:lol:

 

Pick one.

 

Gage,

 

Gain,

 

Game,

 

Gang

 

Gate,

 

Gave,

 

Gaze,

 

Gene,

 

Gift,

 

Girl,

 

Give,

 

Glad,

 

Glow,

 

Glue

 

Glum,

 

Goad,

 

Goal,

 

God's,

 

Goes,

 

Golf,

 

Gone,

 

Good,

 

Gown, 466, 486

 

Grab,

 

Gray,

 

 

Grew,

 

Grey,

 

 

Grim,

 

Grin

 

Grip,

 

Grog,

 

Grow,

 

 

Gulp,

 

 

Guts,

:lol:

[cch5432]

I refuse to base my opinion on what one man says, even the former VP. Like I said, I was aware of, and concerned about, global warming before he made it his cause. And, to me, it's irresponsible to be deciding not to believe the premise, simply because you don't like the messenger. (I use the word "you" here in a broad sense, not as a personal directive)

Agreed, although I say we just find the Vatican's statement on global warming and just end this argument? It's a lot quicker and less painful that way :lol:

[True blue (and gold)]

Rockmom, I agree with you wholeheartedly here. Until recently, I have avoided these forums, as I have known about the issue of man-made global warming longer that I have some guy from TN that became VP. Therefore, his promotion of it did nothing to sway - or dis-way - my stance. However, I have begun to research the other position. If so much of it wasn't anti-former VPs, I would honestly take it more seriously.

[halfback20]

Then that is where our true disagreement is. I am all for personal conservation and buying energy safe products and finding alternative energy sources that don't cause global warming, and maybe the former VP's tactics will make people want to do that sort of thing, which is great.

 

But IMO his stated desires go beyond caution and would cause economic problems that would outweigh the benefits. And those economic problems would in turn keep the standard of living down for many of the poorest people around, and I am not willing to support that on the basis of an idea that is not even close to being accepted by most scientists.

 

No one is mentioning the G-Man here but you. Why do you insist on bringing him up throughout the thread?

 

No one here has suggested we do every single thing that the former V.P. says.

[rockmom]

Agreed, although I say we just find the Vatican's statement on global warming and just end this argument? It's a lot quicker and less painful that way :lol:

 

 

Ask, and ye shall receive:

 

After his Angelus Message, on the eve of the Rio Conference on Environment and Development, Pope John Paul II shared thoughts that are as relevant even today and appropriate as we prepare for the World Summit on Sustainable Development, to be held in Johannesburg in September, 2002.

"This important meeting - he said - sets out to examine in depth the relationship between protection of the environment and the development of peoples. These are problems which have, at their roots, a profound ethical dimension, and which involve, therefore, the human person, the centre of creation, with those rights of freedom which derive from his dignity of being made in the image of God and with the duties which every person has towards the future generations."

"I invite all to pray - he continued - with me that the high representatives of the various nations of the world, ..., will be farseeing in their deliberations and will know how to orientate humanity along the path of solidarity with humankind and of responsibility in the common commitment to the protection of the earth which God has given us." (Pope John Paul II, Message before the Angelus, St. Peter’s Square, 31 May 1992.)

 

Knowledge is the only true inexhaustible resource that assures a sustainable environment and development and, Mr. Chairman, only knowledge, together with an ethical sense of our relationship with the environment, can help to guide our efforts today and for future generations

 

From vatica.va

 

 

There's more where that came from! :lol:

[AcesFull]

So, is the former VP's name officially banned in this thread along with lists of sources contradicting Wikipedia? Or are we flat-earthers allowed to present a few inconvenient facts?