Please read the article. It wasn't a poll. It has nothing to do with IPCC appointees. It was a review of the publications of 1,372 climate scientsts. The findings of the NASUSA are simply that 97-98% of the world's climate scientists are in agreement with the IPCC's conclusions that most of recent global warming is man-made. I'm curious, what would trigger you to act? 100% consensus?
Once again, please read the article. The materials and methods, including the selection process are explained in detail. The selection process was scientific and not political.
Fred, do you have any specific objections to their selection methods? If not, do you recognize the validity of their conclusion that 97-98% of the world's active climate scientists support the basic tenets of the IPCC, i.e., that global warming is primarily caused by man?
Yes, but when it happened in the past, there were planetological and/or astronomical causes. But there aren't any natural phenonema to explain the recent increase in temperatures other than human activities.
Many of the solutions to climate change will help solve other environmental problems. Developing cleaner, more efficient energy sources that are renewable will help reduce greenhouse gases and air, water, and soil pollution. There's a lot of synergy across proposed solutions to various environmental issues. I don't think it's a coincidence that efforts to reduce carbon emissions are strongest where pollution is the worst: China. China's efforts at greenification are outpacing those of the United States and Western Europe. Not because they love polar bears (maybe to eat?), but out of rational self-interest. Rampant pollution is literally killing them, and they've set aggressive carbon emission reduction goals to 1. save costs in the long run (despite short term cuts) and 2. reduce pollution. It's a happy coincidence that their efforts will help reduce the greenhouse gases that are warming the planet.
It makes sense that development provides more funds to address environmental problems. But I don't think we can completely grow ourselves out of it. That's not realistic, and it is a bit ironic coming from someone who constantly accuses his opponents of idealism. One problem is the loss of habitat in Central and South America accompanying industrialization there. The loss of broad-leafed rainforests reduces the world's supply of oxygen and pharmaceutical materials, and increases the amount of harmful carbon. How can Brazil and other countries "grow" out of that?
The Kyoto Protocols failed because of the lack of political will. The absence of American participation doesn't help but that's not the whole story. You keep insisting that nothing can be done, no solution will work, etc. I don't believe that's true. With enough determination, anything is possible. You naysayers aren't helping matters with your constant negativity and oppositionism. :raspberry: