There are a good deal more scientists other than those connected to the oil industry who oppose the findings of the IPCC. I notice this post didn't mention that the data was in fact produced almost exclusively by computer models, and much of it was falsified to obtain the desired results. Then of course there are all the statements made by UN IPPC members about c*****e c****e being the way to effect the world's economy. There is plenty of REAL evidence that c*****e c****e has existed since earth was created, there is not very much REAL evidence that man is responsible for very much of it

Most are not experts, they cut and paste the info they agree with and too more the point, they set about trying to prove main stream to be correct. My thought, if you use Wikipedia...fact check them.

I appreciate your enthusiasm and diligence, John, but I feel that you are pinning too much reliance on the "big" organizations who are married to their alarmism. This is especially true of NOAA and the IPCC. I believe that many on their staffs know that they are wrong, but they, as organizations, have pushed alarmism for so long that they can't back down without being thoroughly embarrassed and ruined as a believable research agency.

But this could finally change, as NOAA finally admitted that temperatures have not risen since 2005. https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2019/08/23/climate_alarmists_foiled_no_us_warming_since_2005_110470.html Actually, temperatures have not risen since the peak in 1998, but NOAA's new land-based temperature stations were not in place until 2005. Previous land-based temperature stations were near urban areas that were not reliable, and therefore "adjusted" by researchers who wanted the temperature trends to rise. The new NOAA data now agree with satellite data that have shown no increase this century.

I could go into great detail how rising CO2 levels are not adequate to increase temperature; or how CO2 levels follow, not lead temperature. I could talk about how temperature change is actually driven by solar output, not by human activity. But let's just look at the blatant exaggerations pushed by alarmists to help judge their scientific integrity.

Claim -- coastal cities will be inundated by rising sea levels. Really? Sea levels have been rising at a pretty steady six inches per century. How or why will they suddenly rise six to nine feet in the remaining 80 years of this century?

Claim -- rising temperatures will cause the deaths of millions of people in major cities like New York. Really? If one or two degrees higher temperature in New York will cause millions of deaths, why are millions of people dying in Miami, Dallas, and Mexico City?

Claim -- America's food supply will be destroyed leading to mass starvation. Really? Plants LOVE CO2; they thrive on it. Real scientists our touting the "greening of the planet". The world is becoming greener, thanks to higher levels of CO2. Our food supply is becoming better. Furthermore, higher temperatures would expand America's wheat belt further into northern states and into Canada. And citrus fruits could be grown all the way up to the pan handle in Florida.

Claim -- The ice sheets are melting. That may be happening in the arctic, but not in Antarctica. Ice in Antarctica is expanding deeper and wider. Furthermore, earth is still officially in an ice age. That is why we still have glaciers. We will not be officially out of an ice age until all glaciers are gone. Antarctica was once covered by vegetation -- no ice. Even more recently, earth was warmer around 1100 BC, again during the Roman Warm period through 200 AD, and again during the Medieval Warm period through 1300 AD. If the cycle continues, the current warm period could run as far as 2400.

These outlandish claims are pushed by organizations who are desperate to keep their alarmism alive. They need people to believe the claims to keep billions of dollars flowing from Uncle Sugar.

=================
C*****e c****e does not bother the Obamas. The home they bought could be covered by water once there is a surge.
Fact of the matter these L*****TS don't really believe in C*****e c****e. The change is only for the small fry people
while they own airplanes to traverse from place to place. while the smaller people are required to ride in horses to prevent c*****e c****e.

Obama bought a $15 million home on a beach front at Martha's Vineyard few yards from the water front.
https://www.bet.com/style/living/2019/08/22/obamas-buy-martha-s-vineyard-estate.html

Yes, Seth, what you say is literally true, and I did not say otherwise.

So, point to a different list of science organizations that have an opposing view (if you can). Get it from "Encyclopedia Brittanica" or wherever you like (even another Wikipedia article that caters to _your_ predetermined conclusion -- you could even write one yourself), but state your source.

If something I got from the Wikipedia article is _wrong_, then point to _that_ thing. I notice you haven't yet disputed a single thing in my post.

One of the reasons I chose that Wikipedia article is that it does list exactly what organizations it's talking about; so, anyone who wants to dispute it can track down any organization it lists and find out directly whether what the article says is true about them or not. If you can find a false reference or false attribution in it, then point to it and tell what you know about it (referencing _your_ source of information, if any).

That Wikipedia article is wide open, vulnerable to your, or anyone's, checking up on what it _says_. Go ahead. That's for the article. As for my post, check up on what _I_ said and trace through my source to wherever a fact got wrong (if you can find any wrong fact in it). It shouldn't be too hard to find a few flaws in what I wrote; I don't expect it to be perfect.

The home on the vineyard is well above sea level and on bedrock, the areas threatened are not places like that they are low lying barrier islands and pacific atolls Florida Keys and low lying cities ranging from places such as Miami, New Orleans, and New York. Obama can be drinking Mai Tais on his patio in a few years laughing as Mar A Lago is flushed into the gulf. There is a king hell hurricane building in the gulf and expected to land on the southern east coast as soon as Sunday I hope the eye of the thing gos right over the first tee.

The home on the vineyard is well above sea level and on bedrock, the areas threatened are not places like that they are low lying barrier islands and pacific atolls Florida Keys and low lying cities ranging from places such as Miami, New Orleans, and New York. Obama can be drinking Mai Tais on his patio in a few years laughing as Mar A Lago is flushed into the gulf. There is a king hell hurricane building in the gulf and expected to land on the southern east coast as soon as Sunday I hope the eye of the thing gos right over the first tee.

**************************************

CLIMATE SCIENCE

**************************************

I am not a scientist (except maybe in manner of thinking, occasionally).

I've taken very few physical science classes after Freshman year in hs. Chem & Physics in hs 50 years ago, 1 general sci class in college; all totalling only 5 semesters. I've taken math classes which occasionally help me some but they're not the same thing as science classes.

I do have a strong opinion about C*****e C****e, anyway. Presumably I'm biased. (Virtually everybody's biased about some things.)

HOW MUCH WORK WOULD IT TAKE TO FIND OUT?

How much work would it take a lay person such as myself to find out whether "g****l w*****g is real" or "g****l w*****g is a h**x"? A lot, I think. S/he would have to study scientific papers and discover, first-hand by reading and understanding, which ones are well done and which ones are shoddily done.

Is there a way to do so without bias? Probably. As above. But it would take enough work that hardly anyone would do it. A dedicated scientist might do it. But even scientists can be biased or lazy. I'm guessing most scientists (good, useful people though they are) are either biased or lazy, just like almost all of us.

THE USUAL SHORTCUT: JUDGE THE CHARACTER OF THE MESSENGER

The usual approach to such questions, I think, is to judge the factions' characters. For example, such and such group, think tank, industry, or political party have wasted our time in the past, so we're not going to pay attention to them now. Or we may judge their manner of expression. For example we might think that those prone to inflammatory statements, or derogatory utterances about _other_ peoples' characters, or incomplete sentences, are less worthy.

THE LAY-PERSON'S GUIDE TO EVERYTHING

This evening I spent a half hour or so researching it in Duckduckgo.com (a search engine on the web, which claims it doesn't track the user -- therefore avoiding some bias in its list of results). I entered search queries such as:

g****l w*****g nations science leaders

I was looking for an enumeration of nations and nations' official science leaders who have given official statements about g****l w*****g (or "c*****e c****e" which is a phrase used more often lately).

(Why would they used to say "g****l w*****g" but now instead they would say "c*****e c****e"? Maybe because "warming" is so often misinterpreted as a description about _weather_; whereas the g****l w*****g of _climate_ is the real topic that the scientists are discussing.)

STRUCK GOLD!

This Wikipedia article is probably as good as I'm going to get in one evening:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change

Here's a rough partial summary of it:

"Statements by scientific organizations of national or international standing":

These are classified by whether they agree, disagree, or are noncommittal with respect to the "IPCC view".

IPCC = Intergovernmental Panel on C*****e C****e

The "IPCC view" (in 2007 -- the date cited in this Wikipedia article) is (summarized by me):

======================

THE IPCC VIEW:

======================

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal ..."

and

"Most of the g****l w*****g since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities."

and

"... Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative ..." where negative means bad.

Etc.


------------------------------------

CONCURRING:

------------------------------------

(in 2001) "the science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, Turkey, and the United Kingdom."

(in 2005) "The national science academies of" "Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States".

(in 2007) "the national science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States". And: "the science academies of Cameroon, Ghana, Kenya, Madagascar, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe, as well as the African Academy of Sciences".

(in 2008) (similar to 2007)

(in 2009) (similar to 2007)

(in 2007) also: "the General Assembly of the Polish Academy of Sciences".

(in 2006) the "American Association for the Advancement of Science"

(in 2008) the "Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies"

(in 2001) the "United States National Research Council"

Plus about 40 or so other organizations (too numerous to list here but if you're curious you can see them in the same Wikipedia article).

---------------------------------

NON-COMMITTAL:

---------------------------------

"American Association of Petroleum Geologists"

"American Institute of Professional Geologists"

---------------------------------

OPPOSING:

---------------------------------

It says:

"See also: List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of g****l w*****g" (that's a link) (I did not bother to follow it; it would be a list of scientists, not a list of international nor national official organizations.)

(As you can see, I'm favoring the national and international scientific bodies, rather than individual scientists. Does this reflect some bias that I have? Maybe.)

and:

"Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[24] no national or international scientific body rejects the findings of human-induced effects on c*****e c****e."

----------------------------

My Conclusion:

----------------------------

I already said I was presumably biased. The Wikipedia article has not _changed_ my opinion; it confirms it (rather strongly, I think).

A quick reading shows that (according to that Wikipedia article) the only mentioned "national or international scientific body" which _might_have_ rejected "the findings of human-induced effects on c*****e c****e" would be: (drum roll ...):

The American Association of Petroleum Geologists

(does that word "Petroleum" suggest a bias?)

and a closer reading reveals that as of 2007 even THEY didn't reject the findings.

Their (AAPG's) backing off from the topic makes interesting reading; there are two paragraphs about that in the same article, in the "Non-committal" section.

The whole Wikipedia article could be biased; we don't know what it leaves out. (And, I didn't even bother to look at the list of dissenting scientists -- I was only considering the nat'l & internat'l org's of scientists.)

And, the dates indicate the article may be as much as 9 or 10 years old.

Nonetheless I think it's convincing.

Let someone post an opposing article, similar to this Wikipedia article -- go ahead, go where even the AAPG does not dare to go.

My conclusion is: yes, of course g****l w*****g is real and humanity's causing a lot of it and humanity should stop emitting so much greenhouse gases. Duh. And it's urgent and very important.

(And (in my additional opinion, meanwhile), even aside from all that about g****l w*****g, humanity should stop polluting so much anyway -- even if the "g****l w*****g" issue _were_ a h**x. Pollution's been a huge problem all along, even before anyone identified "g****l w*****g" as an issue.)

**************************************

CLIMATE SCIENCE

**************************************

I am not a scientist (except maybe in manner of thinking, occasionally).

I've taken very few physical science classes after Freshman year in hs. Chem & Physics in hs 50 years ago, 1 general sci class in college; all totalling only 5 semesters. I've taken math classes which occasionally help me some but they're not the same thing as science classes.

I do have a strong opinion about C*****e C****e, anyway. Presumably I'm biased. (Virtually everybody's biased about some things.)

HOW MUCH WORK WOULD IT TAKE TO FIND OUT?

How much work would it take a lay person such as myself to find out whether "g****l w*****g is real" or "g****l w*****g is a h**x"? A lot, I think. S/he would have to study scientific papers and discover, first-hand by reading and understanding, which ones are well done and which ones are shoddily done.

Is there a way to do so without bias? Probably. As above. But it would take enough work that hardly anyone would do it. A dedicated scientist might do it. But even scientists can be biased or lazy. I'm guessing most scientists (good, useful people though they are) are either biased or lazy, just like almost all of us.

THE USUAL SHORTCUT: JUDGE THE CHARACTER OF THE MESSENGER

The usual approach to such questions, I think, is to judge the factions' characters. For example, such and such group, think tank, industry, or political party have wasted our time in the past, so we're not going to pay attention to them now. Or we may judge their manner of expression. For example we might think that those prone to inflammatory statements, or derogatory utterances about _other_ peoples' characters, or incomplete sentences, are less worthy.

THE LAY-PERSON'S GUIDE TO EVERYTHING

This evening I spent a half hour or so researching it in Duckduckgo.com (a search engine on the web, which claims it doesn't track the user -- therefore avoiding some bias in its list of results). I entered search queries such as:

g****l w*****g nations science leaders

I was looking for an enumeration of nations and nations' official science leaders who have given official statements about g****l w*****g (or "c*****e c****e" which is a phrase used more often lately).

(Why would they used to say "g****l w*****g" but now instead they would say "c*****e c****e"? Maybe because "warming" is so often misinterpreted as a description about _weather_; whereas the g****l w*****g of _climate_ is the real topic that the scientists are discussing.)

STRUCK GOLD!

This Wikipedia article is probably as good as I'm going to get in one evening:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change

Here's a rough partial summary of it:

"Statements by scientific organizations of national or international standing":

These are classified by whether they agree, disagree, or are noncommittal with respect to the "IPCC view".

IPCC = Intergovernmental Panel on C*****e C****e

The "IPCC view" (in 2007 -- the date cited in this Wikipedia article) is (summarized by me):

======================

THE IPCC VIEW:

======================

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal ..."

and

"Most of the g****l w*****g since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities."

and

"... Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative ..." where negative means bad.

Etc.


------------------------------------

CONCURRING:

------------------------------------

(in 2001) "the science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, Turkey, and the United Kingdom."

(in 2005) "The national science academies of" "Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States".

(in 2007) "the national science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States". And: "the science academies of Cameroon, Ghana, Kenya, Madagascar, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe, as well as the African Academy of Sciences".

(in 2008) (similar to 2007)

(in 2009) (similar to 2007)

(in 2007) also: "the General Assembly of the Polish Academy of Sciences".

(in 2006) the "American Association for the Advancement of Science"

(in 2008) the "Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies"

(in 2001) the "United States National Research Council"

Plus about 40 or so other organizations (too numerous to list here but if you're curious you can see them in the same Wikipedia article).

---------------------------------

NON-COMMITTAL:

---------------------------------

"American Association of Petroleum Geologists"

"American Institute of Professional Geologists"

---------------------------------

OPPOSING:

---------------------------------

It says:

"See also: List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of g****l w*****g" (that's a link) (I did not bother to follow it; it would be a list of scientists, not a list of international nor national official organizations.)

(As you can see, I'm favoring the national and international scientific bodies, rather than individual scientists. Does this reflect some bias that I have? Maybe.)

and:

"Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[24] no national or international scientific body rejects the findings of human-induced effects on c*****e c****e."

----------------------------

My Conclusion:

----------------------------

I already said I was presumably biased. The Wikipedia article has not _changed_ my opinion; it confirms it (rather strongly, I think).

A quick reading shows that (according to that Wikipedia article) the only mentioned "national or international scientific body" which _might_have_ rejected "the findings of human-induced effects on c*****e c****e" would be: (drum roll ...):

The American Association of Petroleum Geologists

(does that word "Petroleum" suggest a bias?)

and a closer reading reveals that as of 2007 even THEY didn't reject the findings.

Their (AAPG's) backing off from the topic makes interesting reading; there are two paragraphs about that in the same article, in the "Non-committal" section.

The whole Wikipedia article could be biased; we don't know what it leaves out. (And, I didn't even bother to look at the list of dissenting scientists -- I was only considering the nat'l & internat'l org's of scientists.)

And, the dates indicate the article may be as much as 9 or 10 years old.

Nonetheless I think it's convincing.

Let someone post an opposing article, similar to this Wikipedia article -- go ahead, go where even the AAPG does not dare to go.

My conclusion is: yes, of course g****l w*****g is real and humanity's causing a lot of it and humanity should stop emitting so much greenhouse gases. Duh. And it's urgent and very important.

(And (in my additional opinion, meanwhile), even aside from all that about g****l w*****g, humanity should stop polluting so much anyway -- even if the "g****l w*****g" issue _were_ a h**x. Pollution's been a huge problem all along, even before anyone identified "g****l w*****g" as an issue.)

**************************************

CLIMATE SCIENCE

**************************************

I am not a scientist (except maybe in manner of thinking, occasionally).

I've taken very few physical science classes after Freshman year in hs. Chem & Physics in hs 50 years ago, 1 general sci class in college; all totalling only 5 semesters. I've taken math classes which occasionally help me some but they're not the same thing as science classes.

I do have a strong opinion about C*****e C****e, anyway. Presumably I'm biased. (Virtually everybody's biased about some things.)

HOW MUCH WORK WOULD IT TAKE TO FIND OUT?

How much work would it take a lay person such as myself to find out whether "g****l w*****g is real" or "g****l w*****g is a h**x"? A lot, I think. S/he would have to study scientific papers and discover, first-hand by reading and understanding, which ones are well done and which ones are shoddily done.

Is there a way to do so without bias? Probably. As above. But it would take enough work that hardly anyone would do it. A dedicated scientist might do it. But even scientists can be biased or lazy. I'm guessing most scientists (good, useful people though they are) are either biased or lazy, just like almost all of us.

THE USUAL SHORTCUT: JUDGE THE CHARACTER OF THE MESSENGER

The usual approach to such questions, I think, is to judge the factions' characters. For example, such and such group, think tank, industry, or political party have wasted our time in the past, so we're not going to pay attention to them now. Or we may judge their manner of expression. For example we might think that those prone to inflammatory statements, or derogatory utterances about _other_ peoples' characters, or incomplete sentences, are less worthy.

THE LAY-PERSON'S GUIDE TO EVERYTHING

This evening I spent a half hour or so researching it in Duckduckgo.com (a search engine on the web, which claims it doesn't track the user -- therefore avoiding some bias in its list of results). I entered search queries such as:

g****l w*****g nations science leaders

I was looking for an enumeration of nations and nations' official science leaders who have given official statements about g****l w*****g (or "c*****e c****e" which is a phrase used more often lately).

(Why would they used to say "g****l w*****g" but now instead they would say "c*****e c****e"? Maybe because "warming" is so often misinterpreted as a description about _weather_; whereas the g****l w*****g of _climate_ is the real topic that the scientists are discussing.)

STRUCK GOLD!

This Wikipedia article is probably as good as I'm going to get in one evening:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change

Here's a rough partial summary of it:

"Statements by scientific organizations of national or international standing":

These are classified by whether they agree, disagree, or are noncommittal with respect to the "IPCC view".

IPCC = Intergovernmental Panel on C*****e C****e

The "IPCC view" (in 2007 -- the date cited in this Wikipedia article) is (summarized by me):

======================

THE IPCC VIEW:

======================

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal ..."

and

"Most of the g****l w*****g since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities."

and

"... Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative ..." where negative means bad.

Etc.


------------------------------------

CONCURRING:

------------------------------------

(in 2001) "the science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, Turkey, and the United Kingdom."

(in 2005) "The national science academies of" "Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States".

(in 2007) "the national science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States". And: "the science academies of Cameroon, Ghana, Kenya, Madagascar, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe, as well as the African Academy of Sciences".

(in 2008) (similar to 2007)

(in 2009) (similar to 2007)

(in 2007) also: "the General Assembly of the Polish Academy of Sciences".

(in 2006) the "American Association for the Advancement of Science"

(in 2008) the "Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies"

(in 2001) the "United States National Research Council"

Plus about 40 or so other organizations (too numerous to list here but if you're curious you can see them in the same Wikipedia article).

---------------------------------

NON-COMMITTAL:

---------------------------------

"American Association of Petroleum Geologists"

"American Institute of Professional Geologists"

---------------------------------

OPPOSING:

---------------------------------

It says:

"See also: List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of g****l w*****g" (that's a link) (I did not bother to follow it; it would be a list of scientists, not a list of international nor national official organizations.)

(As you can see, I'm favoring the national and international scientific bodies, rather than individual scientists. Does this reflect some bias that I have? Maybe.)

and:

"Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[24] no national or international scientific body rejects the findings of human-induced effects on c*****e c****e."

----------------------------

My Conclusion:

----------------------------

I already said I was presumably biased. The Wikipedia article has not _changed_ my opinion; it confirms it (rather strongly, I think).

A quick reading shows that (according to that Wikipedia article) the only mentioned "national or international scientific body" which _might_have_ rejected "the findings of human-induced effects on c*****e c****e" would be: (drum roll ...):

The American Association of Petroleum Geologists

(does that word "Petroleum" suggest a bias?)

and a closer reading reveals that as of 2007 even THEY didn't reject the findings.

Their (AAPG's) backing off from the topic makes interesting reading; there are two paragraphs about that in the same article, in the "Non-committal" section.

The whole Wikipedia article could be biased; we don't know what it leaves out. (And, I didn't even bother to look at the list of dissenting scientists -- I was only considering the nat'l & internat'l org's of scientists.)

And, the dates indicate the article may be as much as 9 or 10 years old.

Nonetheless I think it's convincing.

Let someone post an opposing article, similar to this Wikipedia article -- go ahead, go where even the AAPG does not dare to go.

My conclusion is: yes, of course g****l w*****g is real and humanity's causing a lot of it and humanity should stop emitting so much greenhouse gases. Duh. And it's urgent and very important.

(And (in my additional opinion, meanwhile), even aside from all that about g****l w*****g, humanity should stop polluting so much anyway -- even if the "g****l w*****g" issue _were_ a h**x. Pollution's been a huge problem all along, even before anyone identified "g****l w*****g" as an issue.)