🚀 go-pugleaf

Hugh Davies (huge@axalotl_nospam.demon_nospam.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <685phe$5og@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca>, af329@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) writes:

: >  They most certianly are.  Even the most ardent of skeptics have
: >admitted that the globe is observed to be warming.

: Have they? The vast majority of honest scientists admit that they're
: not sure.

Nope. A few years ago, you could find a majority who were not sure
that the *observed* warming could be unambiguously *attributed* to
human effects. Even this is old news.

The attribution issue is generally considered resolved to order
zero - the observed changes match the model predictions too well to
be likely to be coincidental. There is still some room for debate on
the *proportion* of the observed warming that is caused by human
action. Note that this proportion could be *over* 100% if superimposed
on a natural cooling. It's probably the majority position that a human
effect has been observed - the IPCC reports pretty much sum up the
median position of relevant scientists. It's essentially unanimous
that warming is observed and that human activity has the potential
to alter climate.

: >  I doubt if you can find more than a handfull of scientists who
: >disbelieve the observation that the globe is warming.

: I doubt if you can find more than a handfull of scientists who
: believe the observation that the globe is warming, either.

This is simply false. 

Serious readers are referred to:

 Climate change 1995 : the science of climate change / edited by
              J.T. Houghton ... [et al.] ; production editor, J.A. Lakeman. --
              Cambridge ; New York, NY, USA : Cambridge University Press, 1996.

 ISBN 0 521 56433 6 hard cover ISBN 0 521 56436 0 paper.

mt