Changes

:::Well first off let me address the scientific issues you raise. For one thing, volcanic events would cause a short-term decrease in temperatures due to particulates. However, due to carbon dioxide, volcanoes can indeed cause warming in the long-term, however, the amounts released in recent times are nowhere near enough to affect the climate as drastically as is the case. Scientists have also repeatedly addressed the sun's influence and have repeatedly found the effect to be negligible relative to the size of the change we are talking about. The change we are talking about is a rise of 0.8 degrees Celsius in 100 years. This is huge in relative terms, and is completely unprecedented in terms of its magnitude and rate for the entire period of earth's climate history which has been reconstructed. Natural forcings have repeatedly been shown to be unable to account for this massive change, which makes sense since no change of scale and rate has occurred before. Studies of global warming virtually always discuss natural forcings and it is imperative that they are included. A climate model cannot possibly be constructed without these natural forcings and it is simply a lack of understanding of the science, along with its distortion by some, that leads to the factual mistakes in the article in question.

:::Well first off let me address the scientific issues you raise. For one thing, volcanic events would cause a short-term decrease in temperatures due to particulates. However, due to carbon dioxide, volcanoes can indeed cause warming in the long-term, however, the amounts released in recent times are nowhere near enough to affect the climate as drastically as is the case. Scientists have also repeatedly addressed the sun's influence and have repeatedly found the effect to be negligible relative to the size of the change we are talking about. The change we are talking about is a rise of 0.8 degrees Celsius in 100 years. This is huge in relative terms, and is completely unprecedented in terms of its magnitude and rate for the entire period of earth's climate history which has been reconstructed. Natural forcings have repeatedly been shown to be unable to account for this massive change, which makes sense since no change of scale and rate has occurred before. Studies of global warming virtually always discuss natural forcings and it is imperative that they are included. A climate model cannot possibly be constructed without these natural forcings and it is simply a lack of understanding of the science, along with its distortion by some, that leads to the factual mistakes in the article in question.

And whilst certain people are all too willing to suggest that scientists who find evidence of anthropogenic global warming are in fact biased as a result of grants and their allocation, they do not raise the same point about the so called 'sceptics' to whom a similar criticism can and has been applied even more intensely with regards to receiving money that can be traced back to fossil fuel based industries for example. Whilst there are a very small minority of 'scientists' who may be unscrupulous in their research in order to suit an agenda, this is most certainly not the norm and these scientists are quickly discredited amongst the scientific community. Whilst the assertion is that there is much money to made in environmental circles, there is much more to be made from supporting the big oil industries for example, so such claims don't stand up to scrutiny.  

And whilst certain people are all too willing to suggest that scientists who find evidence of anthropogenic global warming are in fact biased as a result of grants and their allocation, they do not raise the same point about the so called 'sceptics' to whom a similar criticism can and has been applied even more intensely with regards to receiving money that can be traced back to fossil fuel based industries for example. Whilst there are a very small minority of 'scientists' who may be unscrupulous in their research in order to suit an agenda, this is most certainly not the norm and these scientists are quickly discredited amongst the scientific community. Whilst the assertion is that there is much money to made in environmental circles, there is much more to be made from supporting the big oil industries for example, so such claims don't stand up to scrutiny.  

Indeed you point out one of the major problems in traversing the spheres of science and the public, since most of the publice does not have the necessary background to take in all the scientific studies in their raw form. This is not helped by distrust stirred up by a few who do in fact have an anti-science agenda, who wrongly claim expertise where they have none and push real science out of the way through distorting its findings and misleading people. Whilst some people claim there is no consensus within science on climate change, in fact if you look at independent studies, those not carried out by those actually engaged in climate change research and receiving funding from those without directly invested interests in the matter, then you can see that there is almost universal consensus within science on the reality of global warming. In fact, although the media in general is rightly pointing out the reality of climate change, they are inadvertently, although in some cases deliberately, helping to create the false impression that there is no consensus. This is done by giving increased weight to sceptical views in articles which implies more controversy than there actually is. They may compare a for and against person in the same piece, suggesting an even split when in fact the for person is on eof tens of thousands whereas the against is only from a handful in reality. As such, the media's concept of 'balance' does not necessarily equal accuracy in its reporting. It also does not help that the issue is being looked at through a political lens. Though you may disagree with the people who often support the fight against climate change that need not tarnish your views on the issue itself. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 15:20, 2 March 2009 (EST)

Indeed you point out one of the major problems in traversing the spheres of science and the public, since most of the publice does not have the necessary background to take in all the scientific studies in their raw form. This is not helped by distrust stirred up by a few who do in fact have an anti-science agenda, who wrongly claim expertise where they have none and push real science out of the way through distorting its findings and misleading people. Whilst some people claim there is no consensus within science on climate change, in fact if you look at independent studies, those not carried out by those actually engaged in climate change research and receiving funding from those without directly invested interests in the matter, then you can see that there is almost universal consensus within science on the reality of global warming. In fact, although the media in general is rightly pointing out the reality of climate change, they are inadvertently, although in some cases deliberately, helping to create the false impression that there is no consensus. This is done by giving increased weight to sceptical views in articles which implies more controversy than there actually is. They may compare a for and against person in the same piece, suggesting an even split when in fact the for person is on eof tens of thousands whereas the against is only from a handful in reality. As such, the media's concept of 'balance' does not necessarily equal accuracy in its reporting. It also does not help that the issue is being looked at through a political lens. Though you may disagree with the people who often support the fight against climate change that need not tarnish your views on the issue itself. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 15:20, 2 March 2009 (EST)