` :::Those are some very good points, and they've made me go back and re-read that first paragraph.  I see now (duh) ``basic conclusions`` refers only to global surface temperature increase and it's causation, and not to negative impacts.  I've always thought the whole AGW theory had three components: (1) the climate is heating up, (2) human activities are causing this change in climate, and (3) this will negatively impact human beings and other forms of life.  And, it seems to me the 3rd component is the most important.  After all, if AGW didn't have negative consequences, there wouldn't be much cause for concern, and isn't that what WGII is all about?   :::However, since the first paragraph currently makes no mention of impacts, then, yes, footnote B should not contain concurring bodies who's science doesn't deal specifically with temperature increase and causation. Remaining bodies could be all the academies, and Earth sciences as well as American Chemical Society, American Institute of Physics, and American Physical Society.  Earth sciences, of course, involve everything from Atmospheric chemistry and Meteorology to Oceanography and Geophysics.  And, yes, Petrology too.  Chemistry and physics is, of course, so fundamental it has to be included. To address Awickert's concern's, perhaps the end of the first paragraph could look something like this:   ::::These basic conclusions have been endorsed by numerous scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. A small number of individual scientists and a few scientific societies dispute the consensus view.    :::Linking twice to the ``Opinion`` article might be a bit redundant, but the second link to the ``Noncommittal`` section takes readers right where they want to go.  Maybe there could just be another footnote listing the AAPG, AGI, etc. instead.  `