in my opinion is it doesn't exist. because think about it we are coming out of an ice age. it makes sense doesn't it? fact: there have been ice ages. fact: there is a lot of ice in ice ages. so if you know about water then you know the same amount of it is here that was here when the earth began so literally it is dinosaurs piss. well during an ice age lots of stuff is covered in water/ice ( i know i live in Minnesota and it is known that it was fully covered with ice.). so where is all the water? in ice bergs, glaciers, etc. so it would make sense that to leave an ice age most things would melt right? so they are still melting they will finish melting and cover parts of the world, then it will slowly freeze causing an ice age. why would humans make that big of a difference? we are insignificant to the world.(everyone in the world could fit in Texas and it would only be as densely populated as NY city). so our vehicles and combustible engines couldn't have that big of an effect. but you say "what about the ozone thinning?" well i am not saying it hasn't but it was because of the CFC's(chloral floral carbons) which broke up the ozone by attaching to ozone molecules. but the CFC's are no longer around. the ozone is healing itself as it is meant too. their was no real hole only a thinning which is also bad. but now it is closing up and returning to normal. if you think that the co2 we produced cant be good well think about it it isn't that much and while the earth was cooling after being created it released tons of co2. so what people will notice in the next 1-9000 years is it will warm up but in that time it will also cool down and eventually there will be an ice age. just because the great human race is here doesn't mean that the earth will stop having ice ages as it has done by its self for billions of years. think about it. am i a genius or what i mean i just looked at what has happened in history wow who would have thought history would repeat its self
now to give you sorces and go into more depth on what i just wrote
well lets see first. ice ages.
An ice age is a period of long-term downturn in the temperature of Earth's climate, resulting in an expansion of the continental ice sheets, polar ice sheets and mountain glaciers ("glaciation"). Glaciologically, ice age is often used to mean a period of ice sheets in the northern and southern hemispheres; by this definition we are still in an ice age (because the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets still exist). More colloquially, when speaking of the last few million years, ice age is used to refer to colder periods with extensive ice sheets over the North American and Eurasian continents: in this sense, the last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago. This article will use the term ice age in the former, glaciological, sense; and use the term 'glacial periods' for colder periods during ice ages and 'interglacial' for the warmer periods.
Many glacial periods have occurred during the last few million years, initially at 40,000-year frequency but more recently at 100,000-year frequencies. These are the best studied. There have been four major ice ages in the further past.
so we are in an ice age interesting that means it is warming up. well that is my argument but there is more so i will continue.
oh my sorce for the above exerpt is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ice_age... so go there and read more if u want
here is more reading on ice ages
http://library.thinkquest.org/j001457/fa...
http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/i...
http://www.geologyshop.co.uk/iceages.htm...
i am not making this up ice ages exist this is the basis to my argument.
then i said there is ice and water and the same amount of water is here that was millions of years ago again not made up
There is about the same amount of water on Earth now as there was millions of years ago.
source: http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/caer/ce/e...
Today, have approximately the same amount of water as when the Earth was formed; Earth will not get any more water.
source: http://www.epa.gov/gmpo/edresources/wate... (thats the epa if u didnt know, they are run by the government and funded by americans)
wow that cant be wrong but still not shure well i will give you some more sources: http://witcombe.sbc.edu/water/physicsear...
http://www.freshwater.org/water_facts.ht...
so water is literaly dinasaur piss
lets see then i said "well during an ice age lots of stuff is covered in water/ice" well it says that at the ice age sources so you can look at those. but here they are again for you
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ice_age...
http://library.thinkquest.org/j001457/fa...
http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/i...
http://www.geologyshop.co.uk/iceages.htm...
oh ya the population thing "everyone in the world in texas? your crazy!!" no
John Stossel on ABC's Program "20/20" broadcast on 1/30/04
"The World Is Too Crowded"
Wesley Atkinson, from Richardson, Texas, wrote asking us to address the myth of overpopulation, that "the world is getting too crowded."
We've heard protests about this for decades: News articles warn of "the population bomb," "a tidal wave of humanity," and plead, "No more babies."
The world population today is more than 6 billion. It seems like so many people. But who says it's too many?
There are lots of problems all over the world caused by too many people, says media mogul Ted Turner.
But there's no space problem. Our planet is huge.
In fact, we could take the entire world population and move everyone to the state of Texas, and the population density there would still be less than that of New York City.
wait i'm not wrong. wow who would have thought. oh ya sources: this one is at the bottom of the page http://www.abortiontv.com/lies%20&%20myt...
wait thats from abc wow
then "what about the ozone thinning?"
The term Ozone depletion is used to describe two distinct, but related, observations: a slow, steady decline, of about 3% per decade, in the total amount of ozone in the earth's stratosphere during the past twenty years, and a much larger, but seasonal, decrease in stratospheric ozone over the earth's polar regions during the same period. (The latter phenomenon is commonly referred to as the "ozone hole".) The detailed mechanism by which the polar ozone holes form is different from that for the mid-latitude thinning, but the proximate cause of both trends is believed to be catalytic destruction of ozone by atomic chlorine and bromine. The primary source of these halogen atoms in the stratosphere is photodissociation of chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) compounds, commonly called Freons, and bromofluorocarbon compounds known as Halons, which are transported into the stratosphere after being emitted at the surface. Both ozone depletion mechanisms strengthened as emissions of CFCs and Halons increased.
sources:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ozone_deple...
http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/eae/ozone_deple...
ozone healing itself? what? it can do that? yes it can
http://home.thirdage.com/science/saruman...
well think about it it isn't that much and while the earth was cooling after being created it released tons of co2
http://rainbow.ldgo.columbia.edu/courses...
Global warming started long before the "Industrial Revolution" and the invention of the internal combustion engine. Global warming began 18,000 years ago as the earth started warming its way out of the Pleistocene Ice Age-- a time when much of North America, Europe, and Asia lay buried beneath great sheets of glacial ice.
Earth's climate and the biosphere have been in constant flux, dominated by ice ages and glaciers for the past several million years. We are currently enjoying a temporary reprieve from the deep freeze.
Approximately every 100,000 years Earth's climate warms up temporarily. These warm periods, called interglacial periods, appear to last approximately 15,000 to 20,000 years before regressing back to a cold ice age climate. At year 18,000 and counting our current interglacial vacation from the Ice Age is much nearer it's end than it's beginning.
Global warming during Earth's current interglacial warm period has greatly altered our environment and the distribution and diversity of all life. For example:
Approximately 15,000 years ago the earth had warmed sufficiently to halt the advance of glaciers, and sea levels worldwide began to rise.
By 8,000 years ago the land bridge across the Bearing Strait was drowned, cutting off the migration of men and animals to North America.
Since the end of the Ice Age, Earth's temperature has risen approximately 16 degrees F and sea levels have risen a total of 300 feet ! Forests have returned where once there was only ice.
Earth Ice Over Last 700,000 Years
Over the past 750,000 years of Earth's history, Ice Ages have occurred at regular intervals, of approximately 100,000 years each.
Courtesy of Illinois State Museum
During ice ages our planet is cold, dry, and inhospitable-- supporting few forests but plenty of glaciers and deserts. Like a spread of collosal bulldozers, glaciers have scraped and pulverized vast stretches of Earth's surface and completely destroyed entire regional ecosystems not once, but several times. During Ice Ages winters were longer and more severe and ice sheets grew to tremendous size, accumulating to thicknesses of up to 8,000 feet!. They moved slowly from higher elevations to lower-- driven by gravity and their tremendous weight. They left in their wake altered river courses, flattened landscapes, and along the margins of their farthest advance, great piles of glacial debris.
During the last 3 million years glaciers have at one time or another covered about 29% of Earth's land surface or about 17.14 million square miles (44.38 million sq. km.) . What did not lay beneath ice was a largely cold and desolate desert landscape, due in large part to the colder, less-humid atmospheric conditions that prevailed.
During the Ice Age summers were short and winters were brutal. Animal life and especially plant life had a very tough time of it. Thanks to global warming, that has all now changed, at least temporarily.
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/wvfossi...
want more?
http://www.junkscience.com/july04/daily_... (this is good it says poppycock)
National Assessment of the Potential Impact of Climate Change (NACC): Climate Change Impacts on the United States
Hearing before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Testimony of Prof. S. Fred Singer
July 18, 2000
President, The Science & Environmental Policy Project
www.sepp.org
Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen,
My name is Fred Singer. I am Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia and the founder and president of The Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) in Fairfax, Virginia, a non-partisan, non-profit research group of independent scientists. We work without salaries and are not beholden to anyone or any organization. SEPP does not solicit support from either government or industry but relies on contributions from individuals and foundations.
We hold a skeptical view on the climate science that forms the basis of the National Assessment because we see no evidence to back its findings; climate model exercises are NOT evidence. Vice President Al Gore keeps referring to scientific skeptics as a "tiny minority outside the mainstream." This position is hard to maintain when more than 17,000 scientists have signed the Oregon Petition against the Kyoto Protocol because they see "no compelling evidence that humans are causing discernible climate change."
Others try to discredit scientific skeptics by lumping them together with fringe political groups. Such ad hominem attacks are deplorable and have no place in a scientific debate.
To counter such misrepresentations, I list here qualifications relevant to today's hearing.
Relevant Background
I hold a degree in engineering from Ohio State and a Ph.D. in physics from Princeton University. For more than 40 years I have researched and published in atmospheric and space physics. I received a Special Commendation from President Eisenhower for the early design of satellites. In 1962, I established the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, served as its first director, and received a Gold Medal award from the Department of Commerce for this contribution.
Early in my career, I devised instruments to measure atmospheric parameters from satellites. In 1971, I proposed that human production of the greenhouse gas methane, through cattle raising and rice growing, could affect the climate system. This was also the first publication to discuss an anthropogenic influence on stratospheric ozone. In the late 1980s, I served as Chief Scientist of the Department of Transportation and also provided expert advice to the White House on climate issues.
Today, by presenting evidence from published peer-reviewed work, I will try to rectify some erroneous claims advanced at the May 17 NACC hearing.
1. There is no Appreciable Climate Warming
Contrary to the conventional wisdom and the predictions of computer models, the Earth's climate has not warmed appreciably in the past two decades, and probably not since about 1940. The evidence is overwhelming:
a) Satellite data show no appreciable warming of the global atmosphere since 1979. In fact, if one ignores the unusual El Nino year of 1998, one sees a cooling trend.
b) Radiosonde data from balloons released regularly around the world confirm the satellite data in every respect. This fact has been confirmed in a recent report of the National Research Council/National Academy of Sciences [1].
c) The well-controlled and reliable thermometer record of surface temperatures for the continental United States shows no appreciable warming since about 1940. [See figure] The same is true for Western Europe. These results are in sharp contrast to the GLOBAL instrumental surface record, which shows substantial warming, mainly in NW Siberia and subpolar Alaska and Canada.
d) But tree-ring records for Siberia and Alaska and published ice-core records that I have examined show NO warming since 1940. In fact, many show a cooling trend.
Conclusion: The post-1980 global warming trend from surface thermometers is not credible. The absence of such warming would do away with the widely touted "hockey stick" graph (with its "unusual" temperature rise in the past 100 years) [see figure]; it was shown here on May 17 as purported proof that the 20th century is the warmest in 1000 years.
2. Regional Changes in Temperature, Precipitation, and Soil Moisture?
The absence of a current global warming trend should serve to discredit any predictions from current climate models, including the extreme warming from the two models (Canadian and British) selected for the NACC.
Furthermore, the two NACC models give conflicting predictions, most often for precipitation and soil moisture [2,3]. For example, the Dakotas lose 85% of their current average rainfall by 2100 in one model, while the other shows a 75% gain. Half of the 18 regions studied show such opposite results; several others show huge differences. [see graph]
The soil moisture predictions also differ. The Canadian model shows a drier Eastern US in summer, the UK Hadley model a wetter one.
Conclusion: We must conclude that regional forecasts from climate models are beyond the state of the art and are even less reliable than those for the global average. Since the NACC scenarios are based on such forecasts, the NACC projections are not credible.
3. Sea Level Rise: Controlled by Nature not Humans
The most widely feared and also most misunderstood consequence of a hypothetical greenhouse warming is an accelerated rise in sea levels. But several facts contradict this conventional view:
a) Global average sea level has risen about 400 feet (120 meters) in the past 15,000 years, as a result of the end of the Ice Age. The initial rapid rise of about 200 cm (80 inches) per century gradually changed to a slower rise of 15�20 cm (6-8 in)/cy about 7500 years ago, once the large ice masses covering North America and North Europe had melted away. But the slow melting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet continued and will continue, barring another ice age, until it has melted away in about 6000 years.
b) This means that the world is stuck with a sea level rise of about 18 cm (7 in)/cy, just what was observed during the past century. And there is nothing we can do about it, any more than we can stop the ocean tides.
c) Careful analysis shows that the warming of the early 1900s actually slowed this ongoing SL rise [4], likely because of increased ice accumulation in the Antarctic.
The bottom line: Currently available scientific evidence does not support any of the results of the NACC, which should therefore be viewed merely as a "what if" exercise, similar to the one conducted by the Office of Technology Assessment in 1993 [5]. Such exercises deserve only a modest amount of effort and money; one should not shortchange the serious research required for atmospheric and ocean observations, and for developing better climate models.
The NACC should definitely NOT be used to justify irrational and unscientific energy and environmental policies, including the economically damaging Kyoto Protocol. These policy recommendations are especially appropriate during the coming presidential campaigns and debates.
I respectfully request that an expanded exposition [6] be made part of my written record.
Footnotes:
1. National Research Council. "Reconciling Temperature Trends" National Academy Press, Washington, DC. January 2000
2. R. Kerr. "Dueling Models: Future U.S. Climate Uncertain." Science 288, 2113, 2000
3. P.H. Stone. "Forecast Cloudy: The Limits of Global Climate Models." Technology Review (MIT), Feb/March 1992. pp. 32-40.
4. S.F. Singer. Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate. (The Independent Institute, Oakland, CA (second edition, p. 18).
5. Office of Technology Assessment. "Preparing for an Uncertain Climate" Govt. Printing Office,
Washington, DC. 1993
6. S.F. Singer. "Climate Policy-From Rio to Kyoto: A Political Issue for 2000-and Beyond" Hoover Institution Essay in Public Policy No. 102, Stanford, CA, 2000.
Global warming - at least the modern nightmare version - is a myth. I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But what is really worrying is that the world's politicians and policy makers are not.
Instead, they have an unshakeable in what has, unfortunately, become one of the central credos of the environmental movement. Humans burn fossil fuels, which release increased levels of carbon dioxide - the principal so-called greenhouse gas - into the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to heat up.
They say this is global warming: I say this is poppycock. Unfortunately, for the time being, it is their view that prevails.
As a result of their ignorance, the world's economy may be about to divert billions, nay trillions of pounds, dollars and roubles into solving a problem that actually doesn't exist. The waste of economic resources is incalculable and tragic.
Dreaded
To explain why I believe that global warming is largely a natural phenomenon that has been with us for 13,000 years and probably isn't causing us any harm anyway, we need to take heed of some basic facts of botanical science.
For a start, carbon dioxide is not the dreaded killer greenhouse gas that the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and the subsequent Kyoto Protocol five years later cracked it up to be. It is, in fact, the most important airborne fertiliser in the world, and without it there would be no green plants at all.
That is because, as any schoolchild will tell you, plants take in carbon dioxide and water and, with the help of a little sunshine, convert them into complex carbon compounds - that we either eat, build with or just admire - and oxygen, which just happens to keep the rest of the planet alive.
Increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, double it even, and this would produce a rise in plant productivity. Call me a biased old plant lover but that doesn't sound like much of a killer gas to me. Hooray for global warming is what I say, and so do a lot of my fellow scientists.
Let me quote from a petition produced by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, which has been signed by over 18,000 scientists who are totally opposed to the Kyoto Protocol, which committed the world's leading industrial nations to cut their production of greenhouse gasses from fossil fuels.
They say: 'Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gasses like carbon dioxide are in error and do not conform to experimental knowledge.'
You couldn't get much plainer than that. And yet we still have public figures such as Sir David King, scientific adviser to Her Majesty's Government, making preposterous statements such as 'by the end of this century, the only continent we will be able to live on is Antarctica.'
At the same time, he's joined the bandwagon that blames just about everything on global warming, regardless of the scientific evidence. For example, take the alarm about rising sea levels around the south coast of England and subsequent flooding along the region's rivers. According to Sir David, global warming is largely to blame.
But it isn't at all - it's down to bad management of water catchments, building on flood plains and the incontestable fact that the south of England is gradually sinking below the waves.
And that sinking is nothing to do with rising sea levels caused by ice-caps melting. Instead, it is purely related to an entirely natural warping of the Earth's crust, which could only be reversed by sticking one of the enormously heavy ice-caps from past ice ages back on top of Scotland.
Ah, ice ages... those absolutely massive changes in global climate that environmentalists don't like to talk about because they provide such strong evidence that climate change is an entirely natural phenomenon.
It was round about the end of the last ice age, some 13,000 years ago, that a global warming process did undoubtedly begin.
Not because of all those Stone age folk roasting mammoth meat on fossil fuel camp fires but because of something called the 'Milankovitch Cycles,' an entirely natural fact of planetary life that depends on the tilt of the Earth's axis and its orbit around the sun.
Melted
The glaciers melted, the ice cap retreated and Stone Age man could begin hunting again. But a couple of millennia later, it got very cold again and everyone headed south. Then it warmed up so much that water from melted ice filled the English Channel and we became an island.
The truth is that the climate has been yo-yo-ing up and down ever since. Whereas it was warm enough for Romans to produce good wine in York, on the other hand, King Canute had to dig up peat to warm his people. And then it started getting warm again.
Up and down, up and down - that is how temperature and climate have always gone in the past and there is no proof they are not still doing exactly the same thing now. In other words, climate change is an entirely natural phenomenon, nothing to do with the burning of fossil fuels.
In fact, a recent scientific paper, rather unenticingly titled 'Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentrations Over The Last Glacial Termination,' proved it.
It showed that increases in temperature are responsible for increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, not the other way around.
Ignored
But this sort of evidence is ignored, either by those who believe the Kyoto Protocol is environmental gospel or by those who know 25 years of hard work went into securing the agreement and simply can't admit that the science it is based on is wrong.
The real truth is that the main greenhouse gas - the one that has the most direct effect on land temperature - is water vapour, 99 per cent of which is entirely natural.
If all the water vapour was removed from the atmosphere, the temperature would fall by 33 degrees Celsius. But, remove all the carbon dioxide and the temperature might fall by just 0.3 per cent.
Although we wouldn't be around, because without it there would be no green plants, no herbivorous farm animals and no food for us to eat.
It has been estimated that the cost of cutting fossil fuel emissions in line with the Kyoto Protocol would be �76trillion. Little wonder, then, that world leaders are worried. So should we all be.
If we signed up to these scaremongers, we could be about to waste a gargantuan amount of money on a problem that doesn't exist - money that could be used in umpteen better ways: fighting world hunger, providing clean water, developing alternative energy sources, improving our environment, creating jobs.
The link between the burning of fossil fuels and global warming is a myth
How about the reports that the polar ice cap is melting?
Well, yes it is. In fact, it has been for about a million years or so. We are at the end of the ice age in which ice covered most of North American and Northern Europe.
There's at least one environmentalist, named Al Gore, who is panicking over the possibility that we may soon lose Glacier National Park in Montana because the ice is melting.
One hates to tell him that we've already lost the glacier that used to cover the whole country.
Perhaps he'll want to start working for new regulations from the Interior Department to begin immediately restoring this lost historical environmental treasure. Re-establishing a sheet of ice covering the entire continent would certainly serve to stop mining, timber cutting and urban sprawl.
The truth is, someday humans may be able to take tropical vacations at the North Pole - and it will be perfectly natural.
Yet our world is being flooded with the dire predictions of Global Warming.
We are being warned of killer heat waves, vast flooding and the spread of tropical diseases. Ocean levels are rising, they say. America's coast lines are doomed, they tell us. Hurricanes and tornadoes have already become more violent, we are warned. Floods and droughts have begun to ravage the nation, they cry.
Any change in temperatures, or an excessive storm or extended flooding is looked upon as a sure sign that environmental Armageddon is upon us. Diabolical environmentalists are using the natural El Nino phenomenon to whip people into a Global Warming hysteria.
1. Is global warming occurring? Have the forecasts of global warming been confirmed by actual measurements?
There is no serious evidence that man-made global warming is taking place. The computer models used in U.N. studies say the first area to heat under the "greenhouse gas effect" should be the lower atmosphere - known as the troposphere.1 Highly accurate, carefully checked satellite data have shown absolutely no such tropospheric warming. There has been surface warming of about half a degree Celsius, but this is far below the customary natural swings in surface temperatures.2
2. Are carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels the primary cause of climate change? Can the Earth's temperature be expected to rise between 2.5 and 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit in this century as has been reported?
There are many indications that carbon dioxide does not play a significant role in global warming. Richard Lindzen, Ph.D., professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and one of the 11 scientists who prepared a 2001 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report on climate change, estimates that a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would produce a temperature increase of only one degree Celsius.3 In fact, clouds and water vapor appear to be far more important factors related to global temperature. According to Dr. Lindzen and NASA scientists, clouds and water vapor may play a significant role in regulating the Earth's temperature to keep it more constant.4
3. Under the Berlin Mandate, developing nations are to be exempt from any emission reduction requirements agreed to in Kyoto. What effect will this have on overall greenhouse gas emissions over the next thirty years?
Undeveloped countries such as China, India and Brazil are included in this exemption. However, they are projected to produce 16 percent more carbon dioxide by the year 2020 than the United States, even if the Kyoto Protocol is not in place.5
4. Would a modest increase in the temperature of the planet necessarily be bad? Are there any potential benefits?
According to the World Bank, one-third of the world's population already suffers from chronic water shortages. The Worldwatch Institute predicts that this situation will be exacerbated further by the addition of an estimated 2.6 billion people to the world's population over the next 30 years. By 2025, the group claims, some three billion people -- or 40% of the world's population -- could be living in countries without sufficient water supplies, leading to crop failures, diminished economic development and even to regional conflicts as nations find it necessary to fight for control over scarce water resources.
While the scientific community is divided over many aspects of the global warming theory, the effect of global warming on precipitation levels is not one of them: Global warming would mean more condensation and more evaporation, producing more and/or heavier rains. Global warming, therefore, could offer the answer to the water scarcity problem that the Worldwatch Institute has been seeking.
If history is any indication, greater precipitation may be only one of many benefits of global warming. For example, between the 10th and 12th Centuries, when the temperature of the planet was roughly 0.5 degrees Celsius warmer than it is today, agriculture in North America and Europe flourished and the southern regions of Greenland were free of ice, allowing cultivation by Norse settlers. Evidence of this was found in 1993 when scientists from the National Science Foundation-sponsored Greenland Ice Sheet Project II extracted an ice core from Greenland's ice sheet that spanned more than 100,000 years of climate history. Samplings from the core suggest that a Little Ice Age began between 1400 and 1420, blanketing the Vikings' farms in ice and forcing them to abandon their farms in search of more hospitable climates. Prior to the onset of this Little Ice Age, temperatures were comparable to the temperatures general circulation models used by the U.N.-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have projected for 2030-2050. Yet, the world's leaders stand poised to take dramatic steps to curb the risks of this kind of climate change.
Global warming could also mean greater agricultural productivity and greater water conservation. CO2 acts as a fertilizer on plant life while reducing plant transpiration (the passage of water from the roots through the plant's vascular system to the atmosphere). Thus, with global warming, agricultural output could be expected to increase while making less demands on the water supply.6
5. Is there scientific consensus that global warming is underway? If so, how was this consensus determined?
Dr. Lindzen has said there were a wide variety of scientific views presented in the NAS report and "that the full report did, [express a wide variety of views] making clear that there is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends and what causes them."14 The same is true of the all of the U.N.'s International Panel on Climate Change's studies on which the notion of global warming is based.
Claims that scientific opinion is nearly unanimous on the subject of global warming are wrong. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine received signatures from over 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, to a document saying, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."
well looks like i am a genius or mabey i have a 4th grade education.