Posted 5 months, 14 days ago in 
Loading ...
In the April 23 edition of The Daily Sentinel, Joe Aaeng calls for a debate on the role of human activities in global warming and suggests that S. Fred Singer, a denier of this role, would add credibility to the arguments on that side of the issue.
Although there are a tiny handful of legitimate scientists who argue against the conclusions of the overwhelming majority, Singer is not among the group who have any credibility. Source Watch and many other sources on the Internet describe Singer’s activities in fascinating detail.
In the past, he has represented several tobacco companies since he also denies that secondhand smoke has harmful effects (despite the evidence to the contrary). He has also been supported for many years by the oil and gas industry and represented their viewpoints in sworn testimony.
If one looks at his publications, glaringly notable by their absence are any original scientific papers on climate research in peer reviewed scientific journals. Instead he publishes articles in trade journals attacking the conclusions of climate scientists. Singer has no training or experience in any of the sciences of climatology but sells himself to the highest bidders looking for someone with a Ph.D. to act as a shill for their views.
By contrast, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change represents the consensus view of thousands of research scientists who have stated unequivocally that human activities are modifying the concentration of greenhouse gases causing most of the observed warming over the last 50 years. The U.S. National Academy of Science in its report on climate change comes to exactly the same conclusion. The American Meteorological Society, The American Geophysical Union and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have all issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling.
Indeed all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members’ expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. Mr. Aaeng apparently prefers to rely on the oil companies to give us the truth on this matter.
J. EUGENE FOX
Grand Junction
20 Responses to “Global warming denier is no expert”
Posted April 24th, 2008 at 4:36 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Thank you, Mr Fox.
Posted April 24th, 2008 at 8:51 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Timothy F. Ball, former Professor of Geography, University of Winnipeg: “[The world’s climate] warmed from 1680 up to 1940, but since 1940 it’s been cooling down. The evidence for warming is because of distorted records. The satellite data, for example, shows cooling.” (November 2004)[5] “There’s been warming, no question. I’ve never debated that; never disputed that. The dispute is, what is the cause. And of course the argument that human CO2 being added to the atmosphere is the cause just simply doesn’t hold up…” (May 18, 2006; at 15:30 into recording of interview)[6] “The temperature hasn’t gone up. … But the mood of the world has changed: It has heated up to this belief in global warming.” (August 2006)[7] “Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970’s global cooling became the consensus. … By the 1990’s temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I’ll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.” (Feb. 5, 2007)[8]
Robert M. Carter, geologist, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia: “the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998 … there is every doubt whether any global warming at all is occurring at the moment, let alone human-caused warming.”[9]
Vincent R. Gray, coal chemist, climate consultant, founder of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition: “The two main ’scientific’ claims of the IPCC are the claim that ‘the globe is warming’ and ‘Increases in carbon dioxide emissions are responsible’. Evidence for both of these claims is fatally flawed.”[10]
[edit] Believe accuracy of IPCC climate projections is inadequate
Individuals in this section conclude that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They do not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.
David Bellamy, environmental campaigner, broadcaster and former botanist: a doubling of atmospheric CO2 “will amount to less than 1°C of global warming [and] such a scenario is unlikely to arise given our limited reserves of fossil fuels—certainly not before the end of this century.”[11]
Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute: “The blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate ‘realistic’ simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic. From my background in turbulence I look forward with grim anticipation to the day that climate models will run with a horizontal resolution of less than a kilometer. The horrible predictability problems of turbulent flows then will descend on climate science with a vengeance.”[12]
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists : “models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view”.[13]
Individuals in this section conclude that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities.
Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovskaya Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences: “Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost throughout the last century - growth in its intensity…Ascribing ‘greenhouse’ effect properties to the Earth’s atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated…Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away.”[14][15][16]
Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: “[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air.”[17]
Reid Bryson, emeritus professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison: “It’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air.”[18]
George V. Chilingar, Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California: “The authors identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate: (1) solar radiation …, (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial activities … . The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth’s climate [and] show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible.”[19]
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: “That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation - which has a cooling effect. … We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly… solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle.”[20]
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester: “The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.”[21]
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University: “global warming since 1900 could well have happened without any effect of CO2. If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035″[22]
William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University: “This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential.”[23] “I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people.”[24] “So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing—all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more.”[25]
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology: “There has been a real climate change over the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries that can be attributed to natural phenomena. Natural variability of the climate system has been underestimated by IPCC and has, to now, dominated human influences.”[26]
George Kukla, retired Professor of Climatology at Columbia University and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, said in an interview: “What I think is this: Man is responsible for a PART of global warming. MOST of it is still natural.”[27]
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware: “About half of the warming during the 20th century occurred prior to the 1940s, and natural variability accounts for all or nearly all of the warming.”[28]
Marcel Leroux, former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean Moulin: “The possible causes, then, of climate change are: well-established orbital parameters on the palaeoclimatic scale, … solar activity, …; volcanism …; and far at the rear, the greenhouse effect, and in particular that caused by water vapor, the extent of its influence being unknown. These factors are working together all the time, and it seems difficult to unravel the relative importance of their respective influences upon climatic evolution. Equally, it is tendentious to highlight the anthropic factor, which is, clearly, the least credible among all those previously mentioned.”[29]
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: global warming “is the biggest scientific hoax being perpetrated on humanity. There is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities. The atmosphere hasn’t changed much in 280 million years, and there have always been cycles of warming and cooling. The Cretaceous period was the warmest on earth. You could have grown tomatoes at the North Pole”[30]
Tim Patterson[31], paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada: “There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth’s temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century’s modest warming?”[32][33]
Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide: “We only have to have one volcano burping and we have changed the whole planetary climate… It looks as if carbon dioxide actually follows climate change rather than drives it”.[34]
Tom Segalstad, head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo: “It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction”.[35][36]
Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: “[T]he truth is probably somewhere in between [the common view and that of skeptics], with natural causes probably being more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more dominant over the next century. … [A]bout 2/3’s (give or take a third or so) of the warming [over the past century] should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes.” His opinion is based on some proxies of solar activity over the past few centuries.[37]
Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia: “The greenhouse effect is real. However, the effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect.”[38][39] “It’s not automatically true that warming is bad, I happen to believe that warming is good, and so do many economists.”[40]
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: “[T]here’s increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed.”[41]
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London: “…the myth is starting to implode. … Serious new research at The Max Planck Institute has indicated that the sun is a far more significant factor…”[42]
Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center: “Our team … has discovered that the relatively few cosmic rays that reach sea-level play a big part in the everyday weather. They help to make low-level clouds, which largely regulate the Earth’s surface temperature. During the 20th Century the influx of cosmic rays decreased and the resulting reduction of cloudiness allowed the world to warm up. … most of the warming during the 20th Century can be explained by a reduction in low cloud cover.”[43]
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa: “At this stage, two scenarios of potential human impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model …, and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as the principal climate driver. … Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but time will be the final judge.”[44]
Scientists in this section conclude it is too early to ascribe any principal cause to the observed rising temperatures, man-made or natural.
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks: “[T]he method of study adopted by the International Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) is fundamentally flawed, resulting in a baseless conclusion: 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. Contrary to this statement …, there is so far no definitive evidence that ‘most’ of the present warming is due to the greenhouse effect. … [The IPCC] should have recognized that the range of observed natural changes should not be ignored, and thus their conclusion should be very tentative. The term ‘most’ in their conclusion is baseless.”[45]
Claude Allègre, geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris): “The increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere is an observed fact and mankind is most certainly responsible. In the long term, this increase will without doubt become harmful, but its exact role in the climate is less clear. Various parameters appear more important than CO2. Consider the water cycle and formation of various types of clouds, and the complex effects of industrial or agricultural dust. Or fluctuations of the intensity of the solar radiation on annual and century scale, which seem better correlated with heating effects than the variations of CO2 content.”[46]
Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University: “[I]t is very likely that the recent upward trend [in global surface temperature] is very real and that the upward signal is greater than any noise introduced from uncertainties in the record. However, the general error is most likely to be in the warming direction, with a maximum possible (though unlikely) value of 0.3 °C. … At this moment in time we know only that: (1) Global surface temperatures have risen in recent decades. (2) Mid-tropospheric temperatures have warmed little over the same period. (3) This difference is not consistent with predictions from numerical climate models.”[47]
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports: “I’m sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never “proof”) and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time.”[48]
Petr Chylek, Space and Remote Sensing Sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory: “carbon dioxide should not be considered as a dominant force behind the current warming…how much of the [temperature] increase can be ascribed to CO2, to changes in solar activity, or to the natural variability of climate is uncertain”[49]
William R. Cotton, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University said in a presentation, “It is an open question if human produced changes in climate are large enough to be detected from the noise of the natural variability of the climate system.”[50]
Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland: “There is evidence of global warming. … But warming does not confirm that carbon dioxide is causing it. Climate is always warming or cooling. There are natural variability theories of warming. To support the argument that carbon dioxide is causing it, the evidence would have to distinguish between human-caused and natural warming. This has not been done.”[51]
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma: “The amount of climatic warming that has taken place in the past 150 years is poorly constrained, and its cause–human or natural–is unknown. There is no sound scientific basis for predicting future climate change with any degree of certainty. If the climate does warm, it is likely to be beneficial to humanity rather than harmful. In my opinion, it would be foolish to establish national energy policy on the basis of misinformation and irrational hysteria.”[52]
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences: “We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 °C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But–and I cannot stress this enough–we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future.”[53] “[T]here has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas — albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed.”[54]
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville: “We need to find out how much of the warming we are seeing could be due to mankind, because I still maintain we have no idea how much you can attribute to mankind.”[55]
Scientists in this section conclude that projected rising temperatures and/or increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide will be of little impact or a net positive for human society.
Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University; founder of The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change: “the rising CO2 content of the air should boost global plant productivity dramatically, enabling humanity to increase food, fiber and timber production and thereby continue to feed, clothe, and provide shelter for their still-increasing numbers…this atmospheric CO2-derived blessing is as sure as death and taxes.”[56]
Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University: “[W]arming has been shown to positively impact human health, while atmospheric CO2 enrichment has been shown to enhance the health-promoting properties of the food we eat, as well as stimulate the production of more of it. … [W]e have nothing to fear from increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and global warming.”[57]
Patrick Michaels, former state climatologist, University of Virginia: “scientists know quite precisely how much the planet will warm in the foreseeable future, a modest three-quarters of a degree (Celsius), plus or minus a mere quarter-degree…a modest warming is a likely benefit.”[58]
Posted April 24th, 2008 at 8:56 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
That is a list of many experts that don’t believe in human caused Global Warming. Are you going to try and discredit them all as evil “Republicans”, in bed with “Big oil and tobacco”?
That is just a few of the more than 400 I found with just a cursory search. The “consensus” has been wrong many times in the past. Why not now” These same experts and groups believed the world was precipitously cooling and we need to put coal in Antartica to absorb heat. Boy aren’t we glad we didn’t follow the consesus then.
Most will attest that recent sun flares most likely contribute to the warming far more than anything we could do as humans.
Posted April 24th, 2008 at 9:57 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well posted brandon.
But you do realize that your “statistics” are totally irrelvent?
Mr Laitres has already stated the if he finds facts of which he was previosly unaware, he will think about hem and decide for himself whether or not to admit he was ignorant on the issue.
If he chooses to deny the new facts, then he is justified to maintain his contrary position based on his own self induced ignorance of the issues.
But that’s only because he is so uch smarter than nay poster that may have a differing viewpoint than his own.
Posted April 24th, 2008 at 10:06 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
We are really heading headlong into an ice age. In (very roughly) 10,000 years. So hold onto your hats, people!
Posted April 25th, 2008 at 9:13 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
The whole concept of ’scientific consensus’ is really hard for some of you to grasp. Here’s list of concurring organizations, followed by the list of dissenting organizations:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007
Main article: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
In February 2007, the IPCC released a summary of the forthcoming Fourth Assessment Report. According to this summary, the Fourth Assessment Report finds that human actions are “very likely” the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability. Global warming in this case is indicated by an increase of 0.75 degrees in average global temperatures over the last 100 years.[2]
The New York Times reports on the report:
The world’s leading climate scientists said global warming has begun, is very likely caused by man, and will be unstoppable for centuries, … . The phrase very likely translates to a more than 90 percent certainty that global warming is caused by man’s burning of fossil fuels. That was the strongest conclusion to date, making it nearly impossible to say natural forces are to blame.[3]
The report said that an increase in hurricane and tropical cyclone strength since 1970 more likely than not can be attributed to man-made global warming. The scientists said global warming’s connection varies with storms in different parts of the world, but that the storms that strike the Americas are global warming-influenced.[4]
The Associated Press summarizes the position on sea level rise:
On sea levels, the report projects rises of 7-23 inches by the end of the century. That could be augmented by an additional 4-8 inches if recent surprising polar ice sheet melt continues.[5]
[edit] InterAcademy Council
As the representative of all the world’s 150 scientific and engineering academies[6][7], the InterAcademy Council (IAC) issued a report in 2007 entitled Lighting the Way: Toward a Sustainable Energy Future.
Current patterns of energy resources and energy usage are proving detrimental to the long-term welfare of humanity. The integrity of essential natural systems is already at risk from climate change caused by the atmospheric emissions of greenhouse gases.[8]
Concerted efforts should be mounted for improving energy efficiency and reducing the carbon intensity of the world economy.[9]
[edit] Joint science academies’ statement 2007
In preparation for the 2007 G8 summit, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a declaration referencing the position of the 2005 joint science academies’ statement, and acknowledging the confirmation of their previous conclusion by recent research. Following the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, the declaration states:
It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken.
The thirteen signatories were the science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
[edit] Joint science academies’ statement 2005
In 2005 the national science academies of the G8 nations, plus Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, signed a statement on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action[10], and explicitly endorsed the IPCC consensus. The eleven signatories were the science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
[edit] Joint science academies’ statement 2001
In 2001, following the publication of the IPCC Third Assessment Report, sixteen national science academies issued a joint statement explicitly acknowledging the IPCC position as representing the scientific consensus on climate change science. The sixteen science academies that issued the statement were those of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.[11]
[edit] International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
In October 2007, the International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences (CAETS) issued a Statement on Environment and Sustainable Growth[12]
As reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), most of the observed global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human-produced emission of greenhouse gases and this warming will continue unabated if present anthropogenic emissions continue or, worse, expand without control.
CAETS, therefore, endorses the many recent calls to decrease and control greenhouse gas emissions to an acceptable level as quickly as possible.
[edit] European Academy of Sciences and Arts
In March of 2007, the European Academy of Sciences and Arts issued a formal declaration in which they stated, “Human activity is most likely responsible for climate warming. Most of the climatic warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Documented long-term climate changes include changes in Arctic temperatures and ice, widespread changes in precipitation amounts, ocean salinity, wind patterns and extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves and the intensity of tropical cyclones. The above development potentially has dramatic consequences for mankind’s future. “[13]
[edit] Network of African Science Academies
In 2007, the Network of African Science Academies submitted a joint “statement on sustainability, energy efficiency, and climate change” to the leaders meeting at the G8 Summit in Heiligendamm, Germany.
“A consensus, based on current evidence, now exists within the global scientific community that human activities are the main source of climate change and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible for driving this change.”
“The IPCC should be congratulated for the contribution it has made to public understanding of the nexus that exists between energy, climate and sustainability.”[14]
The thirteen signatories were the science academies of Cameroon, Ghana, Kenya, Madagascar, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe, as well as the African Academy of Sciences.
[edit] International Council for Science
In October 2007, the International Council for Science issued a “key ICSU statement” which concurred “it is now established beyond doubt that climate change is happening, and that much of it is caused by human activity. The IPCC is one of many examples of the importance of providing scientific understanding as a basis for sound policy making.”[15]
[edit] European Science Foundation
The European Science Foundation has issued a Position Paper on climate change in which they concur, “There is now convincing evidence that since the industrial revolution, human activities, resulting in increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases have become a major agent of climate change. These greenhouse gases affect the global climate by retaining heat in the troposphere, thus raising the average temperature of the planet and altering global atmospheric circulation and precipitation patterns.” The paper concluded, “While on-going national and international actions to curtail and reduce greenhouse gas emissions are essential, the levels of greenhouse gases currently in the atmosphere, and their impact, are likely to persist for several decades. On-going and increased efforts to mitigate climate change through reduction in greenhouse gases are therefore crucial.”[16]
[edit] American Association for the Advancement of Science
In December of 2006, the American Association for the Advancement of Science adopted an official statement on climate change in which they stated, “The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society….The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.”[17]
[edit] Federation of American Scientists
In their Energy and Environment Overview, the Federation of American Scientists state, “There is no serious doubt that human activity is altering the earth’s climate in potentially catastrophic ways. Even skeptics are forced to admit that the risk is real and that prudence demands action if only as an insurance policy, the only serious debate is about how best to respond.” [18]
[edit] World Meteorological Organization
In its Statement at the Twelfth Session of the Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) confirms the need to “prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” The WMO concurs that “scientific assessments have increasingly reaffirmed that human activities are indeed changing the composition of the atmosphere, in particular through the burning of fossil fuels for energy production and transportation.” The WMO concurs that “the present atmospheric concentration of CO2 was never exceeded over the past 420,000 years;” and that the IPCC “assessments provide the most authoritative, up-to-date scientific advice.” [19]
[edit] American Meteorological Society
The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2003 said:
There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the Earth’s surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years. There is also clear evidence that the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased over the same period. In the past decade, significant progress has been made toward a better understanding of the climate system and toward improved projections of long-term climate change… Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases… Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems.[20]
[edit] Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
In February 2007, after the release of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, the Royal Meteorological Society issued an endorsement of the report. In addition to referring to the IPCC as “world’s best climate scientists”, they stated that climate change is happening as “the result of emissions since industrialization and we have already set in motion the next 50 years of global warming – what we do from now on will determine how worse it will get.” [21]
[edit] Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
The Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society has issued a Statement on Climate Change, wherein they conclude, “Global climate change and global warming are real and observable…It is highly likely that those human activities that have increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have been largely responsible for the observed warming since 1950. The warming associated with increases in greenhouse gases originating from human activity is called the enhanced greenhouse effect. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased by more than 30% since the start of the industrial age and is higher now than at any time in at least the past 650,000 years. This increase is a direct result of burning fossil fuels, broad-scale deforestation and other human activity.”[22]
[edit] Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
“CMOS endorses the process of periodic climate science assessment carried out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and supports the conclusion, in its Third Assessment Report, which states that the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.”[23]
[edit] Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
In November of 2005, the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences (CFCAS) issued a letter to the Prime Minister of Canada in which they stated that they “concur with the Joint Science Academies statement that ‘climate change is real’”. Additionally, the CFCAS stated that they “endorse the assessment of climate science undertaken by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its conclusion that ‘There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributed to human activities.’”[24]
[edit] American Geophysical Union
The American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement [25] adopted by the society in 2003 and revised in 2007 affirms that rising levels of greenhouse gases have caused and will continue to cause the global surface temperature to be warmer:
The Earth’s climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.
[edit] American Institute of Physics
The Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics endorsed the AGU statement on human-induced climate change:[26]
The Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics has endorsed a position statement on climate change adopted by the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Council in December 2003.
[edit] American Astronomical Society
The American Astronomical Society has endorsed the AGU statement:[27]
In endorsing the “Human Impacts on Climate” statement [issued by the American Geophysical Union], the AAS recognizes the collective expertise of the AGU in scientific subfields central to assessing and understanding global change, and acknowledges the strength of agreement among our AGU colleagues that the global climate is changing and human activities are contributing to that change.
[edit] American Physical Society
In November of 2007, the American Physical Society (APS) adopted an official statement on climate change: “Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.
“The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.”[28]
[edit] American Chemical Society
The American Chemical Society stated:
Careful and comprehensive scientific assessments have clearly demonstrated that the Earth’s climate system is changing rapidly in response to growing atmospheric burdens of greenhouse gases and absorbing aerosol particles (IPCC, 2007). There is very little room for doubt that observed climate trends are due to human activities. The threats are serious and action is urgently needed to mitigate the risks of climate change.
The reality of global warming, its current serious and potentially disastrous impacts on Earth system properties, and the key role emissions from human activities play in driving these phenomena have been recognized by earlier versions of this ACS policy statement (ACS, 2004), by other major scientific societies, including the American Geophysical Union (AGU, 2003), the American Meteorological Society (AMS, 2007) and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS, 2007), and by the U. S. National Academies and ten other leading national academies of science (NA, 2005). This statement reviews key global climate change impacts and recommends actions required to mitigate or adapt to currently anticipated consequences.[29]
[edit] National Research Council (US)
In 2001, the Committee on the Science of Climate Change of the National Research Council published Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions [30]. This report explicitly endorses the IPCC view of attribution of recent climate change as representing the view of the scientific community:
The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century… The IPCC’s conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue.[31]
[edit] Federal Climate Change Science Program (US)
On May 2, 2006, the Federal Climate Change Science Program commissioned by the Bush administration in 2002 released the first of 21 assessments. Though it did not state what percentage of climate change might be anthropogenic, the assessment concluded:
Studies … show clear evidence of human influences on the climate system (due to changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols, and stratospheric ozone). … The observed patterns of change over the past 50 years cannot be explained by natural processes alone, nor by the effects of short-lived atmospheric constituents (such as aerosols and tropospheric ozone) alone.[32]
[edit] American Quaternary Association
The American Quaternary Association (AMQUA) has stated, “Few credible Scientists now doubt that humans have influenced the documented rise of global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution,” citing “the growing body of evidence that warming of the atmosphere, especially over the past 50 years, is directly impacted by human activity.” [33]
[edit] Geological Society of America
“The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries. Furthermore, the potential implications of global climate change and the time scale over which such changes will likely occur require active, effective, long-term planning.”[34]
[edit] Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
“Engineers Australia believes that Australia must act swiftly and proactively in line with global expectations to address climate change as an economic, social and environmental risk… We believe that addressing the costs of atmospheric emissions will lead to increasing our competitive advantage by minimising risks and creating new economic opportunities. Engineers Australia believes the Australian Government should ratify the Kyoto Protocol.”[35]
[edit] Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
The Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London stated, “We find that the evidence for human-induced climate change is now persuasive, and the need for direct action compelling.”[36]
[edit] European Geosciences Union
In July 2005, the European Geosciences Union (EGU) issued a position statement in support of the joint science academies’ statement on global response to climate change. Additionally, the EGU concurred that the IPCC “represents the state-of-the-art of climate science supported by the major science academies around the world and by the vast majority of science researchers and investigators as documented by the peer-reviewed scientific literature.” [37]
[edit] International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
In July of 2007, the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics (IUGG) adopted a resolution entitled “The Urgency of Addressing Climate Change”. In it, the IUGG concurs with the “comprehensive and widely accepted and endorsed scientific assessments carried out by the International Panel on Climate Change and regional and national bodies, which have firmly established, on the basis of scientific evidence, that human activities are the primary cause of recent climate change.” They state further that the “continuing reliance on combustion of fossil fuels as the world’s primary source of energy will lead to much higher atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gasses, which will, in turn, cause significant increases in surface temperature, sea level, ocean acidification, and their related consequences to the environment and society.” [38]
[edit] International Union of Geological Sciences
In their Climate Change prospectus for the International Year of Planet Earth project, the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) stated, “The idea that there is a strong human imprint on recent climate change is now compelling, with forest clearing, building and man-made gas emissions all having a strong influence on Earth’s warming.”[39]
“We know that human activity has resulted in changes to atmospheric chemistry and land cover, and caused serious decline in biodiversity.” [40]
Statements by dissenting organizations
With the July 2007 release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate.[43]
Posted April 25th, 2008 at 9:52 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Brandon-WSC:
Rather than merely repeat what you have heard, please support this statement with some facts:
“These same experts and groups believed the world was precipitously cooling”
Really? The ’same experts and groups’? When was that? Please cite a source.
Really? The same number and level of consensus, or–perhaps–a hypothesis proposed by a few? I know, I know, facts and citations are much harder to come by than merely parroting what some denier said. But until you provide citations, sources, and facts its all just more hot air from the poorly informed.
Posted April 25th, 2008 at 10:04 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
toaaronuu — that is a great reply. Too bad the New York Times quote was near the top, that’s when some people covered their ears and started screaming LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA …
Posted April 25th, 2008 at 10:08 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
See, for example this USA Today article (2/2/08):
“The supposed ‘global cooling’ consensus among scientists in the 1970s — frequently offered by global-warming skeptics as proof that climatologists can’t make up their minds — is a myth, according to a survey of the scientific literature of the era.
“The ’70s was an unusually cold decade. Newsweek, Time, The New York Times and National Geographic published articles at the time speculating on the causes of the unusual cold and about the possibility of a new ice age.
“But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends.
“The study reports, “There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age.
” ‘A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists’ thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth’s climate on human time scales.’ ”
Here are a couple of excerpts from the study, which is linked at http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_15153.html:
THE MYTH OF THE 1970S GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS
“…global cooling was never more than a minor aspect of the scientific climate change literature of the era, let alone the scientific consensus…”.
And
“Underlying the selective quotation of the past literature is an example of what political scientist Daniel Sarewitz calls “scientization” of
political debate: the selective emphasis on particular scientific “facts” to advance a particular set of political values (Sarewitz 2004). In this case,
the primary use of the myth is in the context of attempting to undermine public belief in and support for the contemporary scientific consensus about anthropogenic climate change by appeal to a past “consensus” on a closely related topic that is alleged to have been wrong (e.g., Balling 1992,
Giddens 1999, Schlesinger 2003, Inhofe 2003, Will 2004, Michaels 2004, Crichton 2004, Singer and Avery 2007, Horner 2007)”
Posted April 25th, 2008 at 10:09 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Yeah, it shows up differently on the wiki, but still, the consensus is overwhelming.
Posted April 25th, 2008 at 10:09 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Study debunks ‘global cooling’ concern of ’70s
By Doyle Rice, USA TODAY
The supposed “global cooling” consensus among scientists in the 1970s — frequently offered by global-warming skeptics as proof that climatologists can’t make up their minds — is a myth, according to a survey of the scientific literature of the era.
The ’70s was an unusually cold decade. Newsweek, Time, The New York Times and National Geographic published articles at the time speculating on the causes of the unusual cold and about the possibility of a new ice age.
But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends.
The study reports, “There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age.
“A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists’ thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth’s climate on human time scales.”
Posted April 25th, 2008 at 1:05 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
From the following “cut&pastes” from this thread, I have a question.
““A consensus, based on current evidence, now exists within the global scientific community that human activities are the main source of climate change and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible for driving this change.””
““The supposed ‘global cooling’ consensus among scientists in the 1970s — frequently offered by global-warming skeptics as proof that climatologists can’t make up their minds — is a myth, according to a survey of the scientific literature of the era.”
““…global cooling was never more than a minor aspect of the scientific climate change literature of the era, let alone the scientific consensus…”.”
“the primary use of the myth is in the context of attempting to undermine public belief in and support for the contemporary scientific consensus about anthropogenic climate change by appeal to a past “consensus” on a closely related topic that is alleged to have been wrong ”
“toaaronuu
Posted April 25th, 2008 at 10:09 am PM This User Report this comment
Yeah, it shows up differently on the wiki, but still, the consensus is overwhelming.”
“The supposed “global cooling” consensus among scientists in the 1970s — frequently offered by global-warming skeptics as proof that climatologists can’t make up their minds — is a myth, according to a survey of the scientific literature of the era.”
“The study reports, “There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age.”
—- I’m somewhat at a loss here, so I need help.
“Consensus” is the same as proven scientific fact?
Now I know that’s only a minor little detail, but my world is surrounded with minor little details.
So I really do need an honest, concise non-refutable answer on this question.
Thanks in advance.
Willis
Posted April 25th, 2008 at 3:34 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Temperatures went down from 1940 to 1970. What caused that? Human carbon emmisions? Or could it have possibly been a natural trend? We hit a record in 1998 and it has gone down since. We have had several ice ages, including a “little ice age” in the 1500’s and then had warming periods between. There were no carbon emissions then….why did the globe warm?
Posted April 25th, 2008 at 3:51 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I suggest you sign up for some more better classes. There really is no way to answer your questions based on your apparent level of knowledge.
Posted April 25th, 2008 at 3:57 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Were Oliver to be better informed, first by checking the accuracy of his sources, as well as gaining some appreciation of subject matter, he might have some basis to speak on issues, as well as requesting of others that they remain “quiet”.
It is apparent that he is in possession of neither.
Given the frequency and shallowness of his posts, one can readily conclude that, like most in their situation, h believes the number of sounds they utter, or the number of words he uses, makes him appear “intelligent.”
Actually, it does the exact opposite, much as one would not consider the “babbling” of an infant “words of wisdom.”
It is most frequently those lacking in knowledge and understanding who use the most words, perhaps to cover the absence of both.
Posted April 25th, 2008 at 4:09 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
The frequency of my posts is minuscule compared with the shear number of yours, dear sir. I am confident in the accuracy of my sources. Please refute one if you feel differently, otherwise I must conclude that you are merely projecting what is true about yourself onto others.
Posted April 25th, 2008 at 4:22 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
oh now oliver, perhaps you just need to sit back and relax.
In fact, while you’re sitting back and relaxing, why not go back and read (I know it will be tough for someone of your “apparent level of knowledge.”) posts #13 and 14.
Then get back to us on exactly how your comments furthered the conversation.
You meet none of your own standards.
Therefore you are a drag on civil discourse.
And, if you do not like my choice of words, talk to Mr. Laitres, it’s nearly verbatim from one of his unnecessary assaults on other posters.
Posted April 25th, 2008 at 4:28 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Brandon – here’s some key data for you to ponder. Indeed, we did hit a temperature record in 1998….but, tied that same number in 2007. The upward trends (in temp/CO2/CH4/etc.) are very well documented and very well defined. There simply is no disagreement regarding the empirical data.
The only disagreement, sadly enough, involves emotions & politics, driven primarily by large extractive industries and their footsoldiers willing to protect the status quo at any cost. Including the pending demise of human civilization. Read:
1. Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.74°C (plus or minus 0.18°C) since the late-19th century, and the linear trend for the past 50 years of 0.13°C (plus or minus 0.03°C) per decade is nearly twice that for the past 100 years. The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S. and parts of the North Atlantic) have, in fact, cooled slightly over the last century. The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70°N. Lastly, seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1995. (NOAA)
2. Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2007 tied with 1998 for Earth’s second warmest year in a century. (NASA)
3. Global mean sea level has been rising at an average rate of 1.7 mm/year (plus or minus 0.5mm) over the past 100 years, which is significantly larger than the rate averaged over the last several thousand years. (NOAA)
4. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are greater than 380 ppmv and increasing at a rate of 1.9 ppm yr-1 since 2000. The global concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today far exceeds the natural range over the last 650,000 years of 180 to 300 ppmv. According to the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), by the end of the 21st century, we could expect to see carbon dioxide concentrations of anywhere from 490 to 1260 ppm (75-350% above the pre-industrial concentration). (NOAA)
Posted April 25th, 2008 at 4:28 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
That climate fluctuates is neither denied by scientists nor does it have much bearing on our current situation. A delicate system it is, with much natural variability for sure. Yes, temperatures have been both warmer and cooler in the past. How, exactly, does that relate?
Posted April 25th, 2008 at 4:53 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Everyone should read the wiki on scientific consensus. Here’s the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus
For those of you who wish to question the credibility of wikipedia, please read the entry first, and then direct any objections to the proper wikipedia channel.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.