Yet more proof to Global Warming's existence and deniers' dishonesty

This is a great day for anyone who's frustrated with those damned Global Warming denialists' persistent attempts to deny or confuse the existence of man-made climate change on our planet. The New York Times has just released a staggering document that confirms that the Global Climate Coalition, a heavily-biased "think tank" that was funded primarily by big automakers and oil & gas companies and who was previously the spearheader of the Global Warming denial movement until its disbandment in 2002, knew and agreed that man-made effects on climate change were irrefutable and incontrovertible – as early as since 1995, when their public faces were busy denying the existence of man's role in the Greenhouse Effect and slowly rising temperatures.

In case you missed the point: the "leader" of Global Warming denialists themselves KNEW that we ARE the cause for the Earth's climate change, but lied straight out of their crooked mouths and asses to try and appeal to automakers and halt the implementation of carbon emission reduction laws and regulations.

You can see the document itself here – it's quite lengthy, yet thanks to an exceedingly helpful summary at the start that saved me from blowing my brains out in being forced to read dozens of pages of long-winded material, it delivers some very powerful punches straight to the gobs of all those annoying denialists. It's got everything – from saying that studies and measurements show, without reasonable doubt, that humans are a critical player in gas emissions and their impact on the climate, that humans are directly responsible for the changes in weather and climate, and best of all, it categorically refutes most of all counter-arguments with credible data from numerous independent sources (so no bias there, either).

Here's just a taste of what it says:

1) Can human activities affect climate?

The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied.

Owch! Talk about a first-punch knockout. Let's see the rest?

2) Can future climate be accurately predicted?

The climate models which are being used to predict the increases in temperature which might occur with increased atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases are limited at present both by incomplete scientific understanding of the factors which affect climate and by inadequate computational power.

[...]

The potential for a human impact on climate is based on well-established scientific fact, and should not be denied. While, in theory, human activities have the potential to result in net cooling, a concern about 25 years ago, the current balance between greenhouse gas emissions and the emissions of particulates and particulate-formers is such that essentially all of today's concern is about net warming.

[...]

As part of its contribution to the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [...]) Second Assessment Report, WG I (Working Group I, the subgroup assessing science), after considering the uncertainties in the scientific information, concluded:

Nevertheless, the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernable human influence on global climate.

And here are some "contrarian arguments" (ie. arguments for Global Warming denialism), and their appropriate counter-arguments:

[On Solar Variability (that the Sun and its irregularities are causing all these changes):]

Direct measures of the intensity of solar radiation over the past 15 years indicate a maximum variability of less than 0.1%, sufficient to account for no more than 0.1°C temperature change.

---

[On anomalies in the temperature record that indicate the irregularity and chaotic nature of the climate:]

While raw data from the satellite measurements indicate a cooling of O.06°C/decade, correcting the raw data for known effects (volcanos and periodic warming of the Eastern tropical Pacific Ocean as part of the EI Nino cycle), yields 0.09°C/decade warming. The corrected satellite measurements still do not agree with the land-based temperature record, but they both show warming. [...] Thus, the fact that the recent temperature record does not agree in detail with a greenhouse gas warming scenario does not diminish the potential threat from substantially higher atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.

---

[In conclusion to contrarian arguments:]

The contrarian theories raise interesting questions about our total understanding of climate processes, but they do not offer convincing arguments against the conventional model of greenhouse gas emission-induced climate change. Jastrow's hypothesis about the role of solar variability and Michaels' questions about the temperature record are not convincing arguments against any conclusion that we are currently experiencing warming as the result of greenhouse gas emissions.

Scientists also agree that atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases (such as C02) are increasing as a result of human activity.

Keep in mind that the above are just heavily shortened and simplified excerpts from the document; these topics are expounded upon in great detail and technicality later on in the report for anyone interested or bored enough to read it all. I did a quick little skimming, just to see what was there, and it's about as credible – and convincing – as anything you'll ever read.

Just more proof that there truly is no credibility to anyone, person or party, who state that Global Warming is natural, that it's not man-made, and blah blah blah. It's utter bullshit from biased sources who aren't to be believed. This is EXACTLY like the old days where tobacco companies would claim there were no scientific proofs linking cigarettes to lung cancer in the face of mountains of data that just begged to differ. Remember that, folks.

Again, large companies and organizations are not there to protect you. That is an unhealthy and frankly dangerous illusion to be under. They are there to protect themselves.

(via Dispatches from the Culture Wars)