5 of 8
5

Climate change: Science gets gloomier, crazies get crazier

I’m not worried about those scenarios, I embrace the idea of a truly democratic world government.

While I’m generally against Federations within countries, I’m all for a WORLD Federal government.

http://www.worldcitizens.org.au/

Rather than have so called ‘diplomatic’ deals done behind closed doors of the UN, I’d rather have democratically elected representatives represent my position at a world level.
http://www.federalunion.org.uk/index.shtml

 
Dave Lankshear - 30 October 2009 01:18 PM

I’m not worried about those scenarios, I embrace the idea of a truly democratic world government.

While I’m generally against Federations within countries, I’m all for a WORLD Federal government.

http://www.worldcitizens.org.au/

Rather than have so called ‘diplomatic’ deals done behind closed doors of the UN, I’d rather have democratically elected representatives represent my position at a world level.
http://www.federalunion.org.uk/index.shtml

And I thought I was a science fiction fan. Have you not learnt anything from the Matrix ;)

Mmmmmm - one “WORLD Federal government” eh ? And the leader is ...... surprise, surprise candidate number 666 ( Kevin Rudd ? ) ! ( Must be time to dig out my old Hal Lindsay prophecy titles… )

I’d rather have democratically elected representatives

Living in a fool’s paradise my friend - democracy is NOT universal after all you know. 

Meanwhile, let’s look at the current ‘model’ for a “World government” - that useless thing called the UN. How democratic is the UN ?  More to the point, how CREDIBLE is the UN now that it has ‘elected’ one of Colonel Gaddafi’s men as the new President ?

H.E. Dr. Ali Abdussalam Treki was elected President of the sixty-fourth session of the United Nations General Assembly on 10 June 2009.

He is Libya’s Secretary (Minister) of African Union Affairs, a post he has held since 2004.

link

Time to take a reflective example from “Oliver” - ‘I’m reviewing the situation .... I think I better think it out again’.

 

Wow, how did they do that? Not my favourite appointment I have to say.

But in the meantime, I think the EU operates as a rough draft for world government… should we ever get there. ;-)  There are many improvements to openness and accountability as documented by Federal Union above, but otherwise, I feel more comfortable with them there than not. Or did we all enjoy WW1 & WW2? ;-)

 

Who would have thought this was possible ?

http://www.care2.com/causes/global-warming/blog/more-americans-believe-in-haunted-houses-than-climate-change/

More Americans believe in haunted houses than global warming : A scary Halloween tale.
28 Oct 2009

In the United States, more people believe that houses can be haunted by the dead than believe that the living can cause climate change. Is this simply a scary Halloween tale or our frightening future?

The latest Pew poll on global warming shows a large drop in the percentage of Americans who say there is solid evidence that global temperatures are rising, from 71% down to only 57% in the last 18 months. And global warming due to human activity? The overall numbers have declined from 47% to 36%. To put this in perspective, a Gallup poll found that 37% of Americans believe that houses can be haunted...........

 

Also, don’t 10% of American’s believe they’ve been abducted and probed by aliens?

Kevin,
do you realise this “communist” fear of yours is in direct contrast to another accusation of the Denialistas? Let me just respond to the Communist paranoia, and then we’ll compare it to the other accusation.

1. “They’re all communists out to redistribute wealth”.
First, let us separate out the science of global warming from the politics. This rather stupid assertion just ignores the ENORMOUS body of the science and runs a character attack on the motives of all those climatologists because some politicians happen to think that our Industrialised world should help the poor world survive the mess WE created.

Second, it seems a rather heartless accusation for a Christian to make. “Oh no, climate policy might make rich nations feel so guilty they help poor nations out a bit.” Yep, makes me tremble in my boots. You mean we might do something the Lord wants us to do anyway?

Anyway, all of this completely contradicts that OTHER great myth of the Denialistas…

2. “They’re greedy capitalists out to retard 3rd world and African development so they can continue to use up African resources on an unfair playing field”.
This is the angle of the “Great Global Warming Swindle”.

Which is it? We want to pour billions into Africa to help them survive climate change and move to a carbon-free economy with state of the art technology, or we want to keep them stuck in the dark age so they can’t consume all the resources we want to? Is climate change about a Communist Conspiracy, or Capitalistic Corruption? 

For some reason I just can’t seem to reconcile all these terrible motives with the climate scientists I read and chat to online. They’re SCIENTISTS, not politicians. Could it be that these paranoid scenarios are just the mad rantings of denialists loosing their case as the inevitable effects of climate change gradually become clearer?

 

Which SCIENTISTS ? Do you mean THESE ones :

http://petitionproject.org/
Global Warming Petition Project

31,478 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,029 with PhDs

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

 

Are you serious Kevin? Have you even googled around to find out about this absolutely farce? Did you even wiki them? It’s got about the same credibility as the “Moon landing was faked” guys.

In 2001, Scientific American reported:
“    Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.[22]    ”

In a 2005 op-ed in the Hawaii Reporter, Todd Shelly wrote:
“    In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency?[23]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

There’s a fine line between having a sense of humour in quoting something, and having things attributed to your belief system by quoting them. I hope this case is of the former variety.

If you want a REAL scientific survey, try finding a prestigious scientific institution that disagrees with the basic premises of global warming. There are none. There are a few that remain neutral, like the American Petroleum engineers Association, but they wouldn’t be biased would they? ;-)

 

From Andrew Bolt’s blog today :
Will Rudd really give the new world body $7 billion a year ?

Next month Kevin Rudd goes to Copenhagen to agree to a UN deal to cut emissions. Point 41 of the draft treaty obliges Australia to hand over an astonishing $7 billion a year to a new and unelected global authority:

[Mandatory contributions from developed country Parties and other developed Parties included in Annex II should form the core revenue stream for meeting the cost of adaptation in conjunction with additional sources including share of proceeds from flexible mechanisms.] [This finance should come from the payment of the adaptation debt by developed country Parties and be based principally on public-sector funding, while other alternative sources could be considered.] [[Sources of new and additional financial support for adaptation] [Financial resources of the “Convention Adaptation Fund”] [may] [shall] include:

(a) [Assessed contributions [of at least 0.7% of the annual GDP of developed country Parties] [from developed country Parties and other developed Parties included in
Annex II to the Convention]...

Australia’s GDP now is more than $1000 billion a year.

.7 per cent of that is $7 billion a year. That’s the size of the handout that the UN officials and government negotiators working on the Copenhagen draft want Kevin Rudd to hand over each year to a new world body.

How many billions is Rudd about to sign away of our wealth?

UPDATE :

What the United Nations’ new global warming bureaucrats want from Australia amounts to twice what we already pay in all forms of foreign aid.Nor does that $7 billion a year represent our total bill under this treaty. Not counted are the costs for meeting the new emissions targets, and the fines to the UN’s new body for failing to meet any targets, 

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/will_rudd_give_the_new_world_body_billion/

UNFCCC document at :    (  United Nations “Framework Convention on Climate Change” )
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/un-fccc-copenhagen-2009.pdf

Folks, you have been warned.

 

As I said above, one minute “us warmies” are the bad guys because we want to retard development in Africa (according to the Great Global Warming Swindle anyway), and the next minute we’re the bad guys because we want to massively accelerate clean development in Africa.

Folks, you have been warned.

Kevin Rudd & friends may be about to propose the most generous development and aid package ever created in human civilisation, and it is as if he has just announced he’s the anti-Christ. There you go folks, denialist FUD on display again.

Mr Goddard, you should be ashamed. A billion people can’t get enough food to eat, and you’re worried about 0.7% of our GDP per year? Please reconsider your fear-mongering and consider what this might mean for those African’s who can’t pump water to their fields, or store medicines that need refrigeration, or study after dark. It’s like you want them to remain poor.

PS: If we abolish the States, Dr Mark Drummond has calculated we’d save 50 billion a year. That’s more than Kevin Rudd’s stimulus package each and every year on in.

 

Any attitude that is all about our economy, whether it’s raw numbers or percentages, is a bad attitude to have. Attempts at morality and ethics are just going to be more expensive than the deviousness immorality and the unethical allows.

The real question is how do we convince people it’s worth it?

 Signature 

When God swore by himself: Sinai (14 October)

 

I don’t know that anything will.

I have friends taking their kids off to see the Great Barrier Reef before it is gone. This is a sensitive evangelical Christian bloke that tries to be an activist online, but feels in his guts nothing’s going to change.

As you all know, I have peak-oiler doomer mates that think Mad Max is inevitable, and have urged me to prepare for major infrastructure disruptions in the coming 5 to 10 years. I don’t think they’re right… I disagree with the word inevitable. Highly likely, maybe. A Greater Depression? No doubt. But Mad Max? Hmmm, very possible… but not inevitable. We’re too adaptive.

Which leads to my final point. How do we convince people it’s worth it? We won’t, until it is too late. We’ll just knuckle down and earn our money and do the washing and get the dry cleaning and try and ignore the news reports. “Asian tigers are now extinct”... Oh that’s sad, but there’s a movie on TV and I have to do that Windows 7 course. “Reef bleaching has increased 25% last year…” boy, a quarter? But I’ve got bible study homework to do and kids to put to bed. “Reports that half the Amazon could be logged by 2025…” Oh, man, that’s gonna hurt someday, but I haven’t flossed in a while.

When 50% of the biodiversity is gone, we just might change some societal attitudes, but it will be too late. And who knows what ecosystems will suddenly collapse when a vital biodiversity tipping point is reached? Yellowstone park started to wash away when they killed the last wolves…. the rivers washed the landscape away because the wolves were gone! Who would have imagined the link? Who would have realised the wolves acted as ‘population police’ on the elk, who without the wolves preying on them, over-populated the park, and wiped out the local trees, which then destabilised the soil and the rains and rivers washed away the topsoil. All because farmers thought the wolves were pests.

So when you look at your kids, just imagine asking them which half of the animals should be wiped out and which half saved? Imagine it. “Do you want Panda’s, or Tigers? Quickly now junior, the clock is ticking…  Macaw’s or peacocks, come on now, we don’t have all day… Coral reefs or the whales?...”

...you get the picture.

[ Edited: 01 November 2009 10:14 PM by Dave Lankshear]
 

This is pretty amazing: Thousands of hours of battery, and it’s green too - A new battery from Israel lasts thousands of hours and its non-polluting silicon energy source reverts back to sand when it’s depleted.

It’s non-rechargeable, but still, there’s some amazing work going on & it’s hard to imagine that there *isn’t* going to be some amazing breakthroughs in battery tech in the next 10-20 years at the most.

 Signature 

Welcome to mightychurch.com! Want a cool avatar? Check out faceyourmanga.it, make your own & upload!

 

If they can make that rechargable, wow!

on the other hand, a bus company in China works on super-capacitors. These charge very FAST, but hardly store any real amount of energy and so only have a range of about 5 miles.

What good is that?

Well, buses stop every mile at least and so at every 2nd or 3rd bus stop there is a super-cap charging point that the ‘whip’ on the bus catches and just super-charges for the next few stops. It sounds crazy, but it’s real. I’ve lost the link though. I guess the only point to this would be avoiding installing all those ugly trolley bus lines?

Anyway, this also sounds interesting:

FAW Bus and Coach has partnered with Tongkun New Energy to release a new line of battery-powered buses capable of covering 300 kilometers on one charge and recharging in under 20 minutes. Jilin province in northeast China has already agreed to purchase 70 of these new 24-passenger buses.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/KK04Cb01.html

The future certainly seems electric.

 

Dang I’m good, but honestly, the world needs to calm down a bit!

Anyway, this very public announcement about how truly awesome I am should help me dictate terms of my new World Government when I set it up and finally solve peak oil and global warming!

http://www.worldsgreatestbusinessmind.com/20091116-Dave-Lankshear-create.html

(winks)

 

At last Homer gets it right :

The global warming conspiracy - the news spreads :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrodOi72Huo&feature=player_embedded

 

Ha ha ha ha ha!

My absolutely favourite Simpson’s routine at the moment is whenever Homer tries to whisper. I can’t quite describe why I find it so amusing, but I do confess to walking around the house looking for opportunities to ‘whisper’ as loud as I can something to Joy that I’m pretending the kids are ‘not meant’ to hear.

 

Truth will always get out eventually :

  http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/

Even Monbiot says the science now needs “reanalyising”
Andrew Bolt – Tuesday, November 24, 09 (12:14 pm)

Even George Monbiot, one of the fiercest media propagandists of the warming faith, admits he should have been more sceptical and says the science now needs to be rechecked:

It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them.

Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request. ******
Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.

Sure, Monbiot claims the fudging of what he extremely optimistically puts as just “three or four” scientists doesn’t knock over the whole global warming edifice, yet…

If even Monbiot, an extremist, can say that much, why cannot the Liberals say far more? And will now the legion of warmist journalists in our own media dare say as Monbiot has so belatedly:

I apologise. I was too trusting of some of those who provided the evidence I championed. I would have been a better journalist if I had investigated their claims more closely.

Scepticism is the essential disposition of our craft, yet too many journalists have abandoned it. Remember: the opposite of sceptical is gullible.

*****

    http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/11/23/the-knights-carbonic/

The Knights Carbonic
Posted November 23, 2009

The conspiracy which proves that manmade global warming is a scam


By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian, 23rd November 2009

It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging(1). I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them.

Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released(2,3), and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request(4).

Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics(5,6), or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(7). I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.

But do these revelations justify the sceptics’ claims that this is “the final nail in the coffin” of global warming theory? (8,9) Not at all. They damage the credibility of three or four scientists. They raise questions about the integrity of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence. To bury manmade climate change, a far wider conspiracy would have to be revealed. Luckily for the sceptics, and to my intense disappointment, I have now been passed the damning email which confirms that the entire science of global warming is indeed a scam. Had I known that it was this easy to rig the evidence, I wouldn’t have wasted years of my life promoting a bogus discipline. In the interests of open discourse, I feel obliged to reproduce it here….......... 

I agree with Andrew’s conclusion :

“Scepticism is the essential disposition of our craft, yet too many journalists have abandoned it. Remember: the opposite of sceptical is gullible.”

 

(edit to add)

Very funny Kevin bolding Monbiot’s sarcastic piece about the email which proves the whole thing is a scam! For clarity, I’ll just add the punchline to Monbiot’s piece. (Were you being funny, or did you just not read his article to the end? Don’t worry, I won’t tell anyone… we’ll all just assume you were joking. Again.  Nudge nudge wink wink   ;-)

This is the kind of conspiracy the deniers need to reveal to show that manmade climate change is a con. The hacked emails are a hard knock, but the science of global warming withstands much more than that.


And let’s please remember that ultimately who gives a fig if the journalist is sceptical: I don’t care if XYZ journalist ‘believes’ or ‘doesn’t believe’ in global warming, I want to know what the science is saying.

I’m too busy changing careers & reinventing myself right now, and so don’t have time to spend hours scouring the net right now. Please, let me know who in the IPCC needs to be whacked over this one OK?

For now I’ll just ask the following questions:

Do the emails cast doubt on all the different climate institutes worldwide?

Do they implicate James Hansen?

How many climatologists do we now treat with contempt… how many are actually implicated by this?

And how many INSTITUTIONS are now in doubt? For all I’ve heard, it not the science, but just the behaviour of the scientists at this one university corrupting some of the IPCC process. Who cares? The IPCC seems to be lagging too far behind, corrupted by the political process which it largely is. Climate science has moved far beyond the IPCC’s 450 ppm goals… the new 350 concensus has yet to be reflected by the political machinations which is all the IPCC really is. (Far too conservative and slow).

So how many of the following institutions are in doubt?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Statements by concurring organizations
[edit] Academies of Science
[edit] European Academy of Sciences and Arts

In 2007, the European Academy of Sciences and Arts issued a formal declaration on climate change titled Let’s Be Honest:

  Human activity is most likely responsible for climate warming. Most of the climatic warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Documented long-term climate changes include changes in Arctic temperatures and ice, widespread changes in precipitation amounts, ocean salinity, wind patterns and extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves and the intensity of tropical cyclones. The above development potentially has dramatic consequences for mankind’s future. [10]

[edit] InterAcademy Council

As the representative of the world’s scientific and engineering academies,[11][12] the InterAcademy Council (IAC) issued a report in 2007 titled Lighting the Way: Toward a Sustainable Energy Future.

  Current patterns of energy resources and energy usage are proving detrimental to the long-term welfare of humanity. The integrity of essential natural systems is already at risk from climate change caused by the atmospheric emissions of greenhouse gases.[13]

  Concerted efforts should be mounted for improving energy efficiency and reducing the carbon intensity of the world economy.[14]

[edit] International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences

In 2007, the International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences (CAETS) issued a Statement on Environment and Sustainable Growth[15]:

  As reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), most of the observed global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human-produced emission of greenhouse gases and this warming will continue unabated if present anthropogenic emissions continue or, worse, expand without control.

  CAETS, therefore, endorses the many recent calls to decrease and control greenhouse gas emissions to an acceptable level as quickly as possible.

[edit] Joint science academies’ statements

Since 2001, 32 national science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The signatories of these statements have been the national science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Ghana, Germany, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, India, Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, New Zealand, Russia, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Sweden, Tanzania, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

  * 2001-Following the publication of the IPCC Third Assessment Report, sixteen national science academies issued a joint statement explicitly acknowledging the IPCC position as representing the scientific consensus on climate change science. The sixteen science academies that issued the statement were those of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.[16]

  * 2005-The national science academies of the G8 nations, plus Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, signed a statement on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action[17], and explicitly endorsed the IPCC consensus. The eleven signatories were the science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

  * 2007-In preparation for the 33rd G8 summit, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a declaration referencing the position of the 2005 joint science academies’ statement, and acknowledging the confirmation of their previous conclusion by recent research. Following the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, the declaration states, “It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken.”[18] The thirteen signatories were the national science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

  * 2008-In preparation for the 34th G8 summit, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a declaration reiterating the position of the 2005 joint science academies’ statement, and reaffirming “that climate change is happening and that anthropogenic warming is influencing many physical and biological systems.” Among other actions, the declaration urges all nations to “(t)ake appropriate economic and policy measures to accelerate transition to a low carbon society and to encourage and effect changes in individual and national behaviour.”[19] The thirteen signatories were the same national science academies that issued the 2007 joint statement.

  * 2009-In advance of the UNFCCC negotiations to be held in Copenhagen in December 2009, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a joint statement declaring, “Climate change and sustainable energy supply are crucial challenges for the future of humanity. It is essential that world leaders agree on the emission reductions needed to combat negative consequences of anthropogenic climate change”. The statement references the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment of 2007, and asserts that “climate change is happening even faster than previously estimated; global CO2 emissions since 2000 have been higher than even the highest predictions, Arctic sea ice has been melting at rates much faster than predicted, and the rise in the sea level has become more rapid.”[20] The thirteen signatories were the same national science academies that issued the 2007 and 2008 joint statements.

[edit] Network of African Science Academies

In 2007, the Network of African Science Academies submitted a joint “statement on sustainability, energy efficiency, and climate change” to the leaders meeting at the G8 Summit in Heiligendamm, Germany:

  A consensus, based on current evidence, now exists within the global scientific community that human activities are the main source of climate change and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible for driving this change.

  The IPCC should be congratulated for the contribution it has made to public understanding of the nexus that exists between energy, climate and sustainability.[21]

The thirteen signatories were the science academies of Cameroon, Ghana, Kenya, Madagascar, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe, as well as the African Academy of Sciences.
[edit] Royal Society of New Zealand

Having signed onto the first joint science academies’ statement in 2001, the Royal Society of New Zealand released a separate statement in 2008 in order to clear up “the controversy over climate change and its causes, and possible confusion among the public”:

  The globe is warming because of increasing greenhouse gas emissions. Measurements show that greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere are well above levels seen for many thousands of years. Further global climate changes are predicted, with impacts expected to become more costly as time progresses. Reducing future impacts of climate change will require substantial reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.[22]

[edit] Polish Academy of Sciences

In December 2007, the General Assembly of the Polish Academy of Sciences (PAN) issued a statement endorsing the IPCC conclusions, and states:

  it is the duty of Polish science and the national government to, in a thoughtful, organized and active manner, become involved in realisation of these ideas.

  Problems of global warming, climate change, and their various negative impacts on human life and on the functioning of entire societies are one of the most dramatic challenges of modern times.

  PAS General Assembly calls on the national scientific communities and the national government to actively support Polish participation in this important endeavor.[23]

[edit] National Research Council (US)

In 2001, the Committee on the Science of Climate Change of the National Research Council published Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions.[24] This report explicitly endorses the IPCC view of attribution of recent climate change as representing the view of the scientific community:

  The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century… The IPCC’s conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue[24].

[edit] General science
[edit] American Association for the Advancement of Science

As the world’s largest general scientific society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science adopted an official statement on climate change in 2006:

  The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society….The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.[25]

[edit] European Science Foundation

In 2007, the European Science Foundation issued a Position Paper on climate change:

  There is now convincing evidence that since the industrial revolution, human activities, resulting in increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases have become a major agent of climate change. These greenhouse gases affect the global climate by retaining heat in the troposphere, thus raising the average temperature of the planet and altering global atmospheric circulation and precipitation patterns.

  While on-going national and international actions to curtail and reduce greenhouse gas emissions are essential, the levels of greenhouse gases currently in the atmosphere, and their impact, are likely to persist for several decades. On-going and increased efforts to mitigate climate change through reduction in greenhouse gases are therefore crucial.[26]

[edit] Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies

In 2008, the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies (FASTS) issued a policy statement on climate change:

  Global climate change is real and measurable. Since the start of the 20th century, the global mean surface temperature of the Earth has increased by more than 0.7°C and the rate of warming has been largest in the last 30 years.

  Key vulnerabilities arising from climate change include water resources, food supply, health, coastal settlements, biodiversity and some key ecosystems such as coral reefs and alpine regions. As the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases increases, impacts become more severe and widespread. To reduce the global net economic, environmental and social losses in the face of these impacts, the policy objective must remain squarely focused on returning greenhouse gas concentrations to near pre-industrial levels through the reduction of emissions.

  The spatial and temporal fingerprint of warming can be traced to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, which are a direct result of burning fossil fuels, broad-scale deforestation and other human activity.[27]

[edit] Earth sciences
[edit] American Geophysical Union

The American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement, [28] adopted by the society in 2003 and revised in 2007, affirms that rising levels of greenhouse gases have caused and will continue to cause the global surface temperature to be warmer:

  The Earth’s climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

[edit] European Federation of Geologists

In 2008, the European Federation of Geologists (EFG) issued the position paper Carbon Capture and geological Storage :

  The EFG recognizes the work of the IPCC and other organizations, and subscribes to the major findings that climate change is happening, is predominantly caused by anthropogenic emissions of CO2, and poses a significant threat to human civilization.

  It is clear that major efforts are necessary to quickly and strongly reduce CO2 emissions. The EFG strongly advocates renewable and sustainable energy production, including geothermal energy, as well as the need for increasing energy efficiency.

  CCS [Carbon Capture and geological Storage] should also be regarded as a bridging technology, facilitating the move towards a carbon free economy.[29]

[edit] European Geosciences Union

In 2005, the Divisions of Atmospheric and Climate Sciences of the European Geosciences Union (EGU) issued a position statement in support of the joint science academies’ statement on global response to climate change. The statement refers to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as “the main representative of the global scientific community”, and asserts that the IPCC

  represents the state-of-the-art of climate science supported by the major science academies around the world and by the vast majority of science researchers and investigators as documented by the peer-reviewed scientific literature.[30]

Additionally, in 2008, the EGU issued a position statement on ocean acidification which states, “Ocean acidification is already occurring today and will continue to intensify, closely tracking atmospheric CO2 increase. Given the potential threat to marine ecosystems and its ensuing impact on human society and economy, especially as it acts in conjunction with anthropogenic global warming, there is an urgent need for immediate action.” The statement then advocates for strategies “to limit future release of CO2 to the atmosphere and/or enhance removal of excess CO2 from the atmosphere.”[31]
[edit] Geological Society of America

In 2006, the Geological Society of America adopted a position statement on global climate change:

  The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries. Furthermore, the potential implications of global climate change and the time scale over which such changes will likely occur require active, effective, long-term planning.[32]

[edit] Geological Society of Australia

In July 2009, the Geological Society of Australia issued the position statement Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change:

  Human activities have increasing impact on Earth’s environments. Of particular concern are the well-documented loading of carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere, which has been linked unequivocally to burning of fossil fuels, and the corresponding increase in average global temperature. Risks associated with these large-scale perturbations of the Earth’s fundamental life-support systems include rising sea level, harmful shifts in the acid balance of the oceans and long-term changes in local and regional climate and extreme weather events.

  GSA therefore recommends…strong action be taken at all levels, including government, industry, and individuals to substantially reduce the current levels of greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the likely social and environmental effects of increasing atmospheric CO2.[33]

[edit] International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics

In July 2007, the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics (IUGG) adopted a resolution titled “The Urgency of Addressing Climate Change”. In it, the IUGG concurs with the “comprehensive and widely accepted and endorsed scientific assessments carried out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and regional and national bodies, which have firmly established, on the basis of scientific evidence, that human activities are the primary cause of recent climate change.” They state further that the “continuing reliance on combustion of fossil fuels as the world’s primary source of energy will lead to much higher atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gasses, which will, in turn, cause significant increases in surface temperature, sea level, ocean acidification, and their related consequences to the environment and society.” [34]
[edit] National Association of Geoscience Teachers

In July 2009, the National Association of Geoscience Teachers (NAGT) adopted a position statement on climate change in which they assert that “Earth’s climate is changing [and] “that present warming trends are largely the result of human activities”:

  NAGT strongly supports and will work to promote education in the science of climate change, the causes and effects of current global warming, and the immediate need for policies and actions that reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.[35]

[edit] Meteorology and oceanography
[edit] American Meteorological Society

The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2003 said:

  There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the Earth’s surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years. There is also clear evidence that the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased over the same period. In the past decade, significant progress has been made toward a better understanding of the climate system and toward improved projections of long-term climate change… Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases… Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems.[36]

[edit] Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

The Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society has issued a Statement on Climate Change, wherein they conclude:

  Global climate change and global warming are real and observable ... It is highly likely that those human activities that have increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have been largely responsible for the observed warming since 1950. The warming associated with increases in greenhouse gases originating from human activity is called the enhanced greenhouse effect. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased by more than 30% since the start of the industrial age and is higher now than at any time in at least the past 650,000 years. This increase is a direct result of burning fossil fuels, broad-scale deforestation and other human activity.”[37]

[edit] Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences

In November 2005, the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences (CFCAS) issued a letter to the Prime Minister of Canada stating that

  We concur with the climate science assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001 ... We endorse the conclusions of the IPCC assessment that ‘There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities’. ... There is increasingly unambiguous evidence of changing climate in Canada and around the world. There will be increasing impacts of climate change on Canada’s natural ecosystems and on our socio-economic activities. Advances in climate science since the 2001 IPCC Assessment have provided more evidence supporting the need for action and development of a strategy for adaptation to projected changes.[38]

[edit] Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

  CMOS endorses the process of periodic climate science assessment carried out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and supports the conclusion, in its Third Assessment Report, which states that the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.[39]

[edit] Royal Meteorological Society (UK)

In February 2007, after the release of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, the Royal Meteorological Society issued an endorsement of the report. In addition to referring to the IPCC as “world’s best climate scientists”, they stated that climate change is happening as “the result of emissions since industrialization and we have already set in motion the next 50 years of global warming – what we do from now on will determine how worse it will get.” [40]
[edit] World Meteorological Organization

In its Statement at the Twelfth Session of the Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change presented on November 15, 2006, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) confirms the need to “prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” The WMO concurs that “scientific assessments have increasingly reaffirmed that human activities are indeed changing the composition of the atmosphere, in particular through the burning of fossil fuels for energy production and transportation.” The WMO concurs that “the present atmospheric concentration of CO2 was never exceeded over the past 420,000 years;” and that the IPCC “assessments provide the most authoritative, up-to-date scientific advice.” [41]
[edit] Paleoclimatology
[edit] American Quaternary Association

The American Quaternary Association (AMQUA) has stated

  Few credible Scientists now doubt that humans have influenced the documented rise of global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution,” citing “the growing body of evidence that warming of the atmosphere, especially over the past 50 years, is directly impacted by human activity.[42]

[edit] International Union for Quaternary Research

The statement on climate change issued by the International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA) reiterates the conclusions of the IPCC, and urges all nations to take prompt action in line with the UNFCCC principles.

  Human activities are now causing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gasses - including carbon dioxide, methane, tropospheric ozone, and nitrous oxide - to rise well above pre-industrial levels….Increases in greenhouse gasses are causing temperatures to rise…The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action….Minimizing the amount of this carbon dioxide reaching the atmosphere presents a huge challenge but must be a global priority. [43]

[edit] Biology and life sciences
[edit] American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians

The American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians (AAWV) has issued a position statement regarding “climate change, wildlife diseases, and wildlife health”:

  There is widespread scientific agreement that the world’s climate is changing and that the weight of evidence demonstrates that anthropogenic factors have and will continue to contribute significantly to global warming and climate change. It is anticipated that continuing changes to the climate will have serious negative impacts on public, animal and ecosystem health due to extreme weather events, changing disease transmission dynamics, emerging and re-emerging diseases, and alterations to habitat and ecological systems that are essential to wildlife conservation. Furthermore, there is increasing recognition of the inter-relationships of human, domestic animal, wildlife, and ecosystem health as illustrated by the fact the majority of recent emerging diseases have a wildlife origin.[44]

[edit] American Society for Microbiology

In 2003, the American Society for Microbiology issued a public policy report in which they recommend “reducing net anthropogenic CO2 emissions to the atmosphere” and “minimizing anthropogenic disturbances of” atmospheric gases:[45]

  Carbon dioxide concentrations were relatively stable for the past 10,000 years but then began to increase rapidly about 150 years ago…as a result of fossil fuel consumption and land use change.[46]

  Of course, changes in atmospheric composition are but one component of global change, which also includes disturbances in the physical and chemical conditions of the oceans and land surface. Although global change has been a natural process throughout Earth’s history, humans are responsible for substantially accelerating present-day changes. These changes may adversely affect human health and the biosphere on which we depend.[47]

  Outbreaks of a number of diseases, including Lyme disease, hantavirus infections, dengue fever, bubonic plague, and cholera, have been linked to climate change.[48]

[edit] Australian Coral Reef Society

In 2006, the Australian Coral Reef Society issued an official communique regarding the Great Barrier Reef and the “world-wide decline in coral reefs through processes such as overfishing, runoff of nutrients from the land, coral bleaching, global climate change, ocean acidification, pollution”, etc.:

  There is almost total consensus among experts that the earth’s climate is changing as a result of the build-up of greenhouse gases. The IPCC (involving over 3,000 of the world’s experts) has come out with clear conclusions as to the reality of this phenomenon. One does not have to look further than the collective academy of scientists worldwide to see the string (of) statements on this worrying change to the earth’s atmosphere.

  There is broad scientific consensus that coral reefs are heavily affected by the activities of man and there are significant global influences that can make reefs more vulnerable such as global warming….It is highly likely that coral bleaching has been exacerbated by global warming.[49]

[edit] Institute of Biology (UK)

The UK’s Institute of Biology states “there is scientific agreement that the rapid global warming that has occurred in recent years is mostly anthropogenic, ie due to human activity.” As a consequence of global warming, they warn that a “rise in sea levels due to melting of ice caps is expected to occur. Rises in temperature will have complex and frequently localised effects on weather, but an overall increase in extreme weather conditions and changes in precipitation patterns are probable, resulting in flooding and drought. The spread of tropical diseases is also expected.” Subsequently, the Institute of Biology advocates policies to reduce “greenhouse gas emissions, as we feel that the consequences of climate change are likely to be severe.”[50]
[edit] Society of American Foresters

In 2008, the Society of American Foresters (SAF) issued two position statements pertaining to climate change in which they cite the IPCC and the UNFCCC:

  Forests are shaped by climate….Changes in temperature and precipitation regimes therefore have the potential to dramatically affect forests nationwide. There is growing evidence that our climate is changing. The changes in temperature have been associated with increasing concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and other GHGs in the atmosphere.[51]

  Forests play a significant role in offsetting CO2 emissions, the primary anthropogenic GHG.[52]

[edit] The Wildlife Society (international)

The Wildlife Society has issued a position statement titled Global Climate Change and Wildlife:[53]

  Scientists throughout the world have concluded that climate research conducted in the past two decades definitively shows that rapid worldwide climate change occurred in the 20th century, and will likely continue to occur for decades to come. Although climates have varied dramatically since the earth was formed, few scientists question the role of humans in exacerbating recent climate change through the emission of greenhouse gases. The critical issue is no longer “if” climate change is occurring, but rather how to address its effects on wildlife and wildlife habitats.

The statement goes on to assert that “evidence is accumulating that wildlife and wildlife habitats have been and will continue to be significantly affected by ongoing large-scale rapid climate change.”

The statement concludes with a call for “reduction in anthropogenic (human-caused) sources of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions contributing to global climate change and the conservation of CO2- consuming photosynthesizers (i.e., plants).”
[edit] Human health
[edit] American Academy of Pediatrics

In 2007, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued the policy statement Global Climate Change and Children’s Health:

  There is broad scientific consensus that Earth’s climate is warming rapidly and at an accelerating rate. Human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels, are very likely (>90% probability) to be the main cause of this warming. Climate-sensitive changes in ecosystems are already being observed, and fundamental, potentially irreversible, ecological changes may occur in the coming decades. Conservative environmental estimates of the impact of climate changes that are already in process indicate that they will result in numerous health effects to children.

  Anticipated direct health consequences of climate change include injury and death from extreme weather events and natural disasters, increases in climate-sensitive infectious diseases, increases in air pollution–related illness, and more heat-related, potentially fatal, illness. Within all of these categories, children have increased vulnerability compared with other groups.[54]

[edit] American College of Preventive Medicine

In 2006, the American College of Preventive Medicine issued a policy statement on “Abrupt Climate Change and Public Health Implications”:

  The American College of Preventive Medicine (ACPM) accept the position that global warming and climate change is occurring, that there is potential for abrupt climate change, and that human practices that increase greenhouse gases exacerbate the problem, and that the public health consequences may be severe.[55]

[edit] American Medical Association

In 2008, the American Medical Association issued a policy statement on global climate change declaring that they:

  Support the findings of the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, which states that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that these changes will negatively effect public health.

  Support educating the medical community on the potential adverse public health effects of global climate change, including topics such as population displacement, flooding, infectious and vector-borne diseases, and healthy water supplies.[56]

[edit] American Public Health Association

In 2007, the American Public Health Association issued a policy statement titled ‘’Addressing the Urgent Threat of Global Climate Change to Public Health and the Environment’’:

  The long-term threat of global climate change to global health is extremely serious and the fourth IPCC report and other scientific literature demonstrate convincingly that anthropogenic GHG emissions are primarily responsible for this threat….US policy makers should immediately take necessary steps to reduce US emissions of GHGs, including carbon dioxide, to avert dangerous climate change.[57]

[edit] Australian Medical Association

In 2004, the Australian Medical Association issued the position statement Climate Change and Human Health in which they recommend policies “to mitigate the possible consequential health effects of climate change through improved energy efficiency, clean energy production and other emission reduction steps.”[58]

This statement was revised again in 2008:

  The world’s climate – our life-support system – is being altered in ways that are likely to pose significant direct and indirect challenges to health. While ‘climate change’ can be due to natural forces or human activity, there is now substantial evidence to indicate that human activity – and specifically increased greenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions – is a key factor in the pace and extent of global temperature increases.

  Health impacts of climate change include the direct impacts of extreme events such as storms, floods, heatwaves and fires and the indirect effects of longer-term changes, such as drought, changes to the food and water supply, resource conflicts and population shifts.

  Increases in average temperatures mean that alterations in the geographic range and seasonality of certain infections and diseases (including vector-borne diseases such as malaria, dengue fever, Ross River virus and food-borne infections such as Salmonellosis) may be among the first detectable impacts of climate change on human health.

  Human health is ultimately dependent on the health of the planet and its ecosystem. The AMA believes that measures which mitigate climate change will also benefit public health. Reducing GHGs should therefore be seen as a public health priority.[59]

[edit] World Federation of Public Health Associations

In 2001, the World Federation of Public Health Associations issued a policy resolution on global climate change:

  Noting the conclusions of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other climatologists that anthropogenic greenhouse gases, which contribute to global climate change, have substantially increased in atmospheric concentration beyond natural processes and have increased by 28 percent since the industrial revolution….Realizing that subsequent health effects from such perturbations in the climate system would likely include an increase in: heat-related mortality and morbidity; vector-borne infectious diseases,… water-borne diseases…(and) malnutrition from threatened agriculture….the World Federation of Public Health Associations…recommends precautionary primary preventive measures to avert climate change, including reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and preservation of greenhouse gas sinks through appropriate energy and land use policies, in view of the scale of potential health impacts….[60]

[edit] World Health Organization

In 2008, the United Nations’ World Health Organization issued their report Protecting health from climate change:

  There is now widespread agreement that the earth is warming, due to emissions of greenhouse gases caused by human activity. It is also clear that current trends in energy use, development, and population growth will lead to continuing – and more severe – climate change.

  The changing climate will inevitably affect the basic requirements for maintaining health: clean air and water, sufficient food and adequate shelter. Each year, about 800,000 people die from causes attributable to urban air pollution, 1.8 million from diarrhoea resulting from lack of access to clean water supply, sanitation, and poor hygiene, 3.5 million from malnutrition and approximately 60,000 in natural disasters. A warmer and more variable climate threatens to lead to higher levels of some air pollutants, increase transmission of diseases through unclean water and through contaminated food, to compromise agricultural production in some of the least developed countries, and increase the hazards of extreme weather.[61]

[edit] Miscellaneous
[edit] American Astronomical Society

The American Astronomical Society has endorsed the AGU statement:[62]

  In endorsing the “Human Impacts on Climate” statement [issued by the American Geophysical Union], the AAS recognizes the collective expertise of the AGU in scientific subfields central to assessing and understanding global change, and acknowledges the strength of agreement among our AGU colleagues that the global climate is changing and human activities are contributing to that change.

[edit] American Chemical Society

The American Chemical Society stated:

  Careful and comprehensive scientific assessments have clearly demonstrated that the Earth’s climate system is changing rapidly in response to growing atmospheric burdens of greenhouse gases and absorbing aerosol particles (IPCC, 2007). There is very little room for doubt that observed climate trends are due to human activities. The threats are serious and action is urgently needed to mitigate the risks of climate change.

  The reality of global warming, its current serious and potentially disastrous impacts on Earth system properties, and the key role emissions from human activities play in driving these phenomena have been recognized by earlier versions of this ACS policy statement (ACS, 2004), by other major scientific societies, including the American Geophysical Union (AGU, 2003), the American Meteorological Society (AMS, 2007) and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS, 2007), and by the U. S. National Academies and ten other leading national academies of science (NA, 2005).[63]

[edit] American Institute of Physics

The Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics endorsed the AGU statement on human-induced climate change:[64]

  The Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics has endorsed a position statement on climate change adopted by the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Council in December 2003.

[edit] American Physical Society

In November 2007, the American Physical Society (APS) adopted an official statement on climate change:

  Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

  The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.”[65]

[edit] American Statistical Association

On November 30, 2007, the American Statistical Association Board of Directors adopted a statement on climate change:

  The ASA endorses the IPCC conclusions…. Over the course of four assessment reports, a small number of statisticians have served as authors or reviewers. Although this involvement is encouraging, it does not represent the full range of statistical expertise available. ASA recommends that more statisticians should become part of the IPCC process. Such participation would be mutually beneficial to the assessment of climate change and its impacts and also to the statistical community.[66]

[edit] Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)

  “Engineers Australia believes that Australia must act swiftly and proactively in line with global expectations to address climate change as an economic, social and environmental risk… We believe that addressing the costs of atmospheric emissions will lead to increasing our competitive advantage by minimising risks and creating new economic opportunities. Engineers Australia believes the Australian Government should ratify the Kyoto Protocol.”[67]

[edit] International Association for Great Lakes Research

In February 2009, the International Association for Great Lakes Research (IAGLR) issued a Fact Sheet on climate change:

  While the Earth’s climate has changed many times during the planet’s history because of natural factors, including volcanic eruptions and changes in the Earth’s orbit, never before have we observed the present rapid rise in temperature and carbon dioxide (CO2).

  Human activities resulting from the industrial revolution have changed the chemical composition of the atmosphere….Deforestation is now the second largest contributor to global warming, after the burning of fossil fuels. These human activities have significantly increased the concentration of “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere.

  As the Earth’s climate warms, we are seeing many changes: stronger, more destructive hurricanes; heavier rainfall; more disastrous flooding; more areas of the world experiencing severe drought; and more heat waves.[68]

[edit] Non-committal statements
[edit] American Association of Petroleum Geologists

The American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) Position Statement on climate change states that

  the AAPG membership is divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has on recent and potential global temperature increases ... Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming trend will continue, as reported through NAS, AGU, AAAS and AMS. AAPG respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data. These data do not necessarily support the maximum case scenarios forecast in some models.[69]

Prior to the adoption of this statement in June 2007, the AAPG was the only major scientific organization that rejected the finding of significant human influence on recent climate, according to a statement by the Council of the American Quaternary Association.[70] Explaining the plan for a revision, AAPG president Lee Billingsly wrote in March 2007 that

  Members have threatened to not renew their memberships… if AAPG does not alter its position on global climate change…. And I have been told of members who already have resigned in previous years because of our current global climate change position…. The current policy statement is not supported by a significant number of our members and prospective members.[71]

[edit] American Association of State Climatologists

The Association has no current statement. The previous statement, discussed below, became inoperative in 2008.[72]

The 2001 statement from the American Association of State Climatologists noted the difficulties with predicting impacts due to climate change, while acknowledging that human activities are having an effect on climate:

  Climate prediction is difficult because it involves complex, nonlinear interactions among all components of the earth’s environmental system…. The AASC recognizes that human activities have an influence on the climate system. Such activities, however, are not limited to greenhouse gas forcing and include changing land use and sulfate emissions, which further complicates the issue of climate prediction. Furthermore, climate predictions have not demonstrated skill in projecting future variability and changes in such important climate conditions as growing season, drought, flood-producing rainfall, heat waves, tropical cyclones and winter storms. These are the type of events that have a more significant impact on society than annual average global temperature trends. Policy responses to climate variability and change should be flexible and sensible – The difficulty of prediction and the impossibility of verification of predictions decades into the future are important factors that allow for competing views of the long-term climate future. Therefore, the AASC recommends that policies related to long-term climate not be based on particular predictions, but instead should focus on policy alternatives that make sense for a wide range of plausible climatic conditions regardless of future climate… Finally, ongoing political debate about global energy policy should not stand in the way of common sense action to reduce societal and environmental vulnerabilities to climate variability and change. Considerable potential exists to improve policies related to climate.[73]

[edit] American Geological Institute

In 1999, the American Geological Institute (AGI) issued the position statement ‘’Global Climate Change’’:

  The American Geological Institute (AGI) strongly supports education concerning the scientific evidence of past climate change, the potential for future climate change due to the current building of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, and the policy options available.

  Understanding the interactions between the solid Earth, the oceans, the biosphere, and the atmosphere both in the present and over time is critical for accurately analyzing and predicting global climate change due to natural processes and possible human influences.[74]

[edit] American Institute of Professional Geologists

In 2009, the American Institute of Professional Geologists (AIPG) sent a statement to President Barack Obama and other US government officials:

  The geological professionals in AIPG recognize that climate change is occurring and has the potential to yield catastrophic impacts if humanity is not prepared to address those impacts. It is also recognized that climate change will occur regardless of the cause. The sooner a defensible scientific understanding can be developed, the better equipped humanity will be to develop economically viable and technically effective methods to support the needs of society.[75]

[edit] Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences

In 2001, the Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences issued the position paper Mitigating climate change: Putting our carbon dioxide back into the ground:

  We contribute to the global problem of changing climate by our emissions of greenhouse gases - especially carbon dioxide – from industrial processes. A warming Earth has significant problems for Canada – instability in agricultural productivity, sinking of northern infrastructrure into melting permafrost, greater vulnerability of low-lying coastlines to storms.

  While the Canadian Geoscience Council is not at this time taking a particular position specifically on the issue of global warming, the Council is establishing a position on the use of geological sinks to mitigate emissions of greenhouse gases, particularly CO2.[76]

[ Edited: 24 November 2009 01:35 PM by Dave Lankshear]
 

Honestly, haven’t these guys all heard that the whole thing is a hoax? ;-)

Climate changing faster than expected: scientists

Wednesday, 25 November 2009
A group of international scientists say the most recent observations show climate change is accelerating beyond expectations.

It has been two years since the landmark Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report gave its most recent assessment on the state of the planet’s changing climate.

The team of scientists have collated the most recent data and observations, and they have found that climate change is accelerating beyond expectations.

Most of the 26 scientists are authors of reports published by the IPCC. They have updated the panel’s latest scientific projections and their observations show an acceleration of change.

According to their research, the Arctic may be ice-free by the summer of 2030 and sea levels could reach the upper limit of 2 metres by the turn of the century.

Professor Matthew England from the University of New South Wales is a contributing author to the report and he says things are changing rapidly.

“Over the last few years, some of those indicators have accelerated, some are right where the IPCC forecast, but the mix of all of the indicators tells us that, if anything, the IPCC projections were slightly conservative,” he says.

”[They were] absolutely on the money for some metrics, but for things like Arctic sea ice, the system there has changed much more rapidly than any scientists envisaged.”

According to the scientists’ observations, sea levels have risen more than five centimetres over the past 15 years - about 80% higher than IPCC projections made in 2001.

And the Arctic sea ice melt over the last two years was about 40% greater than the last forecast.
Ice-free Arctic summer

Professor England says the observed rate of summer ice melt is now running faster than any climate model can predict.

“The Arctic sea ice was thought to be something we saw that we would continue to see during summer time right through to the end of this century, and possibly even beyond,” he says.

“At the moment we may have an Arctic that is ice-free in summer as early as about 2030 and that really is bringing forward that ice melt much closer to now than we had previously thought.”

With that in mind, the scientists say global emissions must peak then decline rapidly within a decade if the worst of climate change is to be avoided.

And the researchers says global warming could reach as high as 7°C by the turn of the century if emissions are not curbed.

While some might question the doom and gloom observations, Will Steffen from the Australian National University has welcomed the update and he has called on scientific critics to put forward their work.

“There will be those who say, ‘Well this is just more doom and gloom’ and so on, but you have to ask, do those people come from the main credible scientific community?” he says.

“There are a lot of people who are scientists but are they part of the credible, reputable climate change science community?

“And second of all, if they dispute this, have they taken their evidence and published it in the peer-reviewed literature, in the prominent journals? And the answer is no, you can’t find it there.”

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2009/11/25/2752749.htm

 

These guys have !  Now Sing along! ...  “Hide the decline”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk&feature=player_embedded

 

But Kevin, you never answered whether or not you intentionally tried to mislead this list by bolding Monbiot’s JOKE as if it were his summary on global warming? Yet I have to thank you for it really is a great piece, and fairly accurately describes just what kind of email we’d HAVE TO get to truly prove a worldwide conspiracy. As it is, if these climatologists were involved in ANY dubious fudging of scientific data they should be fired / dismissed / whatever.

The overall credibility of climate science is that it is:-
* Capable of fairly accurate projections
* held by all the most prestigious scientific institutes in the world
* the majority of climatologists agree with it
(But you’ll of course ignore all that.)

In the meantime, back to the kind of email we’d REALLY need to disprove climate science, courtesy of YOUR link to Monbiot. So thanks for that.

“From: (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Sent: 29th October 2009
To: The Knights Carbonic

Gentlemen, the culmination of our great plan approaches fast. What the Master called “the ordering of men’s affairs by a transcendent world state, ordained by God and answerable to no man”, which we now know as Communist World Government, advances towards its climax at Copenhagen. For 185 years since the Master, known to the laity as Joseph Fourier, launched his scheme for world domination, the entire physical science community has been working towards this moment.

The early phases of the plan worked magnificently. First the Master’s initial thesis - that the release of infrared radiation is delayed by the atmosphere - had to be accepted by the scientific establishment. I will not bother you with details of the gold paid, the threats made and the blood spilt to achieve this end. But the result was the elimination of the naysayers and the disgrace or incarceration of the Master’s rivals. Within 35 years the 3rd Warden of the Grand Temple of the Knights Carbonic (our revered prophet John Tyndall) was able to “demonstrate” the Master’s thesis. Our control of physical science was by then so tight that no major objections were sustained.

More resistence was encountered (and swiftly despatched) when we sought to install the 6th Warden (Svante Arrhenius) first as professor of physics at Stockholm University, then as rector. From this position he was able to project the Master’s second grand law - that the infrared radiation trapped in a planet’s atmosphere increases in line with the quantity of carbon dioxide the atmosphere contains. He and his followers (led by the Junior Warden Max Planck) were then able to adapt the entire canon of physical and chemical science to sustain the second law.

Then began the most hazardous task of all: our attempt to control the instrumental record. Securing the consent of the scientific establishment was a simple matter. But thermometers had by then become widely available, and amateur meteorologists were making their own readings. We needed to show a steady rise as industrialisation proceeded, but some of these unfortunates had other ideas. The global co-option of police and coroners required unprecedented resources, but so far we have been able to cover our tracks.

The over-enthusiasm of certain of the Knights Carbonic in 1998 was most regrettable. The high reading in that year has proved impossibly costly to sustain. Those of our enemies who have yet to be silenced maintain that the lower temperatures after that date provide evidence of global cooling, even though we have ensured that eight of the ten warmest years since 1850 have occurred since 2001(10). From now on we will engineer a smoother progression.

Our co-option of the physical world has been just as successful. The thinning of the Arctic ice cap was a masterstroke. The ring of secret nuclear power stations around the Arctic Circle, attached to giant immersion heaters, remains undetected, as do the space-based lasers dissolving the world’s glaciers.

Altering the migratory and reproductive patterns of the world’s wildlife has proved more challenging. Though we have now asserted control over the world’s biologists, there is no accounting for the unauthorised observations of farmers, gardeners, bird-watchers and other troublemakers. We have therefore been forced to drive migrating birds, fish and insects into higher latitudes, and to release several million tonnes of plant pheromones every year to accelerate flowering and fruiting. None of this is cheap, and ever more public money, secretly diverted from national accounts by compliant governments, is required to sustain it.

The co-operation of these governments requires unflagging effort. The capture of George W. Bush, a late convert to the cause of Communist World Government, was made possible only by the threatened release of footage filmed by a knight at Yale, showing the future president engaged in coitus with a Ford Mustang. Most ostensibly-capitalist governments remain apprised of where their real interests lie, though I note with disappointment that we have so far failed to eliminate Vaclav Klaus. Through the offices of compliant states, the Master’s third grand law has been accepted: world government will be established under the guise of controlling manmade emissions of greenhouse gases.

Keeping the scientific community in line remains a challenge. The national academies are becoming ever more querulous and greedy, and require higher pay-offs each year. The inexplicable events of the past month, in which the windows of all the leading scientific institutions were broken and a horse’s head turned up in James Hansen’s bed, appear to have staved off the immediate crisis, but for how much longer can we maintain the consensus?

Knights Carbonic, now that the hour of our triumph is at hand, I urge you all to redouble your efforts. In the name of the Master, go forth and terrify.

Professor Ernst Kattweizel, University of Redcar. 21st Grand Warden of the Temple of the Knights Carbonic.”

This is the kind of conspiracy the deniers need to reveal to show that manmade climate change is a con. The hacked emails are a hard knock, but the science of global warming withstands much more than that.

 

I’ve been watching the ‘controversy’ develop over the last week or so, and I have to say, it’s pretty dispiriting. Not because a global leftist conspiracy as been unearthed, but because of the renewed enthusiasm of the sceptics to shoot first, and ask questions later. It’s saddening to see how little hey understand, and how little they want to understand.

There’s a couple of posts here that look at a couple of the accusations: http://allegationaudit.blogspot.com

There’s a couple of reasonable posts here:
- Scientific American: Climate change cover-up? You better believe it
- OpenDemocracy: The real scandal in the hacked climate change e-mails controversy

Personally, I think I’m going to stop referring to the sceptics as sceptics, but rather conspiracy theorists. There’s nothing sceptical about the sceptics (and that’s nothing new) - but the wild political conspiracies people are so quick to believe in, and anything that looks vaguely like evidence for the conspiracy instantly becomes not just a smoking gun, but ‘the mushroom cloud’.

These are clearly irony-deficient people. They claim AGW is a religion for true believes, yet they believe in crazy, global conspiracies on scant evidence. There’s still no scientific counter to AGW, there’s not even a desire to understand the issue, or examine the new ‘controversy’ in any depth.

But then again, these are the people that gave us Iraq’s WMDs, so I guess a desire for understanding is not a high priority.

 Signature 

Welcome to mightychurch.com! Want a cool avatar? Check out faceyourmanga.it, make your own & upload!

 

Mate, you’ve summed it up so beautifully I’ll link to it from my blog.

I totally agree! The sheer IRONY of all these guys going on about ‘buying the religion of global warming’ when they’re selling the religion of the largest, most successful conspiracy theory in human history! It leaves me scratching my head in bewilderment. Where does all their so called “scepticism” go when they buy the lie that there is a huge scientific debate over global warming? (There isn’t one legitimate scientific institute on planet earth that disputes global warming any more).

Where does all their so called “scepticism” go when they buy Ian Plimer’s line that it is all a conspiracy by climatologists just wanting to hang onto their day jobs? Don’t these “sceptical” people ever consider that a young, self-centred, career orientated climatologist would make HISTORY by being THE guy who legitimately proved climate science wrong in the peer reviewed literature?

And what do they do with all the mounting evidence? How do they disprove the sheer, basic, demonstrable lab-based repeatable scientific TESTS that Co2 actually DOES block a certain wavelength of heat from passing through the CO2 layer? What do they do about the Radiative Forcing Equation that measures the quantities of Co2 and calculates the retained energy in Watts / m2? What do they do about the melting glaciers and retreating Arctic ice sheets and retreating snow-packs and dying Canadian forests (due to the absence of real winters)  and methane leaking peat-bogs etc?

Yet Luke, the amazing thing this week is Tony Abbott and friends actually resigning over this! So it’s not a joke to them, they are ‘true believers’ in the GREATEST CONSPIRACY in human history! Wow. Sacrificing their political careers over this. It’s truly mind-blowingly STUPID.

I can’t see any of the current so called CPRS / ETS having any impact on our Co2 emissions anyway. The latest science is saying we have 5 to 10 years to bring emissions down to levels that natural systems can start to absorb, or the decision to lower Co2 emissions may be taken out of our hands when natural feedback loops take over. Some of these potential methane emissions are so large they dwarf our own petty emission levels, and would shift our planet into a new climate state that we have not seen since the higher volcanic activity levels of the dinosaur era. If that happens, billions could die as agriculture fails across large areas of the globe. It’s already possible as the Asian glaciers retreat. It’s already starting, so only if we take action right now can we prevent it.

But we won’t. They are already softening our expectations of any deals from Cophenhagen. Expect more talk-fests everyone!

No wonder the sceptics retreat behind a ready-made, fossil fuel funded fantasy, a protective wall of cognitive dissonance, a creative writing world-view of worldwide conspiracies. Some psychologies are just not prepared to think of such scenarios.

Yet again, God-willing some of our geo-engineering schemes might save us if things get really bad. Biochar can suck down Co2 from the atmosphere, a war-time effort could see the world off fossil fuels in 15 to 20 years, new economics around more localised city plans could become more fashionable and profitable as the peak oil, peak water, peak everything scenarios come crashing down on us. We might totally re-design design itself, and learn to live in a renewable energy powered economy where all our goods and services come from infinitely recycled and recyclable materials. That is the goal, and anything less is unfair on future generations.

 

Thanks Dave, I would love to see us do something much, much, much more imaginative and substantial on climate change, but if there’s anything I’m sceptical of, it’s us doing much, unfortunately. We can happily drop $12bn on 100 new F-35 fighter jets without question, but getting a feeble ETS up is tearing one side of politics apart… it’s mental.

Anyway, the latest controversy reminds me a lot of Utegate - what’s initially presented as a smoking gun turns out to be nothing of the sort, leaving a lot of egg on the faces of those carrying on about it.

There’s another good post on it here: Open Climate Science or Denial of Service attacks?

It’s just more FUD, FUD, FUD…

 Signature 

Welcome to mightychurch.com! Want a cool avatar? Check out faceyourmanga.it, make your own & upload!

 

The politicians get crazier and the scientists get deviant and even more high tech. It’s enough to drive an ordinary man to drinking flat beer. CRU at East Anglia have stopped sending fake E-mails , but I can’t find a report that came out this week on East Antartica Ice losses. Previosly the ice there was supposed to be increasing, as opposed to West Antartica. But last week a satelite gravitational device measured hugh changes supposedly due to loss of ice.  Bingo! That explains the earth cooling in recent years , against the hiterto upward trend. ( latent heat of ice for those who did not pass high school science) Now I cant find the report. Have the rebellious pollies hid it?
  And I doubt if anyone knows what a satelite gravitational device is, let alone whether it works.

 Signature 

Luke 17:21 ” The kingdom of God is within you.”

 
5 of 8
5
     

Welcome, Guest!

Want to register? Member? Log in!

Latest posts Since last visit

Recent news, blogs & links

theresurgence.com »

What Would Jesus NOT Do?

/files/2-What-Would-Jesus-NOT-Do.jpg Pastors are called to love, serve, and lead through the opportunities that lay in front of us. With so many ...

10 Mar | comment | start topic

smh.com.au »

Profile: Michael Carew

thumbnail for Profile: Michael Carew

At that stage he had been working for 16 years for Anglican charity Anglicare, as a residential youth worker helping teenage wards of the state get their ...

10 Mar | comment | start topic

nytimes.com »

Laws, Lies and the Abortion Debate

Indeed, the bill prohibits doctors from performing an abortion to avoid a serious risk that the woman may commit suicide. The obvious goal here is to ...

and more »

10 Mar | comment | start topic

theresurgence.com »

John Piper Video Now Live—in HD

<object width="400" height="275"><param name="movie" value="http://www.marshillchurch.org/v/wdo54hwlgqcw" /><embed ...

10 Mar | comment | start topic

prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com »

Another House Democrat Demands Abortion Restrictions

thumbnail for Another House Democrat Demands Abortion Restrictions

In addition, an overwhelming majority of Americans oppose the use of tax dollars to pay for abortion. Therefore, if a health care bill that fails to prevent ...
Abortion could stymie healthcare reform legislation Christian Science Monitor
Stupak: Health Bill Abortion Fight Can Be Resolved New York Times

Abortion

10 Mar | comment | start topic

theaustralian.com.au »

Certainty of death and taxes

"The high divorce rate has made estate planning hugely complicated. I would average three or four new will challenge instructions a week," says ...

10 Mar | comment | start topic

csmonitor.com »

Democrats’ full-court press on healthcare reform

thumbnail for Democrats’ full-court press on healthcare reform

The sponsor of the abortion language, Rep. Bart Stupak (D) of Michigan, says that there are a dozen or so members of this group ready to flip to “no” unless ...
Parliamentary Hurdle Could Thwart Latest Health Care Overhaul Strategy New York Times
A Handy Road Map for the Final Weeks New York Times (blog)
Health reform kills Barack Obama's agenda The Australian
New York Times
all 1,110 news articles »

10 Mar | comment | start topic

solapanel.org »

God, the universe and all that: Part 3

By Lionel Windsor . In the third instalment of a five-part series, Lionel Windsor discovers ...

10 Mar | comment | start topic

csmonitor.com »

Abortion could stymie healthcare reform legislation

thumbnail for Abortion could stymie healthcare reform legislation

Anti-abortion House Democrats – led by Rep. Bart Stupak – are threatening to vote against the healthcare reform bill because they believe it might allow ...
A Policy Change on Abortion, but How Radical? New York Times
Stupak: Health Bill Abortion Fight Can Be Resolved New York Times

Abortion

10 Mar | comment | start topic

blogs.telegraph.co.uk »

The real Church of England is in the Bahamas

Thank heaven for the Anglican Communion, in which all churches are autonomous and not every PC fad can be imposed worldwide. Another thing which impressed ...

9 Mar | comment | start topic

theresurgence.com »

Empire vs. Kingdom

/files/EmpireVSKingdom.jpg Are you building the Kingdom of God or are you building your own Empire? The Apostle Paul writes to the Corinthian ...

9 Mar | comment | start topic

timesonline.co.uk »

Archbishop of Canterbury condemns evangelist ‘bullies’

thumbnail for Archbishop of Canterbury condemns evangelist ‘bullies’

The Archbishop of Canterbury has condemned evangelist "bulies" who attempt to convert people of other faiths to Christianity. Dr Rowan Williams said it was ...

and more »

9 Mar | comment | start topic

theaustralian.com.au »

Light weight, heavy burden

For her honours thesis, Blaber studied the entire range of proteins in a stem cell sequence, establishing that microgravity influences human cell function. ...

9 Mar | comment | start topic

theaustralian.com.au »

Sheik in last-ditch bid to stay here

The Christian coalition includes Anglican, Catholic, indigenous and Muslim community leaders, including the professor who formerly headed up the Cancer ...

9 Mar | comment | start topic

theage.com.au »

Dutch move for assisted suicide

The legalisation of euthanasia for the terminally ill in 2002 was preceded by decades of discussion and quiet negotiation that attached stringent ...

9 Mar | comment | start topic

theage.com.au »

Wards lose education costs at 18

Anglicare Victoria says it is paying the fees of at least three state-care leavers, for VCE and other courses. Last year it paid for books, train tickets ...

9 Mar | comment | start topic

news.bbc.co.uk »

Church is there to ‘help couples’

While he was not sure why Guernsey's divorce rate had jumped by such a degree in 2009 he said it may have something to do with Guernsey's unique ...

9 Mar | comment | start topic

news.bbc.co.uk »

Faith Diary: Faith Falls Down Under

thumbnail for Faith Diary: Faith Falls Down Under

A study among clergy of the Church of England carried out by researchers from Bangor University five years ago also found widespread doubt. ...

and more »

9 Mar | comment | start topic

nytimes.com »

A Policy Change on Abortion, but How Radical?

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama's health care bill would change federal policy on abortion, but not open the spigot of taxpayer dollars that some ...

and more »

9 Mar | comment | start topic

theresurgence.com »

Why Your Pastor Should Outsource His Mind

Why Your Pastor Should Outsource His Mind series: Click | View Series /files/outsourcing-1.jpg Pastors Need An Assistant The world of church ...

9 Mar | comment | start topic

desiringgod.org »

Answering Radio Interviewers on Why Suffering

(Author: John Piper) Scott Simon interviewed the Jesuit priest James Martin on NPR Saturday morning, March 6. Martin just published The Jesuit ...

9 Mar | comment | start topic

theresurgence.com »

Pastor Mark in South Africa

Pastor Mark has posted an update from his trip to South Africa. He talks about the partnerships and learning opportunities that come out of trips ...

9 Mar | comment | start topic

csmonitor.com »

Love in a recession: questions to ask before you get married

According to the National Directory of Marriage and Family Counseling, the divorce rate in America has hovered around 50% since the mid 80's, but ...

9 Mar | comment | start topic

thelede.blogs.nytimes.com »

Violence is Not Religiously Motivated, Nigerian Archbishop Says

thumbnail for Violence is Not Religiously Motivated, Nigerian Archbishop Says

Benjamin Kwashi, the Anglican archbishop of Jos, described the attacks on Christian members of Plateau's leading ethnic group, the Beromas, ...
Journalists don't get religion, Ex. 95244 Beliefnet.com (blog)
500 butchered in Nigeria killing fields Times Online

all 1,071 news articles »

9 Mar | comment | start topic

csmonitor.com »

Healthcare reform: Obama makes big push in Glenside, Pa.

thumbnail for Healthcare reform: Obama makes big push in Glenside, Pa.

The Senate version also contains language on abortion that some House Democrats find unacceptable – language that could kill the whole deal. On Sunday, Rep. ...
A Handy Road Map for the Final Weeks New York Times (blog)
Sebelius: Bid for GOP Support Delayed Health Care New York Times
Obama Appeals for Public Support on Health Care New York Times
New York Times
all 2,673 news articles »

9 Mar | comment | start topic


Recent prayer requests

Evangelistic on Thurs 29/10 for Sydney CBD workers: “Doing Business With God”. Pray that many will come and be challenged by the message. — Arthur Lee

Praise God for bringing three Moslems from Saudi Arbaia to the Bible study we run for internationals! Please pray they will continue to come! — Dannii Willis

A community Prayer meeting will be held tonight at 7.30pm at Ingleburn Anglican for Melissa Parker - 9 yrs girl killed by a bus yesterday. — Kevin Goddard

My mother in-law died last week as a result of 12 years of dementia. Pray that the funeral will go well and that the weather would fine up. — Sheldon Ryan

Praise God for saving two international students, through the ministries of Bible Cub and the Fellowship of Overseas Uni Students (FOCUS)! — Dannii Willis

My youngest daughter (6 mths) is getting Christened on Sunday — Glenn Slaven

Praise God for all those coming to Bible Club, we had five internationals come today to hear the basics of the gospel! — Dannii Willis

Baptism service at my church, Grace Church Kogarah. 9 people baptised today ... pray for them to continue growing in their Christian faith. — Arthur Lee

Prayer service re VIC fires - Wed 11th Feb at St Andrew's Roseville, 7.30pm-7.55pm. To pray, to remember, to hope, to comfort. — Mark Calder

VIC bushfires and QLD floods - Father, You are in control of all the earth. Please sustain and comfort all those who have lost so ...Tia Zheng

Back to St Andrew's Sunday - Roseville on 15 Feb. Over 100 families with whom we've had some contact with being invited + baptism contacts. — Mark Calder

Thanks to God for Luke's continuing efforts to build Christian community on the web; grace and love for him as he maintains it. Amen. — Mark Hadley

Lord God, please bless this new venture. Amen. — Craig Schwarze

Welcome to the prayer micro blog! Feel free to post a quick prayer request, & prayers for this site & community would be appreciated too :) — Luke Stevens