You are poorly educated. Disputing the effects of human hydrocarbon use as a catalyst of global warming is as debatable as Creationism vs Natural Selection: no scientist worth his salt disputes it anymore. http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/382_myths.htm nitro
From what source do you arrive at the conclusion the Russian Academy of Science is populated by incompetents? Also, please explain this to use a Greenspan word, conundrum: The global climate models used to predict global warming, simply put forecast a rise in global temps that is proportionate to CO2 concentrations with this effect most pronounced at the polar regions. There is a well documented 50 year or so temperature record kept by scientists at the south pole, so IMO it is as accurate as possible. Yet this temp record shows something quite different than the model predicts. Explain that and I'll jump on the GW bandwagon too. DS
I can tell you from my own experience living in the far north for the last 15 years (thank God it's over) that warming at the poles, north pole at least, is very real. Our winters have become comparatively mild, the ice is retreating rapidly, and the permafrost is melting. Keep in mind too, when looking at the records for a single location like a park in NY, the difference between weather and climate. To go back to the "is a fossil is not a fossil" debate about oil, well, I haven't collected or analysed the data myself, but I do know that organics are now being turned into oil by humans in a very inspiring way called "thermal depolymerization process, or TDP". The process essentially works in the same way that the "is a fossil" proponents describe. I'd put my money on the fossil side.
You are not reading the links I gave you. If you read them, and you believe what they say, then your Russian Academy is incompetent. nitro
The argument that people have is that there is no question that there is Global Warming. It is whether it is attributable to humans and their love afair with CFCs and burning fuels that is the cause or whether it is a natural occurence of temperature differentials in Earth climatology. Nearly every scientist on this planet has been convinced that there is a dangerous human effect and that the warming is not natural. nitro
A couple of months ago I attended a conference on global warming at the University of Texas, Austin. There is no scientific consensus on global warming, one way or the other. http://www.utexas.edu/opa/news/00newsreleases/nr_200003/nr_kyoto000302.html Note where it says "leading climatologists will debate.."
The United States stance on the Kyoto Protocol is clear, even in the face of Global Warming being true - it will not adopt it and coming off as there is any real debate is a farce. On the issue of Global Warming being debated, that is fine with me. Debate is good. There is absolutely a scientific consensus on Global Warming. That there are scientists that disagree with the science is another matter. Showing that there is some conference at some University is meaningless. Here is some more: http://mfs.uchicago.edu/globalwarming.html I can come up with hundreds of such "meetings" because Universities will rent their space to anyone that pays. nitro