Texas Republican Governor Perry appoints CREATIONIST to Head TEXAS EDUCATION. :/

[Kazan]

Also note that he has expressed his disdain for anything evidence based so I do not know if it will do any good whatsoever.

He, like GigantorX and some of the others do not believe in using Evidence and facts so whenever they see them, they dismiss them.

Religious people are the EXACT same way.

Things are not fact until they are proven. Another typical lib tactic try to discredit your opponent, in this case ignoring facts that aren't facts at all. Or marginalize by trying to hang the religios nut job sign around ones neck.

Face it, you cannot prove that global warming, climate change, or what ever the next buzz word is going to be is man made.

[Soul Crusher]

Also note that he has expressed his disdain for anything evidence based so I do not know if it will do any good whatsoever.

He, like GigantorX and some of the others do not believe in using Evidence and facts so whenever they see them, they dismiss them.

Religious people are the EXACT same way.

And so are the believers of global warming, who like religious fanatics, refuase to believe anything contradicting their point of view.  

On Global Warming, a ton of evidence suggests any warming ended over a decade ago, yet yo refuse to look at those facts.  

So, you are no different than the religious nut, its just that your religion is Global Warming.  

[The True Adonis]

And so are the believers of global warming, who like religious fanatics, refuase to believe anything contradicting their point of view.  

On Global Warming, a ton of evidence suggests any warming ended over a decade ago, yet yo refuse to look at those facts.  

So, you are no different than the religious nut, its just that your religion is Global Warming.  

Wrong. That has been debunked thoroughly.

[The True Adonis]

And so are the believers of global warming, who like religious fanatics, refuase to believe anything contradicting their point of view.  

On Global Warming, a ton of evidence suggests any warming ended over a decade ago, yet yo refuse to look at those facts.  

So, you are no different than the religious nut, its just that your religion is Global Warming.  

D E B U N K E D.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14527-climate-myths-global-warming-stopped-in-1998.html?full=true

Climate myths: Global warming stopped in 1998

11:00 15 August 2008 by Michael Le Page


In fact, the planet as a whole has warmed since 1998, sometimes even in the years when surface temperatures have fallen

Imagine two people standing at the South Pole, one dressed in full Antarctic gear and the other wearing not much at all. Now imagine that you're looking through one of those infrared thermal imagers that show how hot things are. Which person will look warmest - and which will be frozen solid after a few hours?

The answer, of course, is that the near-naked person will appear hotter: but because they are losing heat fast, they will freeze long before the person dressed more appropriately for the weather.

The point is that you have to look beyond the surface to understand how a body's temperature will change over time - and that's as true of planets as it is of warm-blooded bipeds.

Now take a look at the two main compilations (see figures, right) of global surface temperatures, based on monthly records from weather stations around the world.

According to the dataset of the UK Met Office Hadley Centre (see figure), 1998 was the warmest year by far since records began, but since 2003 there has been slight cooling.

But according to the dataset of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (see figure), 2005 was the warmest since records began, with 1998 and 2007 tied in second place.

Tracking the heat

Why the difference? The main reason is that there are no permanent weather stations in the Arctic Ocean, the place on Earth that has been warming fastest. The Hadley record simply excludes this area, whereas the NASA version assumes its surface temperature is the same as that of the nearest land-based stations.

It is possible that the NASA approach underestimates the rate of warming in the Arctic Ocean, but for the sake of argument let's assume that the Hadley record is the most accurate reflection of changes in global surface temperatures. Doesn't it show that the world has cooled since the record warmth of 1998, as many claim?

Not necessarily. The Hadley record is based only on surface temperatures, so it reflects only what's happening to the very thin layer where air meets the land and sea.

In the long term, what matters is how much heat is gained or lost by the entire planet - what climate scientists call the "top of the atmosphere" radiation budget - and falling surface temperatures do not prove that the entire planet is losing heat.

Swaddling gases

Think again about that scantily clad person at the South Pole. If they put on some clothing, they'll appear cooler to a thermal imager, but what's really happening is that they are losing less heat.

Similarly, if you could look at Earth through a thermal imager, it would appear slightly cooler than it did a few decades ago. The reason is that the outer atmosphere, the stratosphere, is cooler because we've added more "clothing" to the lower atmosphere in the form of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide.

As a result, the planet is gaining as much heat from the sun as usual but losing less heat every year as greenhouse gas levels rise (apart from the exceptional periods after major volcanic eruptions, such as El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991).

How do we know? Because the oceans are getting warmer.

Tricky oceans

Water stores an immense amount of heat compared with air. It takes more than 1000 times as much energy to heat a cubic metre of water by 1 degree Celsius as it does the same volume of air. Since the 1960s, over 90% of the excess heat due to higher greenhouse gas levels has gone into the oceans, and just 3% into warming the atmosphere (see figure 5.4 in the IPCC report (PDF)).

Globally, this means that if the oceans soak up a bit more heat energy than normal, surface air temperatures can fall even though the total heat content of the planet is rising. Conversely, if the oceans soak up less heat than usual, surface temperatures will rise rapidly.

In fact, most of the year-to-year variability in surface temperatures is due to heat sloshing back and forth between the oceans and atmosphere, rather than to the planet as a whole gaining or losing heat.

The record warmth of 1998 was not due to a sudden spurt in global warming but to a very strong El Niño (see figure, right). In normal years, trade winds keep hot water piled up on the western side of the tropical Pacific.

During an El Niño, the winds weaken and the hot water spreads out across the Pacific in a shallow layer, which increases heat transfer to the atmosphere. (During a La Niña, by contrast, as occurred during the early part of 2008, the process is reversed and upwelling cold water in the eastern Pacific soaks up heat from the atmosphere.)

A temporary fall in the heat content of the oceans at this time may have been due to the extra strong El Niño.

What next?

Since 1999, however, the heat content of the oceans has increased (despite claims to the contrary). Global warming has certainly not stopped, even if average surface temperatures really have fallen slightly as the Hadley figures suggest.

In the long term, some of the heat being soaked up by the oceans will inevitably spill back into the atmosphere, raising surface temperatures. Warmer oceans also mean rising sea levels, due to both thermal expansion and the melting of the floating ice shelves that slow down glaciers sliding off land into the sea. The West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which rests on the seabed rather than on land, is also highly vulnerable to rising sea temperatures.

Some climate scientists are predicting that surface temperatures will remain static or even fall slightly over the next few years, before warming resumes. Their predictions are based largely on the idea that changes in long-term fluctuation in ocean surface temperatures known as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation will bring cooler sea surface temperatures.

If these predictions are right - and not all climate scientists think they are - you can expect to hear more claims from climate-change deniers about how global warming has stopped. But unless we see a simultaneous fall in both surface temperatures and ocean-heat content, claims that the "entire planet" is cooling are nonsense.

And while some events such as a big volcanic eruption could indeed trigger genuine cooling for a few years, global warming will resume again once the dust has settled.

[Soul Crusher]

Warming is Warming
Cooling is Warming
Raining is Warming
Snowing is Warming
Ice is Warming
Falling Temp. is Warming
Colder winters are warming


Do you see a pattern?

[Soul Crusher]

Fine - you want to play cut and paste wars.
________________________ ________________________ _________

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998
 
By Bob Carter
Published: 12:01AM BST 09 Apr 2006

For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Stave off winter billsIn response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.

Does something not strike you as odd here? That industrial carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of earth's recent decadal-scale temperature changes doesn't seem at all odd to many thousands of independent scientists. They have long appreciated - ever since the early 1990s, when the global warming bandwagon first started to roll behind the gravy train of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - that such short-term climate fluctuations are chiefly of natural origin. Yet the public appears to be largely convinced otherwise. How is this possible?

Since the early 1990s, the columns of many leading newspapers and magazines, worldwide, have carried an increasing stream of alarmist letters and articles on hypothetical, human-caused climate change. Each such alarmist article is larded with words such as "if", "might", "could", "probably", "perhaps", "expected", "projected" or "modelled" - and many involve such deep dreaming, or ignorance of scientific facts and principles, that they are akin to nonsense.

The problem here is not that of climate change per se, but rather that of the sophisticated scientific brainwashing that has been inflicted on the public, bureaucrats and politicians alike. Governments generally choose not to receive policy advice on climate from independent scientists. Rather, they seek guidance from their own self-interested science bureaucracies and senior advisers, or from the IPCC itself. No matter how accurate it may be, cautious and politically non-correct science advice is not welcomed in Westminster, and nor is it widely reported.
Marketed under the imprimatur of the IPCC, the bladder-trembling and now infamous hockey-stick diagram that shows accelerating warming during the 20th century - a statistical construct by scientist Michael Mann and co-workers from mostly tree ring records - has been a seminal image of the climate scaremongering campaign. Thanks to the work of a Canadian statistician, Stephen McIntyre, and others, this graph is now known to be deeply flawed.

There are other reasons, too, why the public hears so little in detail from those scientists who approach climate change issues rationally, the so-called climate sceptics. Most are to do with intimidation against speaking out, which operates intensely on several parallel fronts.

First, most government scientists are gagged from making public comment on contentious issues, their employing organisations instead making use of public relations experts to craft carefully tailored, frisbee-science press releases. Second, scientists are under intense pressure to conform with the prevailing paradigm of climate alarmism if they wish to receive funding for their research. Third, members of the Establishment have spoken declamatory words on the issue, and the kingdom's subjects are expected to listen.

On the alarmist campaign trail, the UK's Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir David King, is thus reported as saying that global warming is so bad that Antarctica is likely to be the world's only habitable continent by the end of this century. Warming devotee and former Chairman of Shell, Lord [Ron] Oxburgh, reportedly agrees with another rash statement of King's, that climate change is a bigger threat than terrorism. And goodly Archbishop Rowan Williams, who self-evidently understands little about the science, has warned of "millions, billions" of deaths as a result of global warming and threatened Mr Blair with the wrath of the climate God unless he acts. By betraying the public's trust in their positions of influence, so do the great and good become the small and silly.

Two simple graphs provide needed context, and exemplify the dynamic, fluctuating nature of climate change. The first is a temperature curve for the last six million years, which shows a three-million year period when it was several degrees warmer than today, followed by a three-million year cooling trend which was accompanied by an increase in the magnitude of the pervasive, higher frequency, cold and warm climate cycles. During the last three such warm (interglacial) periods, temperatures at high latitudes were as much as 5 degrees warmer than today's. The second graph shows the average global temperature over the last eight years, which has proved to be a period of stasis.

The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown. We are fortunate that our modern societies have developed during the last 10,000 years of benignly warm, interglacial climate. But for more than 90 per cent of the last two million years, the climate has been colder, and generally much colder, than today. The reality of the climate record is that a sudden natural cooling is far more to be feared, and will do infinitely more social and economic damage, than the late 20th century phase of gentle warming.

The British Government urgently needs to recast the sources from which it draws its climate advice. The shrill alarmism of its public advisers, and the often eco-fundamentalist policy initiatives that bubble up from the depths of the Civil Service, have all long since been detached from science reality. Intern-ationally, the IPCC is a deeply flawed organisation, as acknowledged in a recent House of Lords report, and the Kyoto Protocol has proved a costly flop. Clearly, the wrong horses have been backed.

As mooted recently by Tony Blair, perhaps the time has come for Britain to join instead the new Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP6), whose six member countries are committed to the development of new technologies to improve environmental outcomes. There, at least, some real solutions are likely to emerge for improving energy efficiency and reducing pollution.

Informal discussions have already begun about a new AP6 audit body, designed to vet rigorously the science advice that the Partnership receives, including from the IPCC. Can Britain afford not to be there?

• Prof Bob Carter is a geologist at James Cook University, Queensland, engaged in paleoclimate research

[The True Adonis]

Again

D E B U N K E D

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/bobcarter.html

Bob Carter is famous for saying global warming "stopped in 1998".  What Bob carter doesn't say is that 1998 is a year which an El Nino event occured.  Not only was it a year of El Nino, but it was the strongest El Nino in recorded history.  He also fails to mention that the climate is very dynamic.  Unless you are an expert you need to look at averages and not cherry pick any single day, week, or even year. The two animations below will show just how much El Nino can influence global averages.  The animation on the right (Fig 1.2) is an El Nino event.  The large red flare is warm water.   The dark red water is 10oC or 18oF hotter than the darkest blue on the chart.  The animation on the left is a El Nina event.  As you can see there is a huge difference in ocean temperatures.  This is why there was a spike in global temperatures in 1998.  If the animations don't work try opening them in a different browser (Internet Explorer seems to work well) or refreshing the page.  The animations tend to be a little browser specific.



El Nina - 1989    El Nino -1997
   
Fig 1.1.  Image courtesy NOAA   Fig 1.2.  Image courtesy NOAA

If you look at the chart below you will see the global mean surface temperature has in fact increased over time.  Bob Carter will also say "Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero)." Well using NASA's data he's wrong as 2005 is the hottest, but that is merely splitting hairs.  The real issue is displayed in the chart below.  Yes there was a spike in 1998 but as discussed before that was from El Nino.  If you want to make a dishonest case for radical global warming, you'd start with 1999 and draw a trend to 2005. But starting with 1998 is being dishonest in the other direction.  To minimize short term noise you can plot the temperatures based off of 5 year averages.  The red line in the graph below shows this temperature trend and there is an obvious increase in overall termperature.  Another important feature to keep in mind is that the ten years after the 1998 El Nino event are hotter than the ten years before the 1998 El Nino event.  When the next El Nino occurs it should easily set a new temperature record.


Image courtesy NASA


Just to drive the point home, the following quote is from NASA's Goddard Institute's 2006 Surface Temperature Analysis page: 


"The highest global surface temperature in more than a century of instrumental data was recorded in the 2005 calendar year in the GISS annual analysis. However, the error bar on the data implies that 2005 is practically in a dead heat with 1998, the warmest previous year....... Record warmth in 2005 is notable, because global temperature has not received any boost from a tropical El Niño this year. The prior record year, 1998, on the contrary, was lifted 0.2°C above the trend line by the strongest El Niño of the past century.  ... The quasi-regularity of recent El Niños at intervals of about 4 years (there was a weak El Niño in 2002) suggests the likelihood of an El Niño in 2006 or at latest 2007. In such a case the 2005 global temperature record will almost surely be broken."

Here is a very similar graph using a different set of instrument readings::


souce: University of East Anglia, UK
This is the very same graph Bob Carter uses to "debunk" global warming.  Now that you are armed with this information, we suggest you read Bob Carter's article titled "There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998" and decide for yourself whether or not he's telling the truth when he claims climatologists are engaged in what he calls a "sophisticated scientific brainwashing".

Bob Carter vs. CO2 Records

Comming Soon!

"No difference between six million years and six years"

Comming Soon!

Does Bob Carter have any conflict of interests?

He's a member of Institute for Public Affairs.  They get their funding from Woodside Petroleum, Esso Australia (a subsidiary of ExxonMobil), and over a dozen other companies in the energy industry.

Will Bob Carter put money where his mouth is?

No, he has been offered bets by several people.  The following is from Brian Schmidt's personal blog::

Following Tim Lambert's post on Bob Carter, I emailed Professor Carter to see if he would bet me over global warming, offering 2:1 odds that temperatures will increase in 10 years.  He politely emailed me back, saying that because temperature change is a random walk, he won't bet me. I've replied to say that doesn't make sense.   Either he doesn't believe temperature changes are random, or he should bet me.
For those of you that don't understand betting, if temperatures are random then a 1:1 bet would be breakeven for Bob Carter.  However, since James Annon is offering 2:1 then Bob Carter is getting a great deal if temperatures really are random.

UPDATE:

2005 was named as the "hottest and stormiest year" on record by NASA.  That record was subsequently broken in 2006. 

[Soul Crusher]

By who? 

The "facts" and "science" are not agreed to.  Science is supposed to have a method.  Like physics and chemistry. 

Man made Global Warming is a theory, not a fact. 

[The True Adonis]

Objection:

Global temperatures have been trending down since 1998. Global Warming is over.

Answer:

At the time, 1998 was a record high year in both the CRU and the NASA GISS analysis.  In fact, it was not just a record year, it blew away the previous record by .2oC. (That previous record went all the way back to 1997, by the way!) According to NASA, it was elevated far above the trend line because 1998 was the year of the strongest El Nino of the century. Choosing that year as a starting point is a classic cherry pick and demonstrates why it is necessary to remove the very chaotic year to year variability that exists (aka: weather) by smoothing out the data. Looking at the CRU's graph below, you can see the result of that smoothing in black.



Clearly 1998 is an anomaly and the trend has not reversed.  (Even the apparent levelling at the end is not the real smoothing.  The smoothed trend in 2005 depends on all of its surrounding years, including a few years still in the future.)  By the way, choosing the CRU analysis is also a cherry pick because NASA has 2005 breaking the 1998 record, though by very little.

Now this is an excusable mistake for average folks who do not need the rigors of statistical analysis in their day jobs, but any scientist in pretty much any field knows that you can not extract any meaningful information about trends in noisy data from single-year end points. This is why it is hard to hear a scientist make this argument and still believe that they are a voice of integrity in this debate, rather it appears more to be an abuse of the trust people would like to place in them as scientists.  Bob Carter is such a voice and was the first to trot out this argument in an article in the Daily Telegraph.  Since then it has echoed far and wide and has been used by Richard Lindzen as well as a host of sceptic websites.  

Interestingly, Bob Carter seems to know what he is doing as he tries to pre-empt objections in his article by basically insinuating that any choice of starting point, (such as 1978), will just be a cherry pick with the opposite motive! But cherry picking is about choosing data for the sole purpose of supporting a pre-conceived conclusion, it is not the simple act of choosing at all, as one must choose some starting point. In the case of his example year, 1978, this is often chosen simply because it is the first year that satellite records of tropospheric temperatures were available.

So what choices are there, what are the reasons for those choices and what are the conclusions we can draw from them?

As just mentioned above, one could chose to examine the last 30 years because that is the period of time where both surface and tropospheric readings were available. We have been experiencing warming of approximately .2oC/decade during this time.  It would take a couple of decades trending down before we could say the recent warming did in fact end in 1998.
You could choose 1970 in the NASA GISS analysis as this was the start of the late 20th century warming and as such it is a significant feature of the temperature record. The surface temperature over this period shows .6oC warming.
You could choose 1965 in the CRU analysis as this is when the recent warming started in their record. This record shows around .5oC warming of the smoothed trend line.
You could choose 1880 in the NASA record. This shows .8oC warming.
You could choose 1855 in the CRU record. This shows .8oC warming.  Again, with this trend and the above we can not say it is over without many decades more data all indicating cooling.
You could choose to look at the last 500 years in the bore hole record analysis because that is its entire length. This puts today about 1oC above the temperatures in the first 3 centuries of that record.  The record of today's trend in that kind of analysis will be hidden from view for many more decades.
You could choose to look at the last one thousand years, because that is as far back as the dendrochronology studies reliably go. Then the conclusion is:
 Although each of the temperature reconstructions are different (due to differing calibration methods and data used), they all show some similar patterns of temperature change over the last several centuries. Most striking is the fact that each record reveals that the 20th century is the warmest of the entire record, and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.
You could choose to look at the entire period of time since the end of the last ice age, around 10kyrs ago. Then the conclusion is that GHG warming has reversed a very long and stable period with a very slight downward trend and we are now at a global temperature not experienced in the history of human civilisation, the entire Holocene.  Such a long view applied to today will take many centuries to clear up.  The situation is a bit more urgent than that!


I think that about covers any periods of time relevant to today's society. Clearly, "it has stopped warming" is only supported by taking a single specific year out of context and using a 7 year window to look at multi-decadal trends in climate. That is a classic cherry pick.

[Soul Crusher]

Many parts of the country are not even having a summer this year. 

This is the coolest NY summer of my lifetime. 

Global Warming is just a complete farce.  The earth has been cooling and warming since it was formed.  To say man has anything to do with it is just idiotic on so many levels. 

[The True Adonis]

And then there is this:

According to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald, Carter appears to have little standing in the Australian climate science community.

[The True Adonis]

Many parts of the country are not even having a summer this year. 

This is the coolest NY summer of my lifetime. 

Global Warming is just a complete farce.  The earth has been cooling and warming since it was formed.  To say man has anything to do with it is just idiotic on so many levels. 

Thats not how Global Warming works which in turn reveals that you do not even have a basic understanding of any of the Science behind any of it..  We are talking in long term trends.  For the displacement of Billions of refugees all the Mean Ocean temperature has to do is raise about 2 degrees.  Climate Change is the catalyst for this to happen.



Objection:

It was way colder than normal today in Wagga Wagga (insert location), this is proof that there is no Global Warming.

Answer:

Does this even deserve an answer? If we must...

The chaotic nature of weather means that no conclusion about climate can ever be drawn from a single data point, hot or cold. The temperature of one place at one time is just weather, and says nothing about climate, much less climate change, much less again global climate change.

[The True Adonis]

This consensus is represented in the IPCC Third Assessment Report, Working Group 1 (TAR WG1). This is the most comprehensive compilation and summary of current climate research ever attempted, and is arguably the most thoroughly peer reviewed scientific document in history. While this review was sponsored by the UN, the research it compiled and reviewed was not, and the scientists involved were independent and came from all over the world..

The conclusions reached in this document have been explicitly endorsed by:

Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié 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)
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
in either one or both of these documents: [PDF] [PDF]

In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean and/or earth sciences have endorsed or published the same conclusions as presented in the TAR report:

NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
If this is not a scientific consensus, then what in the world would a consensus look like?

[The True Adonis]

Here is a list of "enviro-Nazis" and "left-wing loonies" who believe that Anthropogenic Global Warming is real and well supported by sound science:

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. On top of that list, see also this joint statement [PDF] that specifically and unequivocally endorses the work and conclusions of the IPCC Third Assessment report, a statement issued by

Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Bazil)
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 one that includes all of 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 would find the opinion of some of the bastions of industry more convincing?

Exxon-Mobile, the largest oil company in the world has this public statement:
The risks to society and ecosystems from increases in CO2 emissions could prove to be significant, so it is prudent to develop and implement strategies that address the risks, keeping in mind the central importance of energy to the economies of the world.
Chevron, a bit less non-commital, says:
At Chevron, we recognize and share the concerns of governments and the public about climate change. The use of fossil fuels to meet the world's energy needs is a contributor to an increase in greenhouse gases (GHGs) -- mainly carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane -- in the earth's atmosphere. There is a widespread view that this increase is leading to climate change, with adverse effects on the environment.
18 CEO's 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.

[kcballer]

hahahaha this is a very thorough showing of TRUE SCIENCE, not one or two with agendas.  333 how did it feel to know the person you were quoting from Australia is a) funded by oil companies and b) not even well respected in his own country let alone the world?

[GigantorX]

Also note that he has expressed his disdain for anything evidence based so I do not know if it will do any good whatsoever.

He, like GigantorX and some of the others do not believe in using Evidence and facts so whenever they see them, they dismiss them.

Religious people are the EXACT same way.

I just role my eyes at you because you sound like someone who has no clue about what he is copying/pasting onto his post and has no real thoughts of his own. I laugh when you post stuff like this because probably have no idea about whatever "facts" you are putting in any given thread.

[The True Adonis]

I just role my eyes at you because you sound like someone who has no clue about what he is copying/pasting onto his post and has no real thoughts of his own. I laugh when you post stuff like this because probably have no idea about whatever "facts" you are putting in any given thread.

Ask me what my favorite poem is.

[GigantorX]

Ask me what my favorite poem is.

'Ode to Copy and Paste'?

[The True Adonis]

'Ode to Copy and Paste'?

No, but I may compose one of that title if you let me borrow it.  I think I could make it rather humorous yet sardonically fitting.   

[GigantorX]

No, but I may compose one of that title if you let me borrow it.  I think I could make it rather humorous yet sardonically fitting.   

[headhuntersix]

TA is a cut and paste warrior...give him his gold star for the day.

[The True Adonis]

TA is a cut and paste warrior...give him his gold star for the day.

How would you prefer me deliver the above information?  Is it somehow invalid because I cited decades of tested and retested research and evidence?

Would you prefer if I just made it all up?  Or do you want me to buy some water balloons, a barometer and some paper clips and pretend I am doing climatological experimentation?

[GigantorX]

How would you prefer me deliver the above information?  Is it somehow invalid because I cited decades of tested and retested research and evidence?

Would you prefer if I just made it all up?  Or do you want me to buy some water balloons, a barometer and some paper clips and pretend I am doing climatological experimentation?