The Consensus on Global Warming:
From Science to Industry & Religion
By: Logical Science

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensus.htm

The following is a list of quotes from scientific organizations, academies,
scientists, industry spokesmen, etc supporting the existence of man made
climate change and the need to take action to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. Many of these quotes reference the IPCC or Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change which is widely regarded by mainstream scientists as
either the "most reliable" or one of the most reliable sources for accurate
information on climate change.

If you are confused as to whose opinion matters, just pay attention to the
peer review science journals and the National Academy of Sciences. For
those that don't know, the National Academies are like the Supreme Court of
science. The number of climate scientists in the US can be found by
examining the members of the American Geophysical Union (AGU). As of
November 10, 2006 we know that there is a minimum (no official count of
foreign climatologists is available) of 20,000 working climatologists
worldwide 1,2.

Creationists don't care about lots of scientists and neither do
Randroids.

By the way, one claims to be religion and the other claims to not be a
cult.

Both are false.

Bret Cahill

I will accept the myth of anthropocentric Global warning when someone
points me to the evidence that suggests why changing the concentration
of CO2 in the atmosphere from 0.035%% to a massive 0.045%% has or will
create a global catastrophy.
I will accept the myth of global waming when the IPCC has some
scientists in it and does not reject the rational objections to its
failed findings by sacking discenting scientists.
I will accpet the myth of global waming when The IPCC ceases to be a
political body (it was set up by Margaret Thatcher and the British
Meterological Society with funding from a government that was seeking
to smash the miners and OPEC by discouraging the use of fossil fuels
in favour of nuclear power).

Human generated CO2 represents a small proportion of global CO2.
Eathquakes alone produce more than all the cars, factories, industries
and hot air from the environmentalist lobby put together. Animals also
put more CO2 into the atmosphere than the combined human activity put
together.

Plus: all these branches of science conspire, and bypass political
polarization, to make anti-global warming proponents seem like
"creation scientists."

The Gaia hypothesis is an ecological hypothesis that proposes that
living and nonliving parts of the earth are viewed as a complex
interacting system that can be thought of as a single organism. Named
after the Greek earth goddess, this hypothesis postulates that all
living things have a regulatory effect on the Earth's environment that
promotes life overall.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis

Gaia, Earth, was believed by the ancient Greeks to be a living,
fertile ancestor of many of their important gods. The Romans, who
adopted many Greek gods and ideas as their own, also believed in this
organismic...

On Jul 27, 1:42 pm, Immortalist yahoo.com> wrote:

"chazwin" yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1185555246.219481.187970@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

Fine, not my problem.

Again, not my problem what you accept or reject.

Opinionated "spin", imho.

Since it's all carbon neutral it has no impact on any AGW conclusions
but it is interesting that the biomass of insects is several or many
times that of all humans and insects have a much higher metabolism.

A person eats 2,000 k cals/day or 1/60th of a gallon of oil, vegetable
or crude ~ 1/2520 barrels.

8 billion people X 1/60 X 1/42 => 3 million bbs/day.

Crude oil production is 90 million bbs/day. Coal might be about the
same order of magnitude of carbon.

Assuming we didn't need the food web eliminating insects would have a
significant impact on CO2 emissions.

. . .

"Bret Cahill" aol.com> wrote in message
news:1185599050.926739.301480@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...

Thank you Sean for demonstrating that you are one of the many sheep
that have bought into the myth.

The heat capacity of 0.01%% CO2 will not raise the temperature of the
air.
If you want to be taken seriously please explain how this change over
the last 100 years is thought to be so damaging?

On Jul 28, 5:21 am, "Sean" blah.com> wrote:

This is your problem - becasue if you cannot answer it for yourself
then you have not got an epistemological leg to stand on.

Yea, and we know what it'll be:

A "requilibration in population."

Ordinarily I wouldn't care but I suspect there's a good chance I'll be
part of the "load" that gets "shedded."

Bret Cahill