Draginol,

Zealots find themselves in all walks and dispositions of life. There are indeed zealots in left wing politics, right wing politics, economics, etc. And yes, there are global warming zealots.

I agree with you that global warming is just a hypothesis, it's not proven fact. I do however think that therre's a pretty good chance that hypothesis is true, due to the fact that the majority of credentialed scientists who have studied this have produced results and papers that support global warming. Every major legitimate scientific organization in North America, Europe and Asia have signed on to it, and not because they've had their arms twisted by an outside party.

Yes, you are right that Al Gore's movie isn't science. It's more like a kitschy public service anouncement. Yes, you are right that the majority of folks haven't done in-depth research and call it good after seeing Al Gore's movie. While I do think this is unfortunate, most folks aren't climatologists or even know about the scientific journals in which climatologists work is published. That should be the battleground over whether or not global warming is caused by man. CNN, MSN, FOX are all just galleries of public opinion.

Now, because I believe there's a good chance that global warming is caused by man, does that make me a zealot? I don't think so. If a credentialed scientist finds that global warming is indeed not related to man at all, and publishes his work in a recognized scientific journal and it stands up to peer review and scrutiny then we're in business.

In the meantime, organizations like the Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute and the Heartland foundation are actually looking quite ridiculous in holding anti-global warming conferences in which they invite a handful of scientists who have a wide range of theories that could possibly dispute global warming. This is ridiculous because they are political and ideological stunt shows, because they are not involving the body proper of the scientific community.

I would like to put forward the position that while there certainly are "global warming zealots", there are also "anti-global warming zealots". Both camps share the same traits. Just as the global warming zealots believe with a religious and ideological fervor that the issue is caused entirely by man, no ifs ands or buts, so there are zealots on the other side who will never accept that global warming is caused by man, regardless of how much evidence, research and reasoning is presented to them.

So, I'd say both camps are guilty of zealotry, and in the end rational, un-biased scientific investigation into the matter is what suffers as both sides avoid the real issue in a childish game of keeping score how many wins their side has over the other!

This isn't just the global warming zealots, it's the anything that potentially harms mother earth zealots. The same groups that chained themselves to trees or rammed whaling ships are now onto global warming. The reasons are obvious, it's the first potentially harmful effect of pollution that effects the whole planet equally. It's the perfect environmental cause and the fact that there are people passionate about the health of the only known friendly place in the universe is not something I consider a threat to my way of life. There are whole habitats and numerous species still around because of this passion and in the end it may be our own species that this passion saves.  For the most part we're a lazy keep the party going species that needs squeaky wheels. I don't understand what you find so threatening about them. In a way there the "movers and shakers" of the world as well, just with different motivations.

I believe the evidence before your very eyes (the fact that you are reading this on your computer screen) wholly contradicts that.

We are where we are because of our supreme survival (& thriving) skills, pure and simple. I have complete faith that mankind will adapt to climate change as it has in the past and that mankind won't be so stupid as to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Barring the 10-mile wide asteroid hit, the planet will remain sufficiently hospitable for awhile. And if it becomes rapidly inhospitable, it won't be because of man's contribution to greenhouse gasses.

Pretty much the way Columbus was treated in 1492.

And of course since all the scientist of the time knew that the Earth was flat - it was.

My apologies, been busy lately!

Okay, as to your "major scientific organization" in Canada that sent the letter, it was no such thing. It was a letter to the prime minister from 60 scientists from around the world (not part of any major recognized group) basically asking the prime minister to reconsider Canada's signing of the Kyoto accords, and to pursue further research into climate change. Collectively, they are NOT a major organization, and the letter was entirely political in nature- it basically says "we don't believe global warming is real, don't spend money on trying to reduce emmissions. Signed, scientists- A thru Z." Some of them are from various universities in Canada, the U.S, South Africa, UK etc etc.

The thing about this letter is, as credentialled scientists they know it's useless to do this. The way to prove or disprove climate change is to publish your work in scientific journals, and then see if it stands up to the scrutiny of other credentialled scientists. 

As to the people who have published papers that came to the conclusion global warming is probably man-made:

The United States National Academy of Sciences-

1,922 members, more than 170 members have won a nobel prize. Go to their website and take a look see through some of their papers. They have thousands of papers available to the public and this organization is and has been one of the major scientific advisory boards for the United States since the civil war. If you go to

http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

You will see a joint statement issued by the national academy of sciences in conjunction with the major scientific advisory boards of 11 countries-

United States, Canada, Italy, Germany, United Kingdom, China, India, Japan, Russia, France and Brazil.

The organizations here represent thousands of credentialled scientists from around the globe, and they would not sign off on a document without consensus of the majority of their members. This is also not the only such declaration of large scientific groups.

Additionally we have:

The American Association for the Advancement of Science- one of the world's largest scientific societies with over 120,000 members and recognized publications.

American Geological Society

American Geophysical Union

American Institute of Physics

The list goes on, and on. In fact, go here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Yes, everything that I posted here I grabbed from other websites in about 5 minutes. That's all it takes to look it up.

Long story short, there are thousands of scientists from every major recognized scientific body stating that there is a good chance that man is significantly contributing to global warming.

No one is saying that this shouldn't be disputed. Absolutely more research needs to be done, and the facts should speak for themselves.

This has been researched exhaustively over several decades. The amount of scientific papers produced and reviewed by credentialled peers is overwhelming.

Probably? The best they can do is say probably, I don’t see any scientific facts here only the best guess of some people and a consensus of that best guess.

There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system
as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now
strong evidence that significant global warming is
occurring1. The evidence comes from direct measurements
of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean
temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in
average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes
to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that
most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed
to human activities (IPCC 2001)2. This warming has already
led to changes in the Earth's climate.

First the report has never been released because it is so flawed. Second the above excerpt is from the joint academies of science that you gave the link to. It is based on a flawed report. That means the report has not valid because they did not do their own research they only comment on a summary released by the UN that is not independent verification of any kind. So this does not meet the criteria YOU say is the standard.



Yeah, the best guess is not a fact, my best guess is that they are wrong. My best scientific facts say they ARE wrong. The reports you site all base their findings on a flawed report, that an official independent reviewer says is flawed at its core. Yet you still cling to this false report as if it is fact, no one has done independent study beyond the IPCC report. Every other report has been just as flawed, like the report of rising temperatures until it became public that the sensors used to measure the temps were placed under exhaust fans of buildings where there is a higher than normal temperature.

You ignore the fact that since 1989 the temp has been dropping just as it had in the last century unless NASA is telling a lie to help the Bush Administration. These are scientific facts that go against all these reports. CO2 is not a pollutant and in the beginning it was Methane that was the big bad greenhouse gas, until it was pointed out that man does not produce more methane than nature. Then they shifted to CO2 which is also naturally occurring in greater numbers than man. At one time most of the free oxygen was trapped with CO2 and SO2 bringing the oxygen level down to 9% we had an ice age not global warming. The Earth has been coming out of the last ice age which means we are warming up to normal then we will cool off again. It has been happening for millennia but all of a sudden with only a few decades of research we know man is the cause of this. And you call that scientific? As I said before there is not enough scientific evidence to hint that the warming trend is near man’s fault.



Ok this is wrong and easily proven. Up until 1984 these nuts were still screaming global cooling, the next ice age is only two decades away. The change happened when all the evidence showed that the temperature was rising they changed to global warming. By 1989 the temp was starting to drop again, and by 2000 the IPCC report came out saying that global warming was man made. All those same people that screamed ice age screamed global warming and three years ago faced with the fact that they were proven wrong again they change the tune to Global Climate Change. This way they can be right no matter what the facts say. So you don’t have decades of data proving global warming and the so called champions of the environment have been flip flopping as I wrote about every 20 to 30 years. Go back and look that up. Somewhere around the 2050’s we are going to be hit with a decade of blizzards and everyone will be screaming the next ice age is on the way, just like they did in the 1949, as we go through this 100 year cycle.

I don't believe that's what he's saying. It was 'scientific consensus' that the sun revolved around the earth prior to Gallileo's time; there simply was no evidence to support it, but that didn't matter. 'Probably man-made' doesn't even rise to the status of theory when it comes to global climate change; it's a hypothesis at best, based on selective 'correlations,' a technique that is unscientific at best and pure hogwash at worst. The Venn diagrams you learned about in high-school can identify 'correlations' all over the place, but the presence of a correlation is not evidence of any cause-effect relationship.

The entire "theory" (I'm being generous here) is based on two simple statements:
1) The Earth is in a period of relative warming.
2) Man generates greenhouse gases.

Both are true. Whether 2) has anything to do with 1) has yet to be tested, let alone proven.

This is pretty typical of the climate change zealots and their tactics. Recently NY State Wildlife Pathologist Dr. Ward Stone stated in a radio interview "The theory that man-made greenhouse gases are the primary cause of global warming is no longer contested in the scientific community. If a scientist states otherwise, you should seriously question their motives and take a close look at who is paying them to say that."

So basically they say "We're right and anyone who disagrees with us must be dishonest and have less than honorable motives."

The simple truth is that it is just a theory and there is disagreement within the scientific community whether the zealots want to believe it or not.

Funny how even the founding father of climatology doesn't really agree with the Eco-religious.

 

http://freedomslighthouse.blogspot.com/2007/06/founding-father-of-climatology-calls.html

This is true. But the dark ages saw a regression in knowledge. Which lead to the belief that the world was again flat (the Greek and Roman civilizations, did not really permeate to all of northern europe).

Given the mumbo jumbo that passes as proof and discourse on the issue of Global Warming, it would seem we are again headed for a dark age of knowledge. Where scientific method is thrown overboard in the Jihad to convert all of the "pagans" to the new religion.

I'm not convinced that some of this isn't a natural cyclical change, but since the vast majority of scientist believe that man-made pollution is contributing to global warming, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. I don't have any personal stake in it one way or the other.

What I do know is we need to lessen our dependency on oil, which means developing alternative fuels and technologies.

Yes I am glad to be a bastard child of history!