Earth and climate scientists generally agree that humans are contributing to global warming, but there are naysayers.
Apart from the science, the public discussion is informative but not necessarily objective.
"CO2 traps heat -- more CO2 means a warmer climate. That is basic physics, borne out by the history of climate. Denying these well-established facts is about as smart as claiming the Earth is flat, and best left to cranks, ideologues and fossil fuel lobbyists." ~ Stefan Rahmstorf, professor of ocean physics at Germany's Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. That's one side of the debate, of course.
(CNN) Until last Friday night, the eve of the People's Climate March on Washington, the US government website EPA.gov explained how humans are warming the planet by burning fossil fuels and why that is important for us and for future generations. Now the page carries an Orwellian message: "This page is being updated."
"Thank you for your interest in this topic," the message continues. "We are currently updating our website to reflect EPA's priorities under the leadership of President Trump and [EPA] Administrator Pruitt."It's been clear for some time what Donald Trump and his appointees prefer to think of climate change. At worst, they call it a hoax. At best, they say it's overblown -- no big deal. We need more science, they insist, while stripping government science agencies of funding.
Based on research spanning more than half a century, scientists understand that human contribution is the single critical change factor. Regular reviews of actively publishing climate scientists (Ref) reveal that the majority agree: climate-warming trends over the past century are most likely due to human activities. Many scientific organizations worldwide have independently issued public statements endorsing this position. That said, there are a minority who disagree and who should be heard objectively. Beyond the science, biased contrarians suggest global warming ended about 19 years ago (despite the 10 warmest years on record occurring in that period) and that any further warming is unlikely to be a critical concern. (Ref) The disagreement is much politicised, unfortunately, rather than debated reasonably.
Statement from eighteen scientific associations - "Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009) (Ref)
The administration's position is troubling, and not only because their policies may contribute to human-induced global warming with perhaps worsening droughts and rising seas. It is troubling because Trump and this administration are apparently "gaslighting" the public on the science to date.
With the same playbook the tobacco industry used, Trump and other political deniers inject uncertainty and confusion into climate policy discussions. Without addressing the science, they discount it as inconsequential. You can do that when you're powerful; you can insert your preferred truth without factual backing.
Gaslighting. Why might anyone do that? Why might a group of power players do that?
Here's one reason to consider ... Exxon knew about fossil fuel and climate change 40 years ago. They did their own research, then covered the results with a multi-million dollar obfuscation campaign, much like the tobacco industry's strategy.
Is there relevant opinion on both sides of the issue, and is the corporate/political arena the appropriate venue? In science, what is relevant is independently reproducible results.
________________________________________________________
Scientific Organizations Affirming That Climate Change Has Been Largely Enabled by Human Action
With the same playbook the tobacco industry used, Trump and other political deniers inject uncertainty and confusion into climate policy discussions. Without addressing the science, they discount it as inconsequential. You can do that when you're powerful; you can insert your preferred truth without factual backing.
Gaslighting. Why might anyone do that? Why might a group of power players do that?
Here's one reason to consider ... Exxon knew about fossil fuel and climate change 40 years ago. They did their own research, then covered the results with a multi-million dollar obfuscation campaign, much like the tobacco industry's strategy.
Is there relevant opinion on both sides of the issue, and is the corporate/political arena the appropriate venue? In science, what is relevant is independently reproducible results.
________________________________________________________
Scientific Organizations Affirming That Climate Change Has Been Largely Enabled by Human Action
- Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
- Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
- Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
- Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
- Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
- Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
- Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
- Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
- Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
- Académie des Sciences, France
- Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
- Academy of Athens
- Academy of Science of Mozambique
- Academy of Science of South Africa
- Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
- Academy of Sciences Malaysia
- Academy of Sciences of Moldova
- Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
- Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
- Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
- Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
- Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
- Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
- African Academy of Sciences
- Albanian Academy of Sciences
- Amazon Environmental Research Institute
- American Anthropological Association
- American Association for the Advancement of Science
- American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
- American Astronomical Society
- American Chemical Society
- American Fisheries Society
- American Geophysical Union
- American Institute of Biological Sciences
- American Institute of Physics
- American Meteorological Society
- American Physical Society
- American Public Health Association
- American Quaternary Association
- American Society for Microbiology
- American Society of Agronomy
- American Society of Civil Engineers
- American Society of Plant Biologists
- American Statistical Association
- Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
- Australian Academy of Science
- Australian Bureau of Meteorology
- Australian Coral Reef Society
- Australian Institute of Marine Science
- Australian Institute of Physics
- Australian Marine Sciences Association
- Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
- Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
- Botanical Society of America
- Brazilian Academy of Sciences
- British Antarctic Survey
- Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
- California Academy of Sciences
- Cameroon Academy of Sciences
- Canadian Association of Physicists
- Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
- Canadian Geophysical Union
- Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
- Canadian Society of Soil Science
- Canadian Society of Zoologists
- Caribbean Academy of Sciences views
- Center for International Forestry Research
- Chinese Academy of Sciences
- Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
- Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia)
- Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
- Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
- Crop Science Society of America
- Cuban Academy of Sciences
- Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
- Ecological Society of America
- Ecological Society of Australia
- Environmental Protection Agency
- European Academy of Sciences and Arts
- European Federation of Geologists
- European Geosciences Union
- European Physical Society
- European Science Foundation
- Federation of American Scientists
- French Academy of Sciences
- Geological Society of America
- Geological Society of Australia
- Geological Society of London
- Georgian Academy of Sciences
- German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
- Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
- Indian National Science Academy
- Indonesian Academy of Sciences
- Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
- Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology
- Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
- Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
- InterAcademy Council
- International Alliance of Research Universities
- International Arctic Science Committee
- International Association for Great Lakes Research
- International Council for Science
- International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
- International Research Institute for Climate and Society
- International Union for Quaternary Research
- International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
- International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
- Islamic World Academy of Sciences
- Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
- Kenya National Academy of Sciences
- Korean Academy of Science and Technology
- Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
- l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
- Latin American Academy of Sciences
- Latvian Academy of Sciences
- Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
- Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences
- Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
- Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
- National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
- National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
- National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
- National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
- National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
- National Aeronautics and Space Administration
- National Association of Geoscience Teachers
- National Association of State Foresters
- National Center for Atmospheric Research
- National Council of Engineers Australia
- National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
- National Research Council
- National Science Foundation
- Natural England
- Natural Environment Research Council, UK
- Natural Science Collections Alliance
- Network of African Science Academies
- New York Academy of Sciences
- Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
- Nigerian Academy of Sciences
- Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
- Oklahoma Climatological Survey
- Organization of Biological Field Stations
- Pakistan Academy of Sciences
- Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
- Pew Center on Global Climate Change
- Polish Academy of Sciences
- Romanian Academy
- Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
- Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
- Royal Astronomical Society, UK
- Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
- Royal Irish Academy
- Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
- Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
- Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
- Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
- Royal Society of Canada
- Royal Society of Chemistry, UK
- Royal Society of the United Kingdom
- Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
- Russian Academy of Sciences
- Science and Technology, Australia
- Science Council of Japan
- Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
- Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
- Scripps Institution of Oceanography
- Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
- Slovak Academy of Sciences
- Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
- Society for Ecological Restoration International
- Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
- Society of American Foresters
- Society of Biology (UK)
- Society of Systematic Biologists
- Soil Science Society of America
- Sudan Academy of Sciences
- Sudanese National Academy of Science
- Tanzania Academy of Sciences
- The Wildlife Society (international)
- Turkish Academy of Sciences
- Uganda National Academy of Sciences
- Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
- United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
- University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
- Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
- Woods Hole Research Center
- World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
- World Federation of Public Health Associations
- World Forestry Congress
- World Health Organization
- World Meteorological Organization
- Zambia Academy of Sciences
- Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
OTHER RESOURCES
- J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”
J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
Quotation from page 3: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”
W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.
P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.
N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618. - And for a look at the contrarian view - WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMINg (NOV 2015)
- And a list of organizations which deny climate change and human impact
No comments:
Post a Comment
Feel free to challenge any content. Many posts have been revised following critical review.