I'm just saying that while I can post 100's of links that prove Global Warming, N4H can in turn, post 100's of links that DISprove it. That's why I say it is fruitless. ("no fruit for Buffy") I thought I explained my POV nicely, but N4H didn't see it that way, so I came back with more "proof".
Proof? I disagree. What I requested was scientific support for the idea Man is causing crisis-level global warming. There is no "proof" for that. Certainly none in the links offered.
What you posted were links saying the IPCC supported the idea "global warming could lead to large-scale food and water shortages". You then posted a link to something from the IPCC which appeared to suggest if we accept the idea man is causing unprecedented, and dangerous levels of warming this is what may happen.
I saw no "proof" there man is causing unprecedented, and dangerous levels of warming. Simply what might happen if it existed.
I believe what you're going for there though is what's known as the consensus argument. It goes something like this...
"The United Nations created an organization called the IPCC, and commissioned reports, most recently in 2007, investigating the possibility man was having a significant effect on atmospheric warming. 2500 climate scientists were called upon to research the peer-reviewed literature. 95% signed on to a conclusion as follows.
"Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."
Source
Usually when this argument is made there is also a reference to a long list of scientific organizations such as NAS which have signed onto that statement or similar.
Here's the problems with that argument...
First of all the IPCC was not made up of 2500 scientists with a specialty in climate science who examined man's contribution to warming. AR4 was contributed to by multi-field scientists most offered up from governments and non-governmental organizations, both with a stake in the policy concluded to in the report. You'll find social scientists, a lot of computer modelers, and some non-scientists.
The report is divided into, I think it's 4 sections. Only one of those sections deals with the science behind global warming theory. I believe it's referred to as WG 1. Only 600 are listed as contributors to WG 1. You just lost 1900 supposed scientists. Those 1900 contributed to sections of the report much like the one you linked to which assume the existence of crisis level anthropogenic warming then discuss how that might affect things. Of the 600 contributors to WG 1 few actually contributed, and the chapter of WG 1 which deals specifically with the statement above (I believe it's chapter 9) only 62 contributed to that one. Of those 62 many are shown to have potential vested interests, and most contributed nothing significant (stuff like typographical errors). You're left with about 15 actual contributors to that key chapter the 95% of 2500 is supposed to have signed on to, and most of those had potential vested interests. I beilieve it's just something like 3 or 4 independent contributors who agreed with the conclusions of the chapter.
Also when considering the IPCC it's important to draw the line between scientific contributions and political. The mandate of the IPCC is to look for support for the conclusion man is causing warming. The conclusion has already been drawn before the report is written. Most of the contributors have been assigned there from governments or organizations with an interest in supporting the Kyoto accord.
The IPCC is divided into the scientific report, and the policy makers report. The policy makers report is the one the public is most familiar with. That's the one where the radical claims of dangerous man made global warming are either insinuated, or stated. The actual scientific report is much edited, and rewritten to support the policy statement. It's all a massive hoodwink.
I considered linking you to a lot of information supporting all that but start with this
opinion piece and
this paper. If you want more, I've got it.
The next part of the consensus argument that goes "The science is settled. All scientists agree" comes from the assertion most scientific organizations agree with the conclusion man is causing crisis level global warming. Again though this doesn't come from the actual scientists in the organizations. This comes from the bureaucrats and policy makers in charge of those organizations. They have financing and power based reasons for coming to those conclusions.
Recently there was a big stink raised when the editor of the newsletter for
the American Physics Society suggested "There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution".
In fact the whole idea of a scientific consensus is beginning to fall apart. Support for the idea there was ever a scientific consensus
collapsed in 2008.
And here's another thing. Even if there were scientific consensus (and there's not) it wouldn't matter. Science is not run by consensus. I believe it was Einstein who said something like "All it takes to disprove a theory is one fact".
