Nope, can’t see what’s so hard to understand about that.

From the WMO home page:

The World Meteorological Organization is an intergovernmental organization [emphasis added] with a membership of 188 Member States and Territories.

From the UNEP home page:

UNEP is an advocate, educator, catalyst and facilitator, promoting the wise use of the planet’s natural assets for sustainable evelopment.
UNEP works with many partners: United Nations entities, international organizations, national governments, non-governmental organizations, business, industry, the media and civil society.

From the IPCC website:

The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters.

Finally, from the IPCC website:

The work of the IPCC is guided by the mandate given to it by its parent organisations the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

To the astonishment of one and all (are you reading this, Rex and mambochicken?) Frank Googles as well as anybody, if not better than most.

That ‘consensus’ thing again. I listed six points. Your response is to tell me that there is this consensus that invalidates those concerns?

“There are many, many instances of where Scientific Consensus has been wrong – including very recently. Off the top of my head I can think of the newly discovered cause of diabetes, (see here), which totally surprised the researchers themselves.
Also, the consensus view of the cause of peptic ulcers was nervous tension – remember warnings against “TYPE A Behavior”? It was an uphill battle for the discoverers of the H. Pylori bacteria against the consensus view that the stomach is totally inhospitable to bacteria. Now there are successful bacteriological treatments.

“Continental Drift” was totally against consensus. Now it is accepted geological science.

Scientists accept that consensus views are at times overturned by new evidence and certainly are loath to limit the speech of even eccentric researchers since it is often these individuals who have historically discovered remarkable new truths.

Thus, scientific consensus means nothing until empirical facts are developed to support theories (or computer models) – clearly not the case with global warming,

Jerry Schmitt ”

consensus: general agreement, the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned

As a means of giving a richer, fuller view of the evidence on climate change, I am including a link: http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/pub.htm. You can follow this to see not just a couple scientists, but the wealth of scientific consensus. Each of the technical papers includes not just a couple blog entries and a USA Today article, but literally thousands of papers that cite real research in the area.

Wilbur, We’re talking debate, right? We’re discusssing whether the ’science is settled”.
I’m definitely not saying the Mars data answers anything. The Mars data does however pose questions. If the warming is internal to Mars, how is it happening? What is generating significant heat on Mars? Isn’t it maybe even more likely its the sun? And if so, the sun bypasses earth and just heats Mars? I mean we have a small warming spike on earth, a spike on Mars.

Here’s the key issues making me doubt:

1. There is clear evidence historically of significant long term climate change on earth that can’t have much at all to do with manmade phenomena – see ‘Green’land etc.

2. Within this last 100 year modest rise, there are both areas of greater rise and lesser rise and no rise. And there are mini-periods of cooling and warming. All of which indicates signifcant fluctuation. And all of these fluctuations are man-induced. If not, how many are/aren’t? And if some arent, hoew do we know the relatively small 100-year spike is not partially natural?

3. If the science were good, the sceptics of predeominat man-made global warming could be defeated with facts. Instead wre are debated with: (a) Shut up. (b) Trust we are correct, no matter what you think, or you will lose your job, (c) To deny predominant manmade global warming is on a level wiht denying the Holocaust.

4. The apocalyptic Hollywood-esque arguments made on behalf of PMM global warming: “the ocean’s edge will be at Atlanta, Georgia!!” “Greatest crisis in the history of man!!!”

5. The previous Global Cooling apocalypse.

6. The tendency of PMMGW’ers to argue by correlation. We have more C02,we have a small heat increase, ipso facto—-

7. The strong political bent of the PMMGWers. the chief WW spokesman is a hyper ppartisan left wing politician – with no science background. yet PMMGW doubters are constantly scolded to ‘listen to the scientists’ (meaning their scientists or AlGore).

here

here

Take your time. You may even want to read it, before you call me an idiot or tell me shut up.

here

here

Although none of the reductions will be easily achieved, Monbiot’s [author of Heat] analysis concludes that those related to transportation may be the hardest of all. To reduce ground transportation emissions sufficiently, he suggests the need to severely lessen individual shopping trips. To accomplish this, he proposes that goods be delivered. …Every van the stores dispatch, in other words, takes three cars off the road. Monbiot also proposes to transform out of town superstores into warehouses, to be visited only by vehicles that pick up supplies. That will save even more energy, because warehouses use only 35 percent as much heat and 29 percent as much electricity as do stores.

In only one sector does Monbiot fail to identify a technical solution at any cost: air travel…
Monbiot reluctantly concludes, “(T)here is simply no way of tackling this issue other than reducing the number, length and speed of the journeys we make.” Knowing the audience for whom the book is intended, he acerbically adds, this will mean the end of “shopping trips to New York, political meetings in Porto Alegre, long distance vacations.”
He urges his readers “to remember that these privations affect a tiny proportion of the world’s people. The reason they seem so harsh is that this tiny proportion almost certainly includes you [emphasis mine].”

There used to be canals on Mars, too, until we could see it better.

Woo hoo!!

What is a reasonable rate, then?

And just who, specifically, (please cite and/or quote) wants to cripple the American economy?

Does it smell like hay in here?