From the “so what?” department and the American Association for the Advancement of Science via Eurekalert:
Thirty-one top scientific societies speak with one voice on global climate change
In a consensus letter to U.S. policymakers, a partnership of 31 leading nonpartisan scientific societies today reaffirmed the reality of human-caused climate change, noting that greenhouse gas emissions “must be substantially reduced” to minimize negative impacts on the global economy, natural resources, and human health.
“Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research concludes that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver,” the collaborative said in its 28 June letter to Members of Congress. “This conclusion is based on multiple independent lines of evidence and the vast body of peer-reviewed science.”
Climate-change impacts in the United States have already included increased threats of extreme weather events, sea-level rise, water scarcity, heat waves, wildfires, and disturbances to ecosystems and animals, the intersociety group reported. “The severity of climate change impacts is increasing and is expected to increase substantially in the coming decades,” the letter added. It cited the scientific consensus of the vast majority of individual climate scientists and virtually every leading scientific organization in the world, including the U.S. Global Change Research Program, the U.S. National Academies, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society, the American Statistical Association, the Ecological Society of America, and the Geological Society of America.
“To reduce the risk of the most severe impacts of climate change, greenhouse gas emissions must be substantially reduced,” the group said, adding that adaptation is also necessary to “address unavoidable consequences for human health and safety, food security, water availability, and national security, among others.”
The 28 June letter, representing a broad range of scientific disciplines, reaffirmed the key climate-change messages in a 2009 letter signed by 18 leading scientific organizations. The letter is being released again, by a larger consortium of 31 scientific organizations, to reassert the scientific consensus on climate change, and to provide objective, authoritative information to policymakers who must work toward solutions.
“Climate change is real and happening now, and the United States urgently needs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” said AAAS Chief Executive Officer Rush Holt, executive publisher of the Science family of journals. “We must not delay, ignore the evidence, or be fearful of the challenge. America has provided global leadership to successfully confront many environmental problems, from acid rain to the ozone hole, and we can do it again. We owe no less to future generations.”
The 28 June letter was signed by leaders of the following organizations:
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Meteorological Society
American Public Health Association
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists
American Society of Naturalists
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography
Association for Tropical Biology and Conservation
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
BioQUEST Curriculum Consortium
Botanical Society of America
Consortium for Ocean Leadership
Crop Science Society of America
Ecological Society of America
Entomological Society of America
Geological Society of America
National Association of Marine Laboratories
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society for Mathematical Biology
Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles
Society of Nematologists
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
Leaders of participating organizations offered the following comments:
“Climate change has far-reaching implications to everyone on our planet, as it is tied closely with national security, economics, human health, and food security. There is consensus in the scientific community – climate is changing. Now we need policymakers to act, to invest in research to understand the effects of climate change and opportunities to mitigate its drivers, and to adapt to its impacts.”
— RADM Jonathan W. White, USN (Ret.), president and CEO, Consortium for Ocean Leadership
“Climate change poses significant challenges to natural and managed ecosystems. Now is the time for scientists and policy-makers to work together to address the issue of climate change in order to protect agricultural productivity, global food security and environmental resources.”
— Harold van Es, president, Soil Science Society of America
“The environmental, social, and economic challenges posed by climate change are among the most important issues of our time. Comprehensive solutions grounded in understanding of ecological systems – our lands, waters, oceans, and atmosphere — and society are urgently needed. A sustainable future remains possible if we work together and act now.”
— Monica G. Turner, president, Ecological Society of America
“This letter, signed by a diverse set of scientific organizations, conveys the solid scientific consensus view that anthropogenic climate change is occurring. How climate change will manifest for specific geographic regions within the next decade and beyond is a topic of intense research. Statisticians are experts in making decisions when specifics aren’t clear and stand ready to work with decision-makers.”
— Jessica Utts, president, American Statistical Association
“Geological studies have demonstrated that climate has changed repeatedly in the past and that future climate change is inevitable. Understanding the complex processes involved in climate change is necessary for adaptation and mitigation.”
— Jonathan G. Price, Ph.D., CPG, President, Geological Society of America
“The reality of climate change is already upon us, and is affecting not only our lives but that of all life on earth. We must do all that we can to mitigate these effects using scientific knowledge and mobilizing society for action. It is the responsibility of our politicians to move us forward in these actions.”
–Dr. Robin L. Chazdon, executive director of the Association for Tropical Biology and Conservation,
“The phenomenon of human-mediated climate change is not a matter of opinion, but of careful evaluation of data from a vast spectrum of scientific disciplines. What remains unclear is the degree to which climate change will cause environmental, social, and economic havoc. Estimates range from severe to catastrophic. We owe it to our children and to our children’s children to take bold action now so that our descendants do not pay the price for our generation’s greed.”
— Anne D. Yoder, president, Society of Systematic Biologists
“Climate change is one of the most profound challenges facing our society. Consensus on this matter is evident in the diversity of organizations that have signed this letter. Science can be a powerful tool in our efforts to mitigate and adapt to the impacts of climate change, and we stand ready to work with policymakers as they deliberate various options for action.”
— Christine McEntee, executive director/CEO of the American Geophysical Union
“Climate influences where plants and animals live. Rapid climate change will force species to find new habitat in hospitable conditions, but many species will not be able to and will go extinct. This isn’t good. It disrupts our ecosystems, which are the source for our food, and clean air and water.”
— Robert Gropp, Ph.D., interim co-executive director, American Institute of Biological Sciences
A PDF of the consensus letter is available at http://www.eurekalert.org/images/2016climateletter6-28-16.pdf
###
Notably absent is the American Physical Society, who had a real internal fight on their hands a few years ago thanks to Hal Lewis.
I wonder if their views changed thanks to the courage of Hal Lewis and others working behind the scenes?
It is instructive to remember what Einstein said about consensus science. When Einstein was told of the publication of a book entitled, ‘100 Authors Against Einstein’,
He replied:
“Why one hundred? If I were wrong, one would have been enough.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
..The only “consensus” that matters is the majority of Americans are not interested in paying for a liberal fantasy tax !
Well none of the “professional” societies that I belong to have apparently signed that 97% consensusgram .
So they didn’t ask me my opinion either.
But the ones I belong to are involved in real things, not computer simulators.
G
I note with some relief that apparently no engineering societies were swindled, er, I mean conned, no wait, frog-marched ahhh, what the heck. No engineering societies signed up. Pesky professional ethics, I suppose.
D. J. Hawkins July 19, 2016 at 10:36 am
Engineers tend to operate based on what is, not what things might look like if you tilt your head just right and squint real hard.
@BrianK
As a licensed P.E. that relief is a rather personal thing. Although the American Institute of Chemical Engineers has been huffing a lot lately about “sustainability” and “carbon capture”. I’m hoping it’s just the usual tendency to follow fashion and not evidence of pervasive rot.
I’m disappointed that the Geological Society signed the document but when you look at their quotation above:
“Geological studies have demonstrated that climate has changed repeatedly in the past and that future climate change is inevitable. Understanding the complex processes involved in climate change is necessary for adaptation and mitigation.” – nothing there that most here don’t agree with. Academic peer pressure is strong-arming some societies that should know better than to sign this political statement.
D. J. Hawkins July 19, 2016 at 10:36 am
Personally, I’m a mechanical engineer working primarily in facility design. I spend a great deal of effort ensuring my work meets a high standard for energy efficiency because it’s the right thing to do. I deal with a lot of owners and Architects who know the buzz words but not much else.
I was member only of one professional organisation, the IEE. It was set up in 1870 (just over 100 years later my name appeared in its back pages) until it was merged into something else about 10 years ago.
Regretably, here in the UK the Institution of Chemical Engineers is a ready apologist for climate change hysteria. The CEO, Director of communications and successive editors of the house magazine have all peddled nonsense on the subject. The house mag even devoted two pages to an interview with Lord Oxburgh last month.
Regretably here in the UK the Institution of Chemical Engineers is only too keen to be an apologist for climate chage hysteria. The Chief Exec, Director of communications and successive editors of the house journal have all peddled nonsense on the issue. Last month’s house journal devoted two pages to a fawning interfiew with Lord Oxburgh.
@Brian K — of course when you are designing something today, you would make the effort to ensure energy efficiency. That is common sense. However, would you support someone coming back in two years and telling your customers to tear out your designs and replace it with new technologies which will save 5% of the energy costs?
This is where the rubber meets the road. What are the expectations to meet these vague objectives? If we want everyone to buy a new car, would we be willing to charge $50 per gallon in gas prices to force the question? If we do that, what will happen to all of the installed capacity to make automobile engines?
To my knowledge, nobody is arguing for the right to exploit the environment without regard for sustainability. The questions are more along the lines of how much is a reasonable cost to force behavior change? From 1998 to 2007, gas prices rose by a factor of 3 without any significant changes in CO2 emissions (at least not until the recession.)
How do people generally get to be heads of scientific societies? Because they:
(A) have made a lot of very significant contributions to their field (based on their own recent work rather than primarily getting their names attached to the work of others lately)?
(B) by being good at the politics within their organization?
Note that just counting the opinions of leaders of societies deflects attention away from the range of opinions of the members, thus giving an appearance of a unanimity that really may not be there. Also note that no one mentions the context of the number of scientific societies that were contacted but declined to endorse this, or were not contacted at all because they wouldn’t be expected to go along.
Does anyone think these societies would provide membership lists to independent polling organizations to enable surveys of their members, to get a more realistic picture of the so-called consensus?
GES
None of my Institutes, etc., are represented.
Which is kinda cool!
Auto
@ur momisugly Brian K You have to tilt your head to just right to the left.
Life, before I retired, was so much better because of simulators. At microwave frequencies, you are very limited in what you can measure. Every piece of copper matters. With design software you can see everything about a circuit. It can save you literally hundreds of hours of engineering time.
As far as I can tell, the mechanical and civil engineers get similar benefits from their analysis software.
People get to trust their design software and that makes them trust all simulations. There’s a huge difference between spice and a gcm.
At some point, scientists and engineers should have to write a simulation from scratch. They might then understand why one would trust spice and distrust a gcm.
Many have tried, most have failed. Einstein was an unparalleled genius who recognized the nature of the logical domains including the proper limits of the scientific domain.
So all those people will stop driving cars and heating their homes and stop using electricity? Did not think so.
Doesn’t buying a home near the sea so they can keep an eye out for rising sea levels mean anything to you doubting thomases?
I like the Einstein quote and would extend it to their Consensus
Why 31 scientific societies, If skeptics were wrong, one would have been enough
Most of them are also members of the Society for the Prevention of Indigent “Scientists.”
SPIS. In other words, bring more grant money.
G
I used to belong to AAAS, primarily so I could read SCIENCE. I excommunicated from them when they got too political.
Keep feeding the food-chain!
This is where the problem lies, as I see it. When members leave due to such reasons, the leaders of these societies can then say “more and more of our membership agree with our position”. Those who disagree should fight from within. I realize it’s extremely difficult, and can lead to professional suicide, but if you don’t stand up for your principles…
Einstein is reputed to have said, ‘If the Theory of Relativity is correct, the Germans will say I am German, and the French will call me a citizen of the world. If it is not correct, the French will say I am German, and the Germans will call me a Jew.’
And other questions that beg asking.
Of those 31 scientific Societies mentioned, how many garner significant government grants to produce Climate Change Literature?
How much of their respective annual budgets depend on those grants?
Or more importantly, how many of them actually put all the evidence for and against the proposition on the table before the gathered body and put it to a vote amongst the general membership. Of course the answer is: not a single one. What we have here is the “long march through the institutions” played out in the scientific community. In that process you only have to capture the leadership positions in key institutions to create a false reality that enables the “progress” found in progressive politics. The leadership drafts political statements that are immediately imbued with the full weight of the reputation of the institution even though they were drafted and approved by a very small inner circle of activists and never even seen by the rank and file members.
It is hard to fix this sort of shenanigans because the crony capitalist nature of scientific funding. It doesn’t matter if you are 100% correct on all facts and data, if your ideas go against the political beliefs of the grantors, you will get no backing. It wouldn’t work to form new scientific societies because working scientists are too busy doing real research to run such an organization so leadership would again wind up in the hands of the activists and the new organization would fall to the same corruption. Because they only care about feeding their political masters, the activists will invariably lead science down blind alleys. Modern Lysenkoism is inevitable result of such leadership.
“What we have here is the ‘long march through the institutions’ played out in the scientific community.”
Exactly.
provoter
+ quite a few.
Auto
See the interesting article and comments about scientific societies at http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/28804/title/To-Join-or-Not-to-Join/
Here are some “money quotes”:
“More recently, the larger societies have expanded their roles to include lobbying for increases in research funding and providing career advice.”
“Scientific societies generally cater to the status quo, not to the new and emerging elements of a field.”
“climate change is real”
of course climate change is real, it did always change, will always change and doesn’t need humans for that.
you shouldn’t need a PhD to know this simple scientific truth….
That is basically the rationale that conned these mental midgets into signing-on to this rentseeking statement.
As a retired US military office, I am embarrassed and saddened by that statement from Admiral White.
officer
Maybe that Admiral never went to sea. I went to sea for a solid month once upon a time.
Yes climate changed substantially during that trip. Weather did too.
g
Perhaps he DID go to sea “In a Beautiful Pea Green Boat”
Gimme a break.
The climate is always changing, always has, always will.
Follow the money.
[ex-] Admiral White is right on the money……There is consensus in the scientific community – climate is changing. It always has and it always will…..whether it’s over 30 years or 3000 years. Nothing in the quote is controversial apart from its location……..attached to the AAAS statement.
The statement from the Geological Society of America [or its president anyway] is also a statement of the obvious as are the comments shown from several other “learned” societies.
It seem that these societies are wanting to have their cake and eat it.
What they are doing is straddling the fence [a frequently painful position] by stating their dispassionate positions while attempting to pacify AGW zealots inside and outside their membership by seeming to endorse the AAAS statement.
We know where appeasement leads.
“What remains unclear is the degree to which climate change will cause environmental, social, and economic havoc. Estimates range from severe to catastrophic.”
Absolutely correct. We will find out when we inevitably slide into another little ice age.
Here is why:
During the last LIA global population was estimated at 700 million.
Current global population is about 7 billion, i.e. 10 fold increase.
Today the Society for Blind Panic announced that they had spotted a rain cloud. “We don’t know how bad it will be, but our estimates range from ‘Financial Ruin’ to ‘Biblical Flood’.
Chicken Little’s got nothing on these clowns.
“This conclusion is based on multiple independent lines of evidence and the vast body of peer-reviewed science.”
Good. Show us one of the ‘multiple independent lines of evidence ‘ that is not a model.
I’d settle for model that hind cast accurately without adjusting data to fit or changing algorythym mid-calculation based. Maybe settle is the wrong word, but I would at least give it more serious consideration.
should have said “…based on fit.”
I’m having a fit. Is that close enough?
algorithm?
They are without shame, and are nothing but climate whores, plugging the Climate Industry of which they are a part, and which benefits them.
This is really amazing and disappointing to see. The science clearly doesn’t prove what the signatories claim it does. Even the IPCC has largely agreed there is no strong evidence, though they hide this admission in places few politicians or lay people will look. Yet leaders of all these societies are willing to sign on. Science is one thing and only one thing, politics is another and diverse, and this all looks like politics to me. There is only one truth and real science strives to sift that from all that is not true. In time the truth always floats to the surface while the lies and mistakes, having tread water as long as they are able, will sink to oblivion along with the reputations of those who were not willing to stay on the side of science.
NO amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” – Albert Einstein quotes .
And many experiments have already done so for The CO2 Driven Climate Change hypothesis. The problem is, when the results come in against the hypothesis, they adjust the data to match expectations. They still have not shown that today’s warming is significantly different than that going from the dark ages to the medieval warm period. Obviously we have not warmed to the level of the Roman warm period, because the Alpine mines are still buried under thick glaciers. Until they can show that the causes of this warm period are different than the causes of the previous climate optimums coming out of their local minima, the issue is not proved!
It’s not about which theories are correct, it hinges on the authority and press attention given to the theorists. That is completely political in its nature and is more accurately labeled propaganda.
For those organisations above that obtain some government money, is this a RICO style conspiracy to gain more funding?
We can be sure that any dissension in the ranks was squashed by the powers that be.
“A handful of might beats a bag full of right”
“…nonpartisan scientific societies…” It is to laugh.
“…rigorous scientific research concludes that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver,” the collaborative said…” Proof positive of a global epidemic of incompetence.
Leaders of scientific societies, they’ve no idea how to think as scientists. How hard is it to realize that a model cannot resolve an effect that’s more than 100x smaller than its lower limit of error?
One day, I hope to see them resign in shame.
One of those nonpartisan scientific societies listed, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, is associated with Thomas Wigley. Wigley was one of the characters involved in the Climategate emails with Phil Jones of UN land surface climate record fame.
Didn’t many of these societies say the same about eugenics?
It would be interesting to know how many, if any, meaningfully polled their membership before signing on. Or how many even informed their membership they were signing on….
Poll the membership? Don’t make me laugh.
That’s so 19th century.
Exactly. I hope the membership has something to say about the matter. They should either kick down their appointed leader’s door or vote with their feet. These societies are nothing without their membership.
A highly adjusted statistical interpolation of temperature data is not an observation, so what else do they have?
from the article: ““Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research concludes that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver,””
Ha! There is no way that statement could be known to be true by these people. That’s pure speculation presented as facts. That’s the state of science today.
You think scientists can’t be brainwashed? Think again. They are not basing their opinions on fact. These guys see Hockey Sticks in their nightmares.
No, these guys and gals see declining public (tax-payer) funding in the near future from a cash-strapped US government. A government that has spent itself into a very deep hole (currently $19.3 Trillion), that is getting deeper, faster, and faster. Discretionary spending in the US government budget is being eaten up by non-discretionary spending that the Left refuses to reform and rein in.
In an honest world, that would means looming cuts to discretionary spending. But with visions of carbon taxes dancing in politicians heads as a new revenue stream to keep the party going a bit longer, they’ll use any means necessary to lie to the American public. And all of these above-named Societies get funding either directly or indirectly from the US government.
Asshats
I belong to at least one of those societies. I am a skeptic. That is to say I don’t believe the evidence shows that any large amount of human activity is causing the planet to warm. I do believe we are polluting but I also believe empirically we are doing better than when I was in my childhood – any increase is simply a result of more people, not worse practices (at least in the developed world). I also believe that geological factors dwarf any influence humans may have.
There are two main problems with the assertions by any of these societies.
First, they are taking a consensus view of what is essentially a consensus science that violates all sorts of scientific principles. Simply consider the main temperature records that are used to draw the conclusion we are warming the earth – coverage is spotty at best, UHIE is discounted out of hand but most importantly NASA has actually gone and changed data. I would challenge any member of any of these societies with a simple question: would you allow your student to change their data if it didn’t fit their null hypothesis? The answer bloody well better be a resounding “NO”. You can transform your data; you can manipulate your data but you absolutely cannot change your data. NASA has. Any validity is out the window. I suspect however most members of these societies are completely unaware that data has been changed. That is also problematic.
Second, social pressure in the form of political correctness and aligning with the perceived consensus that climate change is human driven is the main group-think of the society I belong to. You cannot actually have a rational discussion on it and that is tragic. All they point at is “the literature” which is peer-reviewed apparently making it beyond reproach. That is not only wrong but a failure as a scientist. Worse if you go and look at much of the early climate related literature in my field (entomology) you will see that very many of the claims of a “reference” proving climate change is real and happening will find the only reference that actually indicates that is happening is the IPCC report. Which is not a peer reviewed document. Subsequent works will reference the works that referenced the original IPCC document and the cycle simply continues. Few, if any of the works citing climate change actually cover any duration in which they could actually examine what could be called climate, they’re merely observing weather over a two-three year period.
Climate change is as close to a guaranteed funding source as you can have at this time in the scientific community, certainly in entomology. I have yet to submit a grant proposal with it as the thrust, major or minor, in any of my work. But what has happened is that “climate change” has become the de facto replacement for Occam’s razor. Occam has died, or at least the principle in addition to the man, and what has replaced it is “climate change”. Something happened, a population shifted? Climate change. No real thought and sadly no real examination of contributing factors that could include changes in cropping patterns, shipping route changes/alterations, etc. Nope, any change in a population, any expansion in range is immediately and unquestioningly attributed to climate change. My current work is looking at the north-south distribution of a pest that is becoming more abundant. Everyone I speak to about the work is suggesting it’s climate change driving it. That’s a nice suggestion but a little early since we don’t actually have the full data yet to even remotely suggest that (meaning we won’t even know if it’s at the northern sample sites for a while yet). There is a near utter lack of baseline data and what exists really only looked at larger, urban locations some 30 odd years ago. But nope, if we find them anywhere else everyone is raring to say it’s climate change.
There are rare exceptions. The recent issue of the Canadian Entomologist has a paper on the ant fauna of Churchill, Manitoba. In 1969 a scientist did an excellent job of documenting the local fauna in the area. In 2009 (well, prior actually) funding was obtained to re-examine the ant fauna of Churchill, forty years later. The premise: the fauna would change because Churchill is at the southern end of the Arctic and tremendous climatic changes have occurred. Thankfully the authors had some degree of integrity (I’d suggest it is very high) because they were both honest and frank in their conclusions which reflected the data and also didn’t beg for more funding – the ant fauna of Churchill had not changed. It hadn’t changed because there is no substantive reason for it to change. Churchill is isolated for the most part, accessible only by rail, ship or air. The possibilities of new fauna establishing are limited and the climate isn’t really any more hospitable than it was 40+ years ago, no matter what the altered GISS data will try to sell you on.
The consensus is derived from the old approach that if you repeat something often enough it’s true. Couple that with a near guarantee of funding if you agree with the truism and of course everyone agrees. You’d have to be an idiot to disagree. Or have integrity and courage enough to challenge the consensus. Sadly that’s become a rare commodity as it is far easier and far more profitable to agree.
Or like the late Dr Bill Gray, of hurricane forecasting fame in the US, get your funding cut-off.
“Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research concludes that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver,”
I’d really like them to show me these observations, and point me towards this rigorous research that they speak of.
As a side issue if you strip away the societies with no skill set in understanding climate there aren’t many Left!
“Geological studies have demonstrated that climate has changed repeatedly in the past and that future climate change is inevitable. Understanding the complex processes involved in climate change is necessary for adaptation and mitigation.”
— Jonathan G. Price, Ph.D., CPG, President, Geological Society of America
I’ve read that of all the scientific disciplines, geologists are the ones most likely to question the oft stated consensus of the human aspect of climate change. As a geologist for the past 40 years, I’ve concluded that nothing with current climate conditions that could in any way be construed as unprescendented, and see nothing in Dr. Price’s statement that cites human causes as the drivers of current climate changes.
Indeed! As I was reading through the list of alarmist prattle and came to Dr.Price’s words, the sudden shift to reason was jarring. It makes one wonder why he even signed on to this political stunt. Was he attempting to inject some sanity, or is he so blinded by the Faith that he can’t see the glaring inconsistency between what is known in Geology and what is preached by the Climate Faithful.
I agree. Price’s statement was the only one that seems reasoned and supportable. Why he signed onto the larger statement is confusing based on his own statement.
Dr. Price’s statement stood out to me also. (I too am a geologist, and if I did belong to a “society” the GSA would most likely be it) while reading the article, my thought was basically—yep the climate is changing, and there isn’t a time in the last 4.5 billion years it hasn’t–often changing radically. So what>>>
I thought John Cook assured us that only self described climatologists who currently publish peer reviewed articles on climate change have opinions that are worth a damn. This list includes entomologists, nematologists, limnologists, and that most unreliable, never to be believed group know as….(shudder)…Meteorologists!