Let me see, the EPA readily admits that there are a lot of uncertainties in their data......
"What's Likely but not Certain?
Figuring out to what extent the human-induced accumulation of greenhouse gases since pre-industrial times is responsible for the global warming trend is not easy. This is because other factors, both natural and human, affect our planet's temperature. Scientific understanding of these other factors ? most notably natural climatic variations, changes in the sun's energy, and the cooling effects of pollutant aerosols ? remains incomplete.
Nevertheless, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated there was a "discernible" human influence on climate; and that the observed warming trend is "unlikely to be entirely natural in origin." In the most recent Third Assessment Report (2001), IPCC wrote "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."
And look at the last part of that little statement. They quote the IPCC again. Wow, their view is based upon something that has readily been changed to suit the current political climate. Imagine that.
And as far as the petition referenced earlier, the names are clearly posted for you to verify to your heart's content. A large percentage of them have PHD's in meterology and climatology as well, but don't let that influence your "chicken little" mentality.....
And when I question the concept of "global warming", I am questioning the role that we play in it, not the fact that the Earth has warmed by a whopping 1 degree or so in the last century.....
Just one more little piece of info. The IPCC commitee that started this whole thing is mainly comprised of scientists that specialize in climatology or meteorology, right? Not even close.........only a very small percentage......
And in case you guys overlooked it, here are a few statements that were approved by the IPCC commitee that the "politicos" removed. Maybe you can see a theme here...
The participating scientists accepted "The Science of Climate Change" in Madrid last November; the full IPCC accepted it the following month in Rome. But more than 15 sections in Chapter 8 of the report--the key chapter setting out the scientific evidence for and against a human influence over climate--were changed or deleted after the scientists charged with examining this question had accepted the supposedly final text.
Few of these changes were merely cosmetic; nearly all worked to remove hints of the skepticism with which many scientists regard claims that human activities are having a major impact on climate in general and on global warming in particular.
The following passages are examples of those included in the approved report but deleted from the supposedly peer-reviewed published version:
"None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."
"No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes."
"Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."
Sure looks like they are trying to arbitrarily remove any references doubting the science, huh? I guess they wanted to fool some people, and by reading this thread I would say that they have succeeded........
I just wanted to add something about my "half-baked links." One was from the Wall Street Journal, one from the Washington Times, one from the Harvard Gazette, and a petition started by Frederick Seitz, Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A., President Emeritus, Rockefeller University.
Yep, half-baked all right........
Facebook
Twitter