Quote:Because a "wiki" is reality right?


How about point me to some study or some paper that refutes the Professor cited in the article that I posted. No left wing blog, no wiki, just point to the facts.

First of all, I've posted countless news articles from the AP, Reuters, et al who have reported on the multitudes of scientific studies pertaining to the subject of climate change.


Second of all, anyone can edit Wikipedia, yes, even including Republicans. The Wikipedia entry on climate change is one of the most heavily vetted, if not the most. Republicans, one would think, would like that encyclopedia entry to be in step with their advocacy, and would take steps to make that so. But yet the Wikipedia on continues to run counter to that narrative. Why is that? Because the entry deals with just the facts. I suggest you look at them.


Third of all, a sane person understands the value of an expert opinion, especially an expert opinion that is shared by the entire field. This is why we go to see mechanics, doctors, flight instructors, therapists, etc. If you get diagnosed with cancer you might get a second or third opinion. You don't go to 100 doctors until you find one (hey every-body!) that says you don't have cancer and then believe him. That would be dumb.


The scientific opinion on climate change is the overall judgment amongst scientists about whether global warming is happening and if so its causes and probable consequences. This scientific opinion is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.[1]


The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (at least 95% probability) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. In addition, it is likely that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by increased aerosols.[2][3][4][5]


National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on global warming. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report summarized:


Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[6]

Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[7]

Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.[8] Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[8] Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming.[8]

The range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.[9]

The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources).[10]

Some scientific bodies have recommended specific policies to governments and science can play a role in informing an effective response to climate change, however, policy decisions may require value judgements and so are not included in the scientific opinion.[11][12]


No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points. The last national or international scientific body to drop dissent was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[13] which in 2007[14] updated its statement to its current non-committal position.[15] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.

---