Sigh...
The consensus is clearly evident in the reports of the IPCC (which despite the above claims, is not, in fact, "a political advocacy body with a political agenda." The IPCC's brief is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, rather than make policy itself. You could argue that it is in a strong position to influence policy were it to be taken over by individuals with a political agenda. If there is compelling evidence for this, I'd like to see it.)
But the IPCC is not alone. Countless other scientific bodies (National Academy of Sciences; American Meteorological Society; American Geophysical Union; American Association for the Advancement of Science, and many, many more) have issued statements concluding that the evidence for anthropogenic global warming is compelling.
The notion that there is a lack of consensus is repeatedly promoted by the sceptics. But there is more evidence for consensus than there is for a lack of consensus. Even the theory that opposing scientists are afraid to speak out against the global warming theory for fear of losing funding and grant research (a theory which insults the integrity of all scientists) is very much in dispute - [broken link removed] New Scientist article suggests that the opposite is more likely to be the case, i.e. that there is more pressure on scientists to deny that a problem exists.
It seems more likely to me that the political agenda lies with those who dismiss the whole anthropogenic global warming argument as nonsense.
Last edited:
