For the record, here's some authoritative source data that presumably scientific people would refer to in examining CAGW.
I'm not going to even try to read it, as I'm sure I wouldn't understand it. But it has been endorsed by the following:
* Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
* Royal Society of Canada
* Chinese Academy of Sciences
* Academié des Sciences (France)
* Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
* Indian National Science Academy
* Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
* Science Council of Japan
* Russian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Society (United Kingdom)
* National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
* Australian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
* Caribbean Academy of Sciences
* Indonesian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Irish Academy
* Academy of Sciences Malaysia
* Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Above info from scienceblogs.com.
Likewise this one.
Best I can do is look for others to interpret the data for me.
In the end I guess it all comes down to reputation. If you have to put absolute trust in others, you want to know that they're good for it.
An attempt to find a reasonable position for a lay person on Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.
About this blog
It has been put to me by someone much smarter than my good self that those who question the seriousness of human-induced carbon emissions are likely to be corrupt hacks funded by carbon-emitting industries. At the very least ignorant bigots. I'd assumed that there were two sides to the story.
The problem for most of us is that we must rely on experts. But how to grade their conclusions?
There seems to be a scientific majority - with commensurate media and political support - supporting Catastrophic AGW theory.
But there are alternative viewpoints that seem reasonable, at least to the lay person. Is it right to silence them on the basis that their words are potentially dangerous to humanity?
Obviously human-caused carbon emissions exist, and they presumably have some effect on climate.
So just how much effect is AGW having so far?
What are we to do?
How dire are the consequences if we don't adopt the charter of the IPCC?
Most voters are not scientists.
The problem for most of us is that we must rely on experts. But how to grade their conclusions?
There seems to be a scientific majority - with commensurate media and political support - supporting Catastrophic AGW theory.
But there are alternative viewpoints that seem reasonable, at least to the lay person. Is it right to silence them on the basis that their words are potentially dangerous to humanity?
Obviously human-caused carbon emissions exist, and they presumably have some effect on climate.
So just how much effect is AGW having so far?
What are we to do?
How dire are the consequences if we don't adopt the charter of the IPCC?
Most voters are not scientists.
Followers
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(40)
-
▼
January
(40)
- Bob Carter
- Popular Mechanics
- Richard Lindzen
- Roger W Cohen
- The Cornwall Alliance
- Roy W Spencer
- Continuous adjustment
- Walter Cunningham
- Tim Lambert
- Trends
- American Physical Society
- Jon Jenkins
- Plan B
- Nature again
- World Climate Report
- Nature
- William M Connolley
- McKitrick paper
- Climate Audit
- Subtotal
- Consensus?
- Source data
- Richard L Smith
- Stunts
- Something unexpected
- Friends of Science
- The Met
- Science Daily
- David Bellamy
- James Annan
- Scientific American
- David Evans
- Joanne Nova
- Don J Easterbrook
- New Scientist
- The benefits
- Denial immoral
- Interference
- MIT
- The first juicy seam
-
▼
January
(40)
No comments:
Post a Comment