Exxon-Mobil Admits Global Warming Is Real

[Valles]

---

It is my firm belief that Kyoto is nothing more than a deliberate attempt to strangle the economy of Western nations and set a precedent for a global taxation authority.

---

After reading this statement, I find myself with the genuinely astonishing task of fulfilling my duty as a friend and informing you that tinfoil hats do not block orbital mind control lasers, but instead actually improve their reception.
Ja, -n

===============================================
"I'm terribly sorry, but I have to kill you quite horribly now."

[Jeap]

---

Do we have reliable records for areas other than those mentioned so far?

---

I think I remember a mention of Chinese sailors being able to sail well into the Arctic during the summer without sighting any ice. But, like you said, there aren't many other areas to get records from.

---

After reading this statement, I find myself with the genuinely astonishing task of fulfilling my duty as a friend and informing you that tinfoil hats do not block orbital mind control lasers, but instead actually improve their reception.

---

He's partly right, there's a whole lot of finagling going on with their emission credits. Russia being given the Soviet credits is the most common example I can think of. China is limboing through a loophole with its population. Something else to consider is that treaties are Constitutionally binding in the US. That is, by law, they are given the same legal weight as the Constitution. Likely an unconsidered effect, but its something that we in the US must consider before committing to a treaty. We'd be signing over the management of our emissions to Geneva and we would have to comply with their decisions.

[ECSNorway]

---

After reading this statement, I find myself with the genuinely astonishing task of fulfilling my duty as a friend and informing you that tinfoil hats do not block orbital mind control lasers, but instead actually improve their reception.

---

Even if you disagree with me about the motivation of the movement, look at the actual effect.
Between 2000 and 2050, the Kyoto agreement would transfer TWENTY TRILLION DOLLARS from the US and Europe to China, India, and other nations.
It would reduce carbon emissions worldwide by enough to lower the global temperature by less than one tenth of one degree.--
"I give you the beautiful... the talented... the tirelessly atomic-powered...
R!
DOROTHY!
WAYNERIGHT!
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

[ECSNorway]

Here's a very interesting additional point.
The author claims to have acquired archives of global temperature records which suggest that government agencies are in fact falsifying data in order to inflate apparent worldwide temperature increases.
--
"I give you the beautiful... the talented... the tirelessly atomic-powered...
R!
DOROTHY!
WAYNERIGHT!
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

[Valles]

---

The author claims to have acquired archives of global temperature records which suggest that government agencies are in fact falsifying data in order to inflate apparent worldwide temperature increases.

---

*slow blink*
Huh.
Since I'm at Uni, with their Library database subscriptions and such, I think I could probably track down those references and check/compare that myself. It'd be a hell of a lot of work, though, and I've got higher priorities on my plate, like writing that bit of ViiOR.
Even if true, it also wouldn't change a single thing about my voting patterns, since the lobbies dependant on this issue are already tied up in so many other things I'm not willing to compromise on - waste dumping standards, penalties for violation of same, mining reconstruction, and the like - that I'm pretty much an irreconcilable enemy of most of the faction who'd benefit from the acceptance of your thesis.
And since those things are decisive - and damning - in their own right, I'm left with the question of why on Earth anyone would want to bother to lie about it in that direction.
Ja, -n

===============================================
"I'm terribly sorry, but I have to kill you quite horribly now."

[ECSNorway]

---

waste dumping standards, penalties for violation of same, mining reconstruction, and the like

---

Oh, I agree with you on these.
The problem is it's pretty much the ONLY thing I agree with the Democratic Party platform on, aside from gay rights.
And I have to deeply, sincerely, and vigorously question anyone who would attempt to impose their views on scientific debate with the tools of religious dogma - be it 'global warming', or 'creationism'. The continuing pattern of anyone who dares to question the 'truth' of 'global warming' being ostracized from the scientific community, denied funding, and unfavorably compared with Holocaust-deniers sickens me, and I refuse to have anything to do with people who support that sort of idiocy.--
"I give you the beautiful... the talented... the tirelessly atomic-powered...
R!
DOROTHY!
WAYNERIGHT!
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

[CattyNebulart]

I'm in the odd position of agreeing with you and disagreeing with you ECSNorway. Many of the enviormentalist treat it more as a religion than as a sience and attempt to shout down anything that goes against their views, which is wrong, but very much the way goverment works.
Forinstance, recycling paper has hurt the enviorment more than it helped, by removing the financial incentive to maintain forests for paper companies, and the chemical used in recycling paper are quite harmfull to the enviorment... The net effect has been bad, but it's different with plastic, metals and other stuff which does not come from a renewable source and which does not decompose. Still when speaking out against paper recycling you'll probably be labeled as an anti enviormentalist.
As for global warming I believe it exists because that is the consensus among researchers, I also believe it is affected by humans, and that at this point there is very little we can do about it, since there is also a good indication that any changes in behavior now will take about a century to take effect.

---

And I have to deeply, sincerely, and vigorously question anyone who would attempt to impose their views on scientific debate with the tools of religious dogma - be it 'global warming', or 'creationism'. The continuing pattern of anyone who dares to question the 'truth' of 'global warming' being ostracized from the scientific community, denied funding, and unfavorably compared with Holocaust-deniers sickens me, and I refuse to have anything to do with people who support that sort of idiocy.

---

This is the way science has always been done and changing it requieres changing human nature. Any crackpot can take the title of scientist and promote a theory, and getting funding tends to be a very competetive endevour, and it also tends to involve quite a bit of politicising, which seems ineviatbel when large groups of people are involved and/or large amounts of money.
Do you have a better way of dividing up research grants than what's currently in use? I'm sure everyone who doesn't have a vested interest in the current system would be delighted to hear it.
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

[ECSNorway]

---

Forinstance, recycling paper has hurt the enviorment more than it helped, by removing the financial incentive to maintain forests for paper companies, and the chemical used in recycling paper are quite harmfull to the enviorment... The net effect has been bad, but it's different with plastic, metals and other stuff which does not come from a renewable source and which does not decompose. Still when speaking out against paper recycling you'll probably be labeled as an anti enviormentalist.

---

Interesting. Very interesting.

---

As for global warming I believe it exists because that is the consensus among researchers, I also believe it is affected by humans, and that at this point there is very little we can do about it, since there is also a good indication that any changes in behavior now will take about a century to take effect.

---

Mmm. I don't disagree that there are changes going on in the climate, it's a system that's been going on for millions of years. We know that there have been cyclic rises and falls in temperature of a degree or two every half-millennium or so. We're at about the right time in that cycle for a slight rise to be going on right now.
And there is solid evidence that the "hockey stick" graph, which shows a relatively stable temperature for centuries followed by a sudden rise in the 20th century, is of highly questionable validity - the model 'smooths out' a lot of fluctuations, and even when fed totally random data produces practically the same graph!
Finally, I see the evidence of volcanic contributions, which seem to far outweigh human influence on the atmosphere. And with all of that weighing against it, I have trouble believing that human influence will be enough to tip the balance into catastrophe.--
"I give you the beautiful... the talented... the tirelessly atomic-powered...
R!
DOROTHY!
WAYNERIGHT!
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

[Ayiekie]

When freaking Exxon can be convinced by the evidence and the absolute consensus among all credible scientific agencies that global warming is both real and man-made (though it's only fair to note PR plays a significant role), you know it's really a True Believer that continues to cling to the "it's cyclic", "volcanoes!", and the "it's a conspiracy against Western countries by...somebody!" excuses to deny it.

[Jeap]

Ah, you mean experts like Michael Mann (Mann et al. 1998 & the 2001 UN report), who's work used models so biased (ref McIntyre et al. 2003, 2005) as to create a warming trend even when fed random input?
I'm not at true believer, I'm just holding out for more information. A new study by Richard T. Barber shows that the ocean's ability to pull carbon from the atmosphere is probably understated. It is also my understanding that many of the atmospheric models used stop below the upper atmosphere because we're not sure what happens up there, that NASA article I linked to illustrates this.
The first IPCC First Assessment Report gave the equation Delta F = 6.3*ln(C/Co) so DeltaF=6.3*ln(377/280)=1.874Watts/m2. That should be measurable in the rate of cooling during the evening, yes? Compare the cooling rates from recording stations that have been in place since at least early last century with what their current rates are now. That would be quite a telling argument. I remember seeing someone's for Antarctica and we are cooling much faster today than we were fifty years ago.

[Logan Darklighter]

I think an interesting question to ask is -
Ayiekie? Why do you believe in all of this?
No, I'm not being facetious here.
I'm not asking for you to repeat random facts or statistics. We've seen all that and we can go around and around with that. And I'm sure we will.
I'm asking, because I'm curious. I'm not interested in the "how", I'm asking about the "why".
Oh - and I mean, not this specific thing with Exxon either.
Gah... text is really bad at conveying moods sometimes. I really don't intend this to be insulting or condescending. I'm talking about what, in your past, convinced you about climate change/Global Warming, etc.? Was it all at once or something gradual? Was someone just really eloquent about describing what they saw as the problem? Or was it independent research on your part or, well, what?
I guess I'm trying to look over your shoulder and see if I can see what you're looking at. "Get in your head" as it were.
That old story about two blind men trying to describe an elephant when each has an opposite end kinda springs to mind, y'know?-Logan
-----------------
"Wake up! Time for SCIENCE!"
-Adam Savage
-----------------

[Ayiekie]

Well, because I have seen the statistics, for one thing.
Because there's every bit as much doubt in the relevent scientific community about global warming - in essence, not in specifics - as there is about evolution, that smoking causes cancer, and of the heliocentric theory of the solar system. That you can find "scientists" that have opposed all three of those means precisely about as much. The majority of scientific studies that you'll find about climate change at this point are not trying to prove it exists, but to study its already extant effects on flora, fauna, specific areas and climatological models, et al.
Because it's simple common sense that if when you have made a more than measurable dent in the forestation of the planet (which we have), and when you have released untold amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (which we have and do), it will have an effect on the planet's climate. Why people who refuse to believe in global warming think that the consumption of 84 million barrels of petroleum a day (to say nothing of the other sources of released carbon, and there's more than a few) will never have a significant effect on climate is very much beyond me. It strikes me as similar to the notion that "It's impossible to catch all the fish in the sea", a belief that didn't turn out too well.
Because there's a scary amount of "rapid acceleration" factors that could release an untold amount of carbon into the atmosphere within a relatively small amount of time, such as the northern hemisphere permafrost.
Because the snows of Kilimanjaro are gone. So are most of the coral reefs.
Because, quite frankly, there is no good reason to think there a pro-global-warming conspiracy, as very, very few people benefit financially from it (especially up until this point). But there's a hell of a lot of reasons for people to deny it exists and a hell of a lot of people with financial reasons to keep denying it exists.

[ECSNorway]

---

Because there's every bit as much doubt in the relevent scientific community about global warming - in essence, not in specifics - as there is about evolution, that smoking causes cancer, and of the heliocentric theory of the solar system. That you can find "scientists" that have opposed all three of those means precisely about as much. The majority of scientific studies that you'll find about climate change at this point are not trying to prove it exists, but to study its already extant effects on flora, fauna, specific areas and climatological models, et al.

---

This is as much an issue of what studies are politically fundable as anything else. When there is a massive amount of money being given to people who will scientifically support "global warming", and little more than mockery to those who oppose it, you will only find literature supporting it. The case can be generalized to any situation of similar parameters - for example, if you were living in 15th-century Europe, would you have dared to publish an anti-Christianity screed? No, because you would have been (literally, instead of figuratively) burned at the stake.

---

Because it's simple common sense that if when you have made a more than measurable dent in the forestation of the planet (which we have), and when you have released untold amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (which we have and do), it will have an effect on the planet's climate.

---

This is under considerable dispute. Many people believe that natural processes including common animal life and vulcanism produce FAR more greenhouse gases than human industry.

---

It strikes me as similar to the notion that "It's impossible to catch all the fish in the sea", a belief that didn't turn out too well.

---

For the first time in your life, you say something political that I agree with you on.

---

Because, quite frankly, there is no good reason to think there a pro-global-warming conspiracy, as very, very few people benefit financially from it (especially up until this point). But there's a hell of a lot of reasons for people to deny it exists and a hell of a lot of people with financial reasons to keep denying it exists.

---

And here we disagree again. There are many people who stand to benefit financially and politically. Start with all those scientists who put out those pro-"global warming" platitudes you mentioned in the first paragraph, all the political candidates who run on the platform, and all the eco-fanatics who take it as a point of religious dogma that human civilization is the worst thing to happen to the Earth, and that it should be done away with immediately. Add in to that all the ones who just want an excuse for more government control of industry, the ones who want to weaken the West's economic and military strength, and the ones who simply jump on the bandwagon because it's got momentum and it's a way for them to exploit to their own political and financial benefit.
I stand by my beliefs.
I also firmly believe that the only way the human race is going to CONTINUE to prosper is to continue to expand. Getting off this planet not only opens up our access to resources but also our scientific, cultural, and technological momentum. Right now, we have no frontiers to expand into, and it's crushing us under our own weight.--
"I give you the beautiful... the talented... the tirelessly atomic-powered...
R!
DOROTHY!
WAYNERIGHT!
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

[ECSNorway]

An example of alleged scientific error in "global warming" punditry:

---

Well, my PhD is in atmospheric spectroscopy. My dissertation was about the effects of modeling errors on measurements of infrared absorption parameters.
The global warming models have some disturbing characteristics. For example, their output doesn't depend on their inputs. A few years ago, it was found that the value for sunlight absorbed by clouds was off by 600%. No visible change.
It was found that, due to a transcription error, the value for IR flux from water vapor was off by an amount equal to the increased IR flux from doubling CO2. Nada. How does that work? An error, equal in size to the whole effect that you're studying, does nothing, but the effect destroys the world?
This isn't even "Garbage In, Garbage Out." This is "Anything In, Same Old Garbage Out."
And that's only one problem.

---

I've sent to ask for confirmation and evidentiary support of his assertions, but it continues to underline my question of the scientific validity of the "global warming" concept.--
"I give you the beautiful... the talented... the tirelessly atomic-powered...
R!
DOROTHY!
WAYNERIGHT!
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

[Ayiekie]

ECSNorway, I wonder... do you ever take time to consider that overarching conspiracies to push the Global Warming Agenda make just about as much sense as believing that the Bush administration conspired to cause the 9/11 attacks?

[ECSNorway]

Considerably more than you think about things I have to say before dismissing them as "baseless feces-throwing".--
"I give you the beautiful... the talented... the tirelessly atomic-powered...
R!
DOROTHY!
WAYNERIGHT!
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

[Ayiekie]

Your rebuttal to the simple fact that the scientific community is in consensus about the fact that global warming exists and humans have caused it was to a) assert that there is a conspiracy by the selfsame scientific community to spread groundless fears about global warming for monetary gain, and b) triumphantly quote some anonymous guy's rant about his university dissertation.
So, even should we put aside the fact that you nastily insulted multiple people on this board based on an absurd lie and then refused to apologise for, retract, or even acknowledge the wrongness of your statement... why exactly do you feel your comments on this subject deserve more respect? You certainly have no respect whatsoever for anyone on the "other side", since you have accused essentially the entire scientific community of deliberate fraud and fearmongering for monetary gain.

[hmelton]

I don't want in your flame war, which is why I've waited several days to post this message, but the scientific communitiy in a consensus?
---------------
www.oism.org/pproject/s33p37.htm
--------------
---------------
www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm
---------------
And here is a blast from the past when it was in fashion to believe Global cooling.
---------------
denisdutton.com/newsweek_...gworld.pdf
---------------

howard melton
God bless

[Morganite]

1. For whatever it's worth, the link in the original post is dead.
2. Just because Exxon says global warming is real doesn't mean they necessarily believe it. I have no problem believing they'd say it if they thought it'd improve their profits.
3. Ayiekie, you're continued obsession with whatever the hell ECSNorway said in some discussion whenever it was is making it really hard to take anything you say seriously.
4. I remain unconvinced that we have the capability to create a climate model accurate enough to come up with useful conclusions.
-Morgan."I have no interest in ordinary humans. If there are any aliens, time travelers, or espers here, come sleep with me."
---From "The Ecchi of Haruhi Suzumiya"
-----(Not really)

[ECSNorway]

Interestingly, there is evidence that something is happening on Mars - something global-warming related. Since there is no human industry present to affect the Martian atmosphere, that can't be the cause, but we really don't know why it's happening.
Some believe that it's being caused by increased solar activity and linked to the warming observed on Earth, related to the 5-600 year cycles I mentioned above. Other theories include tectonic activity and seasonal changes - we just don't know enough about Mars yet to say, but the notion that the planet as a whole may be showing slight warming at the same time Earth is doing the same argues that there is a good probability of some connectivity between the causes.--
"I give you the beautiful... the talented... the tirelessly atomic-powered...
R!
DOROTHY!
WAYNERIGHT!
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

[M Fnord]

Because as we all know, Mars is a perfect laboratory for examining climate change on Earth. After all, Mars has the same geologic activity, strong magnetic field, proximity to the sun, thick atmosphere, watery surface and abundant life...
Oh. Wait.
Anyway, let's give a big round of applause for the latest Instapundit-approved climate science talking points! And remember, kids: it's not happening. Or if it is happening, there's nothing you can do to stop it. God's will, so shut up and die.---
Mr. Fnord
http://fnord.sandwich.net/
http://www.jihad.net/
Mr. Fnord interdimensional man of mystery

FenWiki - Your One-Stop Shop for Fenspace Information

"I. Drink. Your. NERDRAGE!"

[hmelton]

Mars isn't a good model of Earth, but it is probably is good enough to serve as a partial check on the math models we create in our computers.
Math based models of something are only as good as the equations used along with the data they are fed.
Those equations and the data will always be a simplifications and rough approximations of the actual values especially when you consider the model is of an entire planet.
By thier very nature any biosphere equations we derive will never be complete and Mars by it's very nature will not have the same simplifications that our equations have.
No matter how inaccurate an analog of Earth Mars is it can and will include variables and interactions our derive computer equation modesl will miss. It and even Venus can and should be used as checks on our models.
When we start seeing things like both Earth and Mars warming then we should start checking our model for Earth for unknown common variables external to the planet.

No, Mars is nowhere near perfect model, but that doesn't mean it can't produce useful checks especially for something as noisy and inaccurate as a biosphere model.
As an example take the recent article I read about research that seems to have found a direct link between Earth's cloud cover and the amount of gamma rays entering the atmosphere.
Cloud cover is a key part of any biosphere model and if gamma ray activity does play a big part in cloud formation then all computer models which assume fairly constant external effects have a large error.
another example
I believe there are fewer than 200 weather stations feeding data from the South Pole continent into the models.
Yet we can't predict the weather accurately even a month in advanced here in America with 1000's of weather stations feeding data into models.
Now lets look into the past when the Viking discovered and colonized Greenland, it was a "Green" land able to raise crops. Yet within a few centuries it had grown much colder.
There are some minor evidence that within the last 2000 to 4000 years that the south pole was clear enough of ice for the primitive ships to approach and get a fairly accurate map of it's coast line.
I believe I've seen both Greenland and the South Pole Ice coverage used as examples of "mans" influence on the environment.
Yet history seems to point to periods when both areas were warm and mans influence was radically different from todays.
I wonder do the current computer models when run backward predict Greenlands warm period?
Can these computer models confirm or deny the vague legends and possible evidence of mapping visits to the south pole 1000's of year ago?
Do the computer models hint at the South Pole being ice free enough in the last 4000 years for maps to be drawn?

howard melton
God bless

[Ayiekie]

---

3. Ayiekie, you're continued obsession with whatever the hell ECSNorway said in some discussion whenever it was is making it really hard to take anything you say seriously.

---

So, the fact I didn't appreciate that ECSNorway insulted a large percentage of the forums, not to mention slandering the government of a country, and refused to either apologise or admit he was wrong even though it was definitively proven he was, is something that makes it hard to take me seriously.
Kay.
However, the fact ECSNorway has stated that the vast majority of the scientific community is involved in a vast conspiracy to mislead the public is not, in your opinion, worthy of comment?
You know, I would stop bringing up the matter if ECSNorway had the testicular fortitude to admit he was wrong and apologise for insulting people.

[M Fnord]

---

No, Mars is nowhere near perfect model, but that doesn't mean it can't produce useful checks especially for something as noisy and inaccurate as a biosphere model.

---

The differences between the Martian atmosphere (extremely thin, almost 100% carbon dioxide) and Earth's atmosphere (thick and mostly nitrogen) are so big that no model will provide a "useful check." Mars is Mars, Earth is Earth and trying to pretend they're identical when they're pretty clearly not is nonsensical.

---

There are some minor evidence that within the last 2000 to 4000 years that the south pole was clear enough of ice for the primitive ships to approach and get a fairly accurate map of it's coast line.

---

Howard, stop right there. You just referenced the Piri Reis map in an attempt to refute anthropogenic climate change. Comrade, I hate to tell you this, but basic cartography disproves Piri Reis, no need to go to the computers. Your credibility in this argument, already not the highest, just went into negative numbers. Sorry.
To answer your question, the computer models do not confirm that Antarctica was ice-free in the last four thousand years. Which is good, because the hard evidence collected there over the last few years pretty much conclusively says that Antarctica has been icebound for the last 15 million years. Which is a good thing, because if all that ice had melted we'd be looking at a 60m rise in sea level (as opposed to the more sedate 2-5m most climate models are predicting) and that would just suck for everybody.---
Mr. Fnord
http://fnord.sandwich.net/
http://www.jihad.net/
Mr. Fnord interdimensional man of mystery

FenWiki - Your One-Stop Shop for Fenspace Information

"I. Drink. Your. NERDRAGE!"

[Ayiekie]

So, organisations with actual accreditation (as opposed to unchecked web petitions) who have made statements on the matter:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: www.ipcc.ch/
Established by the UN (oh noes) to evaluate the risks of climate change on humans, primarily using peer-reviewed and published scientific literature. They've published three primary assessment reports (in 1990, 1995, and 2001); the has yet to be fully released, but a summary for policy makers has been. It unequivocally states that humans have caused global warming, that is has already had a real effect, and that it has in fact happened more quickly than expected. These reports can only present conclusions that were decided upon unanimously by every scientist on the panel, which includes government-appointed scientists. There is one scientist (Dr. Chris Landsea) who quit the panel in 2005, claiming that it had become politicised and was using unsound science; however, bear in mind he was involved with (and must have endorsed) the findings of the 2001 report (which also confirmed the existence of man-made global warming); his beef is with specifics of the latest report, and not the general conclusions. Several other commentators (including former US Department of Energy member Joseph Romm) have criticised the panel's findings for being too conservative (ie, downplaying the dangers of global warming). I will stress again, for the record, that only conclusions with unanimous consent make it into the panel's reports.
Joint Science Academies: www.royalsoc.ac.uk/docume...=1&id=3222
The National Science Academies of every G8 nation, plus China, Brazil and India (who are, of course, three of the largest greenhouse gas emitters), issued a statement in 2005 explicitly supporting the IPCC conclusions and opining that the evidence of climate change was sufficiently clear to justify action by nations.
American Meteorological Society: www.ametsoc.org/policy/cl..._2003.html
In 2003, the AMS released a statement on the matter. Their conclusion can be seen at the link; in brief, while they opined that temperatures have been rising and that human activity is certainly involved, though they stressed that they could not draw exact conclusions on the magnitude of human activity versus natural variance. The first lines of the introductory section are:
"Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases and other trace constituents resulting primarily from energy use, agriculture, and land clearing. These radiatively active gases and trace constituents interact strongly with the Earth's energy balance, resulting in the prospect of significant global warming."
Federal Climate Change Science Program:
www.climatescience.gov/Li...xecsum.pdf
This was a program commissioned by the Bush administration (certainly no enthusiastic supporter of the scientific consensus on global warming) in 2002 to study the matter. In 2006, they released the first of 21 assessments, which concluded, amongst other things, that there is "clear evidence of human influences on the climate system (due to changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols, and stratospheric ozone)".
The Geological Society of America:
www.geosociety.org/aboutu...tion10.htm
In October 2006, they adopted a statement on global climate change. The first lines of the position statement are:
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earths climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries."
The report also makes note of and endorses similar statements by the American Geophysical Union and American Chemical Society, as well as reference the Joint National Academies of Science report I linked to earlier in the post.
In 2004, Naomi Oreskes made a study of 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change":
www.sciencemag.org/cgi/co.../5702/1686
75% of said abstracts either explicitly or implicitly were in support of the consensus view; 25% dealt with matters that didn't directly provide an opinion either way. Not a single one argued against the prevailing scientific view that human activity is causing climate change.
I will repeat: not a single one. This study was rather broadly publicised.
There is exactly one major scientific organisation that denies that human activity is the primary cause of observed climate changes:
dpa.aapg.org/gac/papers/c...change.cfm
That being the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.