Surely you did not read the link:  http://grist.org/series/skeptics/

Many of what you are saying has been answered by that article. That article is honest enough to tell us if there are definite "proofs" or not. But there is a consensus among great numbers of scientists to say that greenhouse gas emitted by humans for the last 150 years or so have accumulated and is a major factor in today’s global climate change.

Between great majority of climatologists and a very few sceptic-scientists, I will believe the former. And it is always better to err on the side of caution.

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

Here are some of the excerpt:


‘Climate is always changing’–That doesn’t mean it isn’t different today

By Coby Beck

Objection: Climate has always changed. Why are we worried now, and why does it have to be humans’ fault?

Answer: Yes, climate has varied in the past, for many different reasons, some better understood than others. Present-day climate change is well understood, and different. Noting that something happened before without humans does not demonstrate that humans are not causing it today.

For example, we see in ice core records from Antarctica and Greenland that the world cycled in and out of glacial periods over 120Kyr cycles. That climate cycle’s timing is fairly well understood to be caused by changes in the orbit of the earth, though the mechanism behind the response has not been conclusively established. These orbital cycles are regular and predictable and they are definitely not the cause of today’s warming. The other important difference between the glacial-interglacial cycles and today is the rapidity of the current change. The rate of warming is on the order of 10 times faster today than in the ice cores.

Such rapid warming on a global scale is quite rare in the geological record, and while it may not be entirely unprecedented, there is strong evidence that whenever such a change has happened, whatever the cause, it was a catastrophic event for the biosphere.

 http://grist.org/climate-energy/climate-is-always-changing/


‘Natural emissions dwarf human emissions’–But emissions are only one side of the equation

Objection: According to the IPCC, 150 billion tonnes of carbon go into the atmosphere from natural processes every year. This is almost 30 times the amount of carbon humans emit. What difference can we make?

Answer: It’s true that natural fluxes in the carbon cycle are much larger than anthropogenic emissions. But for roughly the last 10,000 years, until the industrial revolution, every gigatonne of carbon going into the atmosphere was balanced by one coming out.

What humans have done is alter one side of this cycle. We put approximately 6 gigatonnes of carbon into the air but, unlike nature, we are not taking any out.

Thankfully, nature is compensating in part for our emissions, because only about half the CO2 we emit stays in the air. Nevertheless, since we began burning fossil fuels in earnest over 150 years ago, the atmospheric concentration that was relatively stable for the previous several thousand years has now risen by over 35%.

So whatever the total amounts going in and out “naturally,” humans have clearly upset the balance and significantly altered an important part of the climate system.

 http://grist.org/climate-energy/natural-emissions-dwarf-human-emissions/


The problem is not how high the temperature may go, but how fast it is changing

Objection: The earth has had much warmer climates in the past. What’s so special about the current climate? Anyway, it seems like a generally warmer world will be better.

Answer: I don’t know if there is a meaningful way to define an “optimum” average temperature for planet earth. Surely it is better now for all of us than it was 20,000 years ago when so much land was trapped beneath ice sheets. Perhaps any point between the recent climate and the extreme one we may be heading for, with tropical forests inside the arctic circle, is as good as any other. Maybe it’s even better with no ice caps anywhere.

It doesn’t matter. The critical issue is not what the temperature is, or may be, or will be. The critical issue is how fast it is moving.

Rapid change is the real danger. Human habits and infrastructure are suited to particular weather patterns and sea levels, as are ecosystems and animal behaviors. The rate at which global temperature is rising today is likely unique in the history of our species.

This kind of sudden change is rare even in geological history, though perhaps not unprecedented. So the planet may have been through similar things before — that sounds reassuring, right?

Not so much. Once you look at the impact similar changes had on biodiversity at the time, the existence of historical precedent becomes anything but reassuring. Rapid climate change is the prime suspect in most mass extinction events, including the Great Dying some 250 million years ago, in which 90% of all life went extinct.

What we know about ecosystems, and what geologic history demonstrates, is that dramatic climate changes — up or down or sideways — are a tremendous shock to the biosphere and cause mass extinction events. That, all in all, is not likely to be a good thing.

 http://grist.org/climate-energy/whats-wrong-with-warmer-weather/


‘Global warming is a hoax’

By Coby Beck

Objection: Global warming is a hoax perpetrated by environmental extremists and liberals who want an excuse for more big government (and/or world government via the U.N.).

This is a common line, regardless of how ridiculous it is, so it should not go unanswered.

Answer: Here is a list of organizations that accept anthropogenic global warming as real and scientifically well-supported:

NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS):  http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):  http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):  http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
National Academy of Sciences (NAS):  http://books.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.html
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) –  http://www.socc.ca/permafrost/permafrost_future_e.cfm
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):  http://epa.gov/climatechange/index.html
The Royal Society of the UK (RS) –  http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3135
American Geophysical Union (AGU):  http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html
American Meteorological Society (AMS):  http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html
American Institute of Physics (AIP):  http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR):  http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html
American Meteorological Society (AMS):  http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/jointacademies.html
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS):  http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html

Every major scientific institution dealing with climate, ocean, and/or atmosphere agrees that the climate is warming rapidly and the primary cause is human CO2 emissions. In addition to that list, see also this joint statement (PDF) that specifically and unequivocally endorses the work and conclusions of the IPCC Third Assessment report. The statement was issued by:

Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academie des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)

You can also read this statement [PDF], which includes all the above signatories plus the following:

Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

But if scientists are too liberal and politicians too unreliable, perhaps you find the opinion of key industry representatives more convincing:

BP, the largest oil company in the UK and one of the largest in the world, has this opinion:

There is an increasing consensus that climate change is linked to the consumption of carbon based fuels and that action is required now to avoid further increases in carbon emissions as the global demand for energy increases.

Shell Oil (yes, as in oil, the fossil fuel) says:

Shell shares the widespread concern that the emission of greenhouse gases from human activities is leading to changes in the global climate.

Eighteen CEOs of Canada’s largest corporations had this to say in an open letter to the Prime Minister of Canada:

Our organizations accept that a strong response is required to the strengthening evidence in the scientific assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). We accept the IPCC consensus that climate change raises the risk of severe consequences for human health and security and the environment. We note that Canada is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.

Have the environazis seized the reigns of industrial power, in addition to infiltrating the U.N., the science academies of every developed nation, and the top research institutes of North America? That just doesn’t seem very likely.

 http://grist.org/climate-energy/global-warming-is-a-hoax/

 http://grist.org/climate-energy/there-is-no-consensus/

 http://grist.org/series/skeptics/

> Vietnam war anyone?

I wish. Those slitty eyed people need putting in their place