Those are some very good points and theyve made me go back and reread that first paragraph  I see now duh basic conclusions refers only to global surface temperature increase and its causation and not to negative impacts  Ive always thought the whole AGW theory had three components  the climate is heating up  human activities are causing this change in climate and  this will negatively impact human beings and other forms of life  And it seems to me the rd component is the most important  After all if AGW didnt have negative consequences there wouldnt be much cause for concern and isnt 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 whos science doesnt 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 Awickerts concerns 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