Is there consensus on global warming, or not? In "The cold truth about climate change", on Salon.com, writer Joseph Romm argues that talking about “consensus” muddies the argument even further.
“Deniers continue to insist there's no consensus on global warming,” Romm writes. “Well, there's not. There's well-tested science and real-world observations.”
Romm’s intelligent article clarifies the difference between consensus and the weight of evidence based on numerous scientific studies, and notes that many of the doubters seem to have no real idea of what science actually is.
And what does the science say? Romm writes: “Well, the IPCC's definitive treatment of the subject, ‘Understanding and Attributing Climate Change,’ has 11 full pages of references, some 500 peer-reviewed studies. This is not a consensus of opinion. It is what scientific research and actual observations reveal.”
Romm goes on to challenge those who argue that the sun is the main cause of global warming: “The view that the sun is the source of observed global warming seems credible mainly to people who are open to believing that the entire scientific community has somehow, over a period of several decades, failed to adequately study, analyze and understand the most visible influence on the Earth's temperature.”
If some of Canada’s mainstream media would carry more of this kind of intelligent writing on the subject, rather than uninformed rants by columnists who won’t even take the time to do basic research, maybe the discussion would rise to a level that sparks people to action while we still have time.
| 
Mike Dupre
He said, she said.
The bottom line here is that humans can not and do not affect climate. Weather has been cyclical since the dawn of time. To frighten people in to donating money to absurd causes and to consider 'so-called' carbon-taxes and paying for your footprint is shameful and reminds me of Chicken Little with David Suzuki running around chastizing us all for BREATHING.
lora bruncke
He said, she said, you said.
Recently, man discovered he had an image. He then aspired to be all that he could be. To do that he decided to use our earth's resources to run his economy so he could make money and boost his image. If he didn't have to pay for the resource, could pollute all he wanted, and got the labour for less, he would make more money - even better for his image.
The bottom line is business men have become a huge destructive and polluting force to save their bottom lines for shareholders.
Clearcutting, poisoning with pesticides, overfishing, stealing resources, agressively marketing to children and youth, and deliberately wasting valuable resources are all chastizable offenses in any moral man's or woman's rule book.
Dr. David Suzuki and his foundation have been running around trying to tell us that the air we BREATH is worth preserving, just in case revelations is wrong.
We should be preserving the planet for THE NEXT GENERATION - yes or no??
Isabelle
I don't see how we can be observing change. I mean, it's March and we've just had a major snowstorm in Ontario, breaking snowfall records. And that's not extreme weather - that's just a traditional, Canadian winter. Why don't people just open their eyes?