Changes

The theory is widely accepted within the scientific community because of the vast amount of conclusive evidence, though that is not to say there is  unanimity..<ref>Myths of Global Warming[http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html]</ref><ref>No Evidence for Global Warming[http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed012298b.cfm]</ref> On February 2, 2007, an internatonal panel of hundreds of scientists and representatives of 113 governments issued a report concluding:

The theory is widely accepted within the scientific community because of the vast amount of conclusive evidence, though that is not to say there is  unanimity..<ref>Myths of Global Warming[http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html]</ref><ref>No Evidence for Global Warming[http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed012298b.cfm]</ref> On February 2, 2007, an internatonal panel of hundreds of scientists and representatives of 113 governments issued a report concluding:

:The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice-mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that is not due to known natural causes alone."<ref>Borenstein, Seth (2007), "Warming 'Likely' Man-Made, Unstoppable." Associated Press, as published by Forbes[http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/02/02/ap3388409.html]</ref>

 

The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice-mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that is not due to known natural causes alone."<ref>Borenstein, Seth (2007), "Warming 'Likely' Man-Made, Unstoppable." Associated Press, as published by Forbes[http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/02/02/ap3388409.html]</ref>

It should be noted that these scientists are motivated by a need for grant money in their field of climatology.  Therefore, their work can not be considered unbiased, though no more than any scientist in any other field .<ref>FOX News: "On Global Warming: Follow the Money Indeed!" Feb 12, 2007[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251458,00.html]</ref>. Also, these scientists are mostly liberal athiests, untroubled by the hubris that man can destroy the Earth which God gave him.<ref>Gloval Warming & Evolution[http://atheism.about.com/b/a/238739.htm]</ref>

It should be noted that these scientists are motivated by a need for grant money in their field of climatology.  Therefore, their work can not be considered unbiased, though no more than any scientist in any other field .<ref>FOX News: "On Global Warming: Follow the Money Indeed!" Feb 12, 2007[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251458,00.html]</ref>. Also, these scientists are mostly liberal athiests, untroubled by the hubris that man can destroy the Earth which God gave him.<ref>Gloval Warming & Evolution[http://atheism.about.com/b/a/238739.htm]</ref>

There are some scientists among the critics of the theory that global warming is caused by human activity.  As they have sought funding from the very industries that face regulation, thier bias is real and thier conclusions should be suspect. For example, Dr. Fred Singer observed that "CO₂ changes have lagged about 800 years behind the temperature changes. Global warming has produced more CO₂, rather than more CO₂ producing global warming."<ref>S. Fred Singer and Dennis T.

There are some scientists among the critics of the theory that global warming is caused by human activity.  As they have sought funding from the very industries that face regulation, thier bias is real and thier conclusions should be suspect. For example, Dr. Fred Singer observed that "CO₂ changes have lagged about 800 years behind the temperature changes. Global warming has produced more CO₂, rather than more CO₂ producing global warming."<ref>S. Fred Singer and Dennis T.

Avery, "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years" (Rowman & Littlefield, 2007)</ref> Though, it must be said, that no scientist denies that CO₂ has lagged behind temperature at certain times in Earth's history. They maintain this doesn't negate in any way CO₂ influence on temperature. It merely means it wasnt a first cause of temperature increase at particular times in Earths distance history.."<ref>What the lag of CO₂ behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming

Avery, "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years" (Rowman & Littlefield, 2007)</ref> Though, it must be said, that no scientist denies that CO₂ has lagged behind temperature at certain times in Earth's history. They maintain this doesn't negate in any way CO₂ influence on temperature. It merely means it wasnt a first cause of temperature increase at particular times in Earths distance history.."<ref>What the lag of CO₂ behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming

[http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/]<ref>

[http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/]</ref>

 

 

==References==

==References==

<references/>

<references/>