Petition Project (Sorry Al, over 17,000 scientists declare global warming a lie)

You're right, that was my mistake. The title should read "human caused global warming."

Only problem there is that very little global warming, in the sense of climate change, that can be attributed to anything humans do where CO2 is concerned.

CO2-Temperature Correlations

"(1) correlation does not prove causation, (2) cause must precede effect, and (3) when attempting to evaluate claims of causal relationships between different parameters, it is important to have as much data as possible in order to weed out spurious correlations.

***

Consider, for example, the study of Fischer et al. (1999), who examined trends of atmospheric CO2 and air temperature derived from Antarctic ice core data that extended back in time a quarter of a million years. Over this extended period, the three most dramatic warming events experienced on earth were those associated with the terminations of the last three ice ages; and for each of these climatic transitions, earth's air temperature rose well in advance of any increase in atmospheric CO2. In fact, the air's CO2 content did not begin to rise until 400 to 1,000 years after the planet began to warm. Such findings have been corroborated by Mudelsee (2001), who examined the leads/lags of atmospheric CO2 concentration and air temperature over an even longer time period, finding that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration lagged behind variations in air temperature by 1,300 to 5,000 years over the past 420,000 years."

[ see also: Indermuhle et al. (2000), Monnin et al. (2001), Yokoyama et al. (2000), Clark and Mix (2000) ]

"Other studies periodically demonstrate a complete uncoupling of CO2 and temperature "

[see: Petit et al. (1999), Staufer et al. (1998), Cheddadi et al., (1998), Raymo et al., 1998, Pagani et al. (1999), Pearson and Palmer (1999), Pearson and Palmer, (2000) ]

"Considered in their entirety, these several results present a truly chaotic picture with respect to any possible effect that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration may have on global temperature. Clearly, atmospheric CO2 is not the all-important driver of global climate change the climate alarmists make it out to be.

Global warming and global dioxide emission and concentration:
a Granger causality analysis
http://isi-eh.usc.es/trabajos/122_41_fullpaper.pdf

"We find, in opposition to previous studies, that there is no evidence of Granger causality from global carbon dioxide emission to global surface temperature. Further, we could not find robust empirical evidence for the causal nexus from global carbon dioxide concentration to global surface temperature."

Here Comes the Sun

"Carbon dioxide, the main culprit in the alleged greenhouse-gas warming, is not a "driver" of climate change at all. Indeed, in earlier research Jan Veizer, of the University of Ottawa and one of the co-authors of the GSA Today article, established that rather than forcing climate change, CO2 levels actually lag behind climatic temperatures, suggesting that global warming may cause carbon dioxide rather than the other way around."
***
"Veizer and Shaviv's greatest contribution is their time scale. They have examined the relationship of cosmic rays, solar activity and CO2, and climate change going back through thousands of major and minor coolings and warmings. They found a strong -- very strong -- correlation between cosmic rays, solar activity and climate change, but almost none between carbon dioxide and global temperature increases."

I would love to see a good survey of climatologists. The Global Warming Alarmists are always crowing about how they are the overwhelming consensus. I'm don't believe that's the case. The recent survey in 2004 suggests that their consensus is not all that strong.

http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/Bray.htm

also here:

(http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htm)

The question asked was "To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes? A value of 1 indicates strongly agree and a value of 7 indicates strongly disagree."

There were 530 valid responses. The results were:

Mean = 3.62; Std. Error of mean = .080; Median = 3.00; Std. deviation = 1.84
Frequencies:
1...... strongly agree 50 (9.4% of valid responses)
2...... 134 (25.3% of valid responses)
3...... 112 (21.1% of valid responses)
4...... 75 (14.2% of valid responses)
5...... 45 (8.5% of valid responses)
6...... 60 (10.8% valid responses)
7...... strongly disagree 54 (9.7% of valid responses

This is a slight rise in consensus compared to the same survey conducted in 1996 that resulted in a mean of 4.1683 to the same question (Five countries USA, Canada, Germany, Italy, and Denmark only in 1996 survey, N = 511). So I guess the consensus is growing slowly - from 4.168 to 3.62 - or 13% in 8 years

I wonder how the result would have changed if the question specified "result of CO2 emissions" instead of "result of anthropogenic causes"
There are lots of other anthropogenic causes besides CO2 emissions (Land use, aerosols, methane, black carbon, dissipated heat from industrialization).

The result you get depends on how the question is worded.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.