There is a new comment on the post "The self-contradictions of Marc Morano". 
http://mind.ofdan.ca/?p=2501

Author: ScruffyDan
Comment:
@ Bob

<blockquote>I don’t think “the overwhelming majority of scientists” can be claimed anymore.</blockquote>

Really?
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/upload/2009/01/DoranAndZimmerman2009.png

Remember I only care about <i>relevant</i> experts.

And then we have the fact that the <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/" rel="nofollow">IPCC</a> the <a href="http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13619" rel="nofollow">National Academies of Science</a> from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Russia, South Africa, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the <a href="http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=20742" rel="nofollow">USA</a>, the <a href="http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html" rel="nofollow">American Meteorological Society</a>, <a href="http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/positions/climate_change2008.shtml" rel="nofollow">American Geophysical Union</a>, the <a href="http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/mtg_200702/aaas_climate_statement.pdf" rel="nofollow">American Association for the Advancement of Science</a>, the <a href="http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/null/lang/en/page1022.html" rel="nofollow">Geological Society of London</a>, the <a href="http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position10.htm" rel="nofollow">Geological Society of America</a>, the <a href="http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html" rel="nofollow">Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society</a>, and <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686" rel="nofollow">thousands of peer-reviewed journals</a>, all agree that climate change is not a political concoction or a scientific hoax, but very real and is caused by our greenhouse gas emissions.

In fact no scientific body of national or international standing <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by_dissenting_organizations" rel="nofollow">is known to reject</a> the basic findings of the human influence on the recent climate.

I'd say that still qualifies for the overwhelming majority of the relevant experts.

<blockquote>Classical physics proves the temperature of objects in our orbit are about 1/21 the temperature the sun decides to be.</blockquote>

So objects outside our atmosphere (at least most of it anyways) aren't influenced by the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. SHOCKING!

<blockquote>You do recognize don’t you that the “green” gas you so fear is provably increasing crop yields in every corner of the planet?</blockquote>

I suggest you read up on Liebig’s law of the Minimum. Really this is rather basic stuff.

Of course while CO2 <em>may</em> have some beneficial properties for <em>some</em> plants, the <a href="?p=1132" rel="nofollow">situation</a> <a href="http://www.livescience.com/environment/060706_globalwarming_fire.html" rel="nofollow">is</a> <a href="?p=1085" rel="nofollow">ultimately</a> <a href="http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/01/19/understanding-why-climate-change-means-global-famine/" rel="nofollow">anything</a> <a href="http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/02/18/climate-change-and-famine-ii-soil/" rel="nofollow">but</a> <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080324173612.htm" rel="nofollow">certain</a>.

And that doesn't even take into account the negative effects on food supply caused by ocean acidification.

See all comments on this post here:
http://mind.ofdan.ca/?p=2501#comments

To manage your subscriptions or to block all notifications from this site, click the link below:
http://mind.ofdan.ca/?wp-subscription-manager=1&email=bob%40cosy.com&key=cf28f344812041ce432d029d7cbe9ca5