Attempt by AAAS at climate consensus underscores the fact the 'science is not a democracy'

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


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.”

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
July 19, 2016 10:14 am

..The only “consensus” that matters is the majority of Americans are not interested in paying for a liberal fantasy tax !

george e. smith
Reply to  Marcus
July 19, 2016 10:26 am

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.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  george e. smith
July 19, 2016 10:36 am

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.

Reply to  george e. smith
July 19, 2016 10:48 am

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.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  george e. smith
July 19, 2016 10:59 am

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.

Randy Karst
Reply to  george e. smith
July 19, 2016 11:07 am

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.

Reply to  george e. smith
July 19, 2016 11:22 am

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.

Reply to  george e. smith
July 19, 2016 11:44 am

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.

Reply to  george e. smith
July 19, 2016 12:12 pm

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.

Reply to  george e. smith
July 19, 2016 12:17 pm

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.

Reply to  george e. smith
July 19, 2016 12:32 pm

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.)

Reply to  george e. smith
July 19, 2016 1:11 pm

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?

Reply to  george e. smith
July 19, 2016 1:53 pm

None of my Institutes, etc., are represented.
Which is kinda cool!

Reply to  george e. smith
July 19, 2016 2:18 pm

@ Brian K You have to tilt your head to just right to the left.

Reply to  george e. smith
July 19, 2016 6:34 pm

But the ones I belong to are involved in real things, not computer simulators.

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.

July 19, 2016 10:14 am

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.

John Boles
July 19, 2016 10:14 am

So all those people will stop driving cars and heating their homes and stop using electricity? Did not think so.

Reply to  John Boles
July 19, 2016 10:23 am

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?

Bryan A
July 19, 2016 10:18 am

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

george e. smith
Reply to  Bryan A
July 19, 2016 10:30 am

Most of them are also members of the Society for the Prevention of Indigent “Scientists.”
SPIS. In other words, bring more grant money.
I used to belong to AAAS, primarily so I could read SCIENCE. I excommunicated from them when they got too political.

Reply to  george e. smith
July 19, 2016 11:41 am

Keep feeding the food-chain!

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  george e. smith
July 20, 2016 10:08 am

I used to belong to AAAS, primarily so I could read SCIENCE. I excommunicated from them when they got too political.

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…

Pat Frank
Reply to  Bryan A
July 19, 2016 3:43 pm

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.’

Bryan A
July 19, 2016 10:22 am

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?

Owen in GA
Reply to  Bryan A
July 19, 2016 12:50 pm

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.

Reply to  Owen in GA
July 19, 2016 1:38 pm

“What we have here is the ‘long march through the institutions’ played out in the scientific community.”

Reply to  Owen in GA
July 19, 2016 1:56 pm

+ quite a few.

Reply to  Owen in GA
July 19, 2016 1:57 pm

See the interesting article and comments about scientific societies at
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.”

Frederik Michiels
July 19, 2016 10:22 am

“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….

Joel O’Bryan
July 19, 2016 10:24 am

“There is consensus in the scientific community – climate is changing.”
– from Admiral White’s statement above

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.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
July 19, 2016 10:26 am


george e. smith
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
July 19, 2016 10:33 am

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.

Bryan A
Reply to  george e. smith
July 19, 2016 12:38 pm

Perhaps he DID go to sea “In a Beautiful Pea Green Boat”

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
July 19, 2016 10:47 am

Gimme a break.
The climate is always changing, always has, always will.
Follow the money.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
July 19, 2016 5:41 pm

[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.

July 19, 2016 10:25 am

“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.

Reply to  vukcevic
July 19, 2016 12:40 pm

Estimates range from severe to catastrophic.

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.

Henry Galt
July 19, 2016 10:25 am

“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.

Reply to  Henry Galt
July 19, 2016 10:53 am

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.

Reply to  BrianK
July 19, 2016 11:03 am

should have said “…based on fit.”

Reply to  BrianK
July 19, 2016 11:23 am

I’m having a fit. Is that close enough?

Brian H
Reply to  BrianK
July 19, 2016 1:32 pm


Bruce Cobb
July 19, 2016 10:26 am

They are without shame, and are nothing but climate whores, plugging the Climate Industry of which they are a part, and which benefits them.

July 19, 2016 10:26 am

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.

July 19, 2016 10:26 am

NO amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” – Albert Einstein quotes .

Owen in GA
Reply to  Russell
July 19, 2016 1:01 pm

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!

Pop Piasa
July 19, 2016 10:27 am

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.

July 19, 2016 10:30 am

For those organisations above that obtain some government money, is this a RICO style conspiracy to gain more funding?

July 19, 2016 10:30 am

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”

Pat Frank
July 19, 2016 10:36 am

…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.

Tom Judd
Reply to  Pat Frank
July 19, 2016 1:08 pm

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.

July 19, 2016 10:38 am

Didn’t many of these societies say the same about eugenics?

Paul Coppin
July 19, 2016 10:40 am

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….

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Paul Coppin
July 19, 2016 10:58 am

Poll the membership? Don’t make me laugh.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
July 19, 2016 11:25 am

That’s so 19th century.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
July 19, 2016 2:42 pm

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.

July 19, 2016 10:41 am

A highly adjusted statistical interpolation of temperature data is not an observation, so what else do they have?

July 19, 2016 10:47 am

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.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  TA
July 19, 2016 12:26 pm

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.

July 19, 2016 10:47 am


July 19, 2016 10:49 am

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.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  buggs
July 19, 2016 12:36 pm

Or like the late Dr Bill Gray, of hurricane forecasting fame in the US, get your funding cut-off.

July 19, 2016 10:51 am

“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!

July 19, 2016 10:52 am

“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.

Reply to  Kamikazedave
July 19, 2016 12:15 pm

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.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Kamikazedave
July 19, 2016 12:40 pm

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.

Reply to  Kamikazedave
July 19, 2016 1:45 pm

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>>>

Hoyt Clagwell
July 19, 2016 10:59 am

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!

Mark - Helsinki
July 19, 2016 10:59 am

Science the institution is fked, completely and utterly fked, backwards and ignorant. That letter was gibberish and lies

Rick Johnson
July 19, 2016 10:59 am

The Science is good. The vast conspiracy theories are a huge stretch and represent way too much credit for cohesive organizational behavior.
Ignoring the science and doing nothing might be a long term catastrophic mistake.
Doing something has very little downside.

Paul Coppin
Reply to  Rick Johnson
July 19, 2016 11:35 am

The science is not good, and doing the wrong thing can have a very great downside. The precautionary principle only has merit when you actually know what the mechanisms are and what the actual outcome will be.

Reply to  Paul Coppin
July 19, 2016 1:07 pm

Common sense tells me there are no Orbital Mind Control Lasers. The precautionary principle say we must wrap or heads in aluminum foil, just to be sure. Besides, it has very little downside.

Reply to  Paul Coppin
July 19, 2016 2:06 pm

Paul, I would say that some of the science being done is very good–but since it does not fit the CAGW/Climate change agenda, it is totally ignored by those who have put themselves in charge. Much good work finds it’s way to these pages.
I do agree that doing something-anything–as those within the imaginary “consensus” would have us do,, without knowing what it is one is doing can have terrible consequences mostly of the unintended kind.

Reply to  Rick Johnson
July 19, 2016 12:22 pm

The science is marginal and the conspiracy lies in the groupthink result of peer review and intellectual incest. Yielding to the dishonesty of the process is of itself a huge downside.

Tom Judd
Reply to  Rick Johnson
July 19, 2016 12:22 pm

You don’t see any downside? No foreclosed homes? No shuttered businesses or vacant offices? The drop in life expectancy for white males? – a drop that some are claiming is as severe as the AIDS epidemic was to the gay community. You don’t see the drop in the labor participation rate, the increase in food stamp recipients, the increase in Social Security Disability claims? All the foregoing are the results of the non-recovery from the 2009 recession – 1-2% GDP growth rates. You don’t think that paltry economic growth has anything to do with regulatory policy? And, remember, the CAGW proponents are not just calling for perpetual 0% growth; they want it all culled back.

Reply to  Rick Johnson
July 19, 2016 1:17 pm

The science is marginal. The conspiracy resides in the groupthink.

Reply to  Rick Johnson
July 19, 2016 5:32 pm

Here’s an example of the cost of “doing something”. In 2015, $350 billion was spent on so-called clean or renewable energy. The result? The percentage of the world’s energy needs met by wind, solar and biomass went from 2.4% to 2.6%. In other words, it cost $350 billion to reduce the energy provided by fossil fuels and nuclear by 0.2 percent. You can’t get around the physics. The energy density of renewables is millions of times lower than that of fossil fuels and is on another planet when compared to nuclear. Sorry, but those are the facts, and all the concensus in the world can’t change them.

July 19, 2016 11:00 am

I quit from the norwegian workers union for MSc engineers when I noticed that they had a pure UN concensus climate policy and are pro the meaningless CO2 adding wind mills. And with a climate scientist alarmist as the professional group leader. At least I save the membership money. I will spend them on petrol.

Frank Van Nostrand
July 19, 2016 11:04 am

Did it really take all of these “prestigious” organizations to come together to realize that climate actually changes? That’s something most people who are not part of these groups have always known and also know that the planet has been changing its climate for billions of years with or without us and our emissions.

Paul Benedict
July 19, 2016 11:09 am

I belong to three of the organizations listed. Not one of them requested any input from me. Unfortunately, political correctness seems to be replacing science as the controlling factor in research. And, its not just climate science.

July 19, 2016 11:13 am

The bizarre self-deception of the true believers, in conflating the reality of “climate change” with the policies that the consensus demands is always entertaining.

Larry Hamlin
July 19, 2016 11:14 am

These claims are the same scientifically unsupported recycled alarmist garbage that has been foisted upon the public for the last three decades by the climate alarmism political movement. So what indeed.

July 19, 2016 11:17 am

2 out of the 31 do bona fide “climate” science, another half dozen or so do what might be considered related “earth” science. The rest have about as much to do with and knowledge of “climate” science as an after school astronomy club. Just a bunch of me-too clowns hopping on the political, send-us-some-grant-money-too, bandwagon.

July 19, 2016 11:21 am

These societies are primarily political organizations run by politicians.
Real scientists don’t have the time.

Ignatz Ratzkywatzky
July 19, 2016 11:28 am

Pleased to see that the APS: American Physical Society
is not a signatory to this nonsense.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Ignatz Ratzkywatzky
July 19, 2016 12:23 pm

Both the APS and the AIP are seriously on the AGW bandwagon. They preceded the ACS there.

July 19, 2016 11:30 am

But Einstein didn’t comment on consensus science, as only three authors were scientists, one physicist and two mathematicians. Read the Wiki on this document.

Reply to  Matt
July 19, 2016 12:28 pm

The quote from Einstein is comment enough. No matter how many scientists agree, it only takes one to prove them all wrong. Science is the discovery of the natural laws of physics. Such laws couldn’t care less what a consensus of scientists believes.

Reply to  Louis
July 19, 2016 9:06 pm

Nonsense. Science is not limited to physics – physics is limited to the laws of physics. And the laws of physics are not “natural” – we make them up, and they are not right or true – they are approximations, e.g. Newton is not “correct”, he is useful, or else we wouldn’t need Einstein, etc… Also, while one scientist is enough to prove something wrong, it is unlikely to find that champion among a bunch of unscientific fruitcakes releasing a protest document…

Richard M
July 19, 2016 11:31 am

It would really interesting to have each organization list the top 3 “facts” that convinced them to support this paper. I bet the answers would be hilarious and every one of the folks involved would look like an idiot. Of course, we will never get such a list since the real reason is likely 100% political.

Clyde Spencer
July 19, 2016 11:34 am

““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”
Not exactly what I would call a resounding, unequivocal endorsement of the claim of CAGW.

July 19, 2016 11:58 am

This is no consensus! There are 110 scientific societies in America (wikipedia) so this is a 28% consensus, which is no consensus at all.
“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,”
They don’t point to any specific evidence. That’s not scientific. Then they compound the error with this silly catch phrase;
“This conclusion is based on multiple independent lines of evidence and the vast body of peer-reviewed science.”
“Multiple lines” and “a vast body” of evidence are weasel words. They are used because the speaker cannot point to one credible study or reference that gives compelling evidence that the climate is changing in alarming ways or that that human activity is the primary driver.
Alarming climate change is a simple claim that should be easy to back up. Claiming “multiple lines” and and “a vast body” of evidence is just a trick used to distract people from the fact that there is no credible evidence that climate change over the next one hundred years will be different from climate change over the past one hundred years, which was very mild and mostly beneficial.

Reply to  Thomas
July 19, 2016 12:09 pm

The Gov., Tell us what we believe or you can kiss your funding good bye.

Henning Bongers
July 19, 2016 12:06 pm

“…nonpartisan scientific societies…”
Oh yeah, sure – and Lassy is a kitty!

July 19, 2016 12:11 pm

The first six months of 2016 were the warmest six-month period in NASA’s modern temperature record, which dates to 1880. Credit: NASA/Goddard Institute for Space Studies

July 19, 2016 12:11 pm

It’s so sad, because the answer is easily available to any idiot to figure it out, I figured it out, and I’m an idiot.
Night time cooling when temperatures are well above the dew point are constrained by ghg’s (excluding water), and can easily be multiple degrees per hour, it starts at sunset, where temps drop 10-15 degrees in a handful of hours. This is the cooling of deserts, and why they cool so much, this is what CO2 alters, it slows it down some amount.
The other part of deserts is the energy stored in the atm, as well as all of that sand that has to cool. The entropy average in the SW Deserts is about 30kJ/kg and it drops some 15 or 16kJ/kg at night, compared to the tropics, which has a entropy at max temp near 80kJ/kg, but only drops about 8kJ/kg.
So, while temps are well above dew point ghg’s effect cooling, but later, once all the easy energy is bled off to space, you start getting close to dew point, and to cool you have to start to condense water vapor to cool any further, the closer to dew point, the harder it is, so while at sunset temps drop like a rock, early morning the cooling rate slows as more and more water has to condense.
Now, here’s the point. Even on the shortest of days, there’s rapid cooling through any co2 effect until it hits the same near dew point temp where water vapor takes over control of cooling rates. In circuit design, this is feedback regulation that controls the nightly cooling rate.
And then when you look at cooling rates on both the 24 hour and the 12 month scales, there is only a slight change in rate that can be explained by the significant change in the sensitivity of solar at the end of the 97 El Nino, but only from stations in 20-30N lat, likely a change in ocean surface temps that changed the surface weather downwind, which is detected in surface station data, this is the “global” warming after the large el nino that is averaged into the GMST as a increase, even though it’s actual a regional effect that happens slightly skewed from North America to Eurasia.
This could be new heat, or it could be heat that prior to the el nino, where downwind was over oceans, where it all cooled there.
This is why they have to torture the data to get something that looks a lot like they just carved away all the temperature except what theory claims should be there. Ever play that game where you pick a number, and somebody gives you a bunch or adds and multiples, or divides, and magically you get your starting number. With modeling, and stuff like this, it’s easy to get here, where your code gives you the answer you expect, and you believe it.
Sometimes you’re right.

July 19, 2016 12:16 pm

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.

Can these scientific societies produce any scientific evidence for the above claims? Other than an imagined consensus, which has nothing to do with science, where is the evidence for the things they are claiming? Even the IPCC couldn’t find evidence for an increase in extreme weather events. I’m sure they would have included it in their last report if any of these so-called scientific groups had produced such evidence. If they have it, why did they hide it from the IPCC? If they don’t have it, why are these “scientific” societies making claims that are based on politics rather than on science?
Future societies will look back at these claims and marvel at how primitive our science was. They’ll wonder why we were so superstitious to believe that a molecule like CO2 could be so powerful and God-like that it could do anything it wanted, that it alone could cause hot or cold, drought or floods, extreme weather or a record lack of hurricane landfalls. They will be utterly flummoxed by the idea that our scientists could believe that CO2-caused warming could go on vacation for years at a time and choose to hide in the deep oceans until deciding at some future date to suddenly spring out of its hiding place like a boogeyman to wreck havoc on the planet. Those of us still alive will also wonder how our society could have been so stupid as to let politicians scare us with these boogeyman stories and fool us into giving them more money and control over our lives.

Reply to  Louis
July 19, 2016 12:28 pm

You just need to parse the sentence…

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.

“Climate-change impacts” (NOAA/NASA pronouncements) have clearly “included increased threats” of all manner of catastrophic events. The *threats* have been increasing, geometrically… //SARC

Reply to  David Middleton
July 19, 2016 12:46 pm

True, the “threats” really have been increasing geometrically. But still, there’s no one who can claim scientifically that these threats flow from actual “climate-change impacts” in the United States or anywhere else. They flow only from the mouths of alarmists. NOAA/NASA pronouncements are not actual impacts from climate change. They are merely propaganda aimed at alarming the public about possible future impacts. If there are current impacts that represent real threats to Americans (rather than just a bunch of speculation on future threats), I’d sure like to know about them. What are these threats, and where are they currently happening?

Reply to  David Middleton
July 20, 2016 7:16 am

Here in Florida, we worry that CAGW will cause destructive hurricanes to start destroying our homes, again.(doh????????????)
Have the members of these social societies said why there have been no major hurricanes for the last 10 years while CO2 went through the roof?

Reply to  Louis
July 19, 2016 12:38 pm

I don’t think it primitiveness per se; it is as Tim Ball has argued, a process of corruption. But the interesting question is, corruption of what exactly? Because much of the science outside the social sciences (and this includes climatology as indicated by many interesting scientific posts on WUWT) is still OK – although, there are also studies that do reflect the problem. On the other hand, as this remarkable “consensus” statement shows, there is certainly corruption at the level of organizational representation, and here it’s obviously quite widespread. Perhaps what this shows in the end is that, outside of a full-fledged totalitarian order it’s not easy to maintain a genuine reality warp, although as this letter shows it is not for lack of trying.

Reply to  Louis
July 19, 2016 1:14 pm

“Future societies will look back at these claims and marvel at how primitive our science was.”
What they should really marvel at is the psychology of self-delusion that is going on. It looks a little like mass hysteria.

Reply to  TA
July 23, 2016 5:21 am

Amen! Man, I was trying to come up with a bunch of abnormal psychologies creating or defining “self-delusion” but realized it would take someone’s whole Book to do it. However, some that may have been missed are: having almost-naked Control as Self, which others would see as a very extreme “delusion” or case of OCD; a person’s need to be controlled, even as much as totally controlled – especially in the face of being confronted by life, living, and death; and the problem of people being deluded by their own words or those of others trying to delude them. Then there’s always Kruger-Dunning Syndrome, the part involving being too dumb to know you’re stupid. I have to school my own bad self to try to avoid all of those and all of the rest.

July 19, 2016 12:23 pm

The SkepSciBots would call this an endorsement of the so-called consensus…

“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

July 19, 2016 12:26 pm

Another day. Another lecture about AGW. More demands for reductions, abatements, changes. Never do we see any of the claimants making any personal or corporate sacrifices. Its always the socialist hubris – do as I say not as I do. Hypocrites, one and all.

July 19, 2016 12:29 pm

If Climate Science as a whole was a corporation, it would make Enron look like good. It is devoid of a balance sheet (facts), for the input of revenue (grants / funding) the actual output in REAL scientific conclusions is worse than abismal. The majority of the funding goes toward trying to establish the business plan (climate models). The employees in this global organisation mostly come off the same brain restricting production line some call education, are severely lacking in imagination and always seem to require more data.
I have been involved in corporate restructure in a number of industries over many years and I have never seen a more disgraceful industry, all mouth and no responsibilty or accountability.
The statements from the head of each organisation blatantly indicates that they are incompetant, dont have a clue, and as a result are forming a gang to collectively try and assembly the average IQ of a normal person.

Joel Snider
July 19, 2016 12:37 pm

‘Greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver,”
This has been one of my sticking points all along – the first very first premise.
Honestly – even if C02 were the primary driver of climate, how does the human contribution of 3% make human activity the ‘primary driver’? Does the other 97% just sit at the back and let the other 3% pull the wagon?

Tom Judd
July 19, 2016 12:39 pm

“We, as leaders of major scientific organizations, …”
In the foregoing statement does one detect a little bit of legalese suggesting that it’s possible the membership was never polled?
“We, in the scientific community, are prepared to work with you …”
In the foregoing statement does one detect a little bit of legalese suggesting that they’re on their hands and knees begging for money?

July 19, 2016 12:41 pm

Sweltering Britons hit by chaos on the rail network and melting roads as temperatures pass 33C – now get ready for violent thunderstorms with a ‘month’s worth of rain in some areas’
Read more: Sweltering Britons hit by chaos on the rail network and melting roads as temperatures pass 33C – now get ready for violent thunderstorms with a ‘month’s worth of rain in some areas’
Sorry Guys this makes me laugh.

Reply to  Russell
July 19, 2016 1:17 pm

I suppose a cloudless day would scare them also.

Reply to  Russell
July 20, 2016 1:36 am

How anyone here in the UK believes this tosh beggars belief – climate often changes several times a day here.

Reply to  Russell
July 20, 2016 7:20 am

More problems due to BREXIT, no doubt!

July 19, 2016 12:44 pm

Quite remarkably, these organizations with members mainly consisting of trough-feeders and rent-seekers, all seem have the ability to look at the evidence showing that the global prediction models have failed, and yet continue to believe the opposite. Cognitive dissonance?

Reply to  E.Martin
July 19, 2016 1:10 pm

Orthodoxy with “benefits”.

Science or Fiction
July 19, 2016 1:11 pm

What kind of objective argument have these 31 so called “top scientific societies” provided for their statement?
A scientific statement would have incorporated information about a severe test the theory has passed. The theory propounded by IPCC got all bets covered by not quantifying the central estimate for climate sensitivity.
“The equilibrium climate sensitivity quantifies the response of the climate system to constant radiative forcing on multi- century time scales. It is defined as the change in global mean surface temperature at equilibrium that is caused by a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence)

No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.”
– IPCC;AR5;WGI; Summary for Policy makers D.2 Quantification of Climate System Responses; Page 16.
More or less any amount of warming would fit their prediction. Anything from a walk in the park to a catastrophe, IPCC got all bets covered, that doesn´t make IPCC´s predictions reliable.
These only thing these 31 societies have just demonstrated is that they are not capable of stating an objective scientific statement. Science is in a sorry state.
“a subjective experience, or a feeling of conviction, can never justify a scientific statement, and that within science it can play no part except that of an object of an empirical (a psychological) inquiry. No matter how intense a feeling of conviction it may be, it can never justify a statement. Thus I may be utterly convinced of the truth of a statement; certain of the evidence of my perceptions; overwhelmed by the intensity of my experience: every doubt may seem to me absurd. But does this afford the slightest reason for science to accept my statement? Can any statement be justified by the fact that Karl Popper is utterly convinced of its truth? The answer is, ‘No’; and any other answer would be incompatible with the idea of scientific objectivity.”
– Karl Popper; The Logic of Scientific Discovery

Reply to  Science or Fiction
July 19, 2016 7:53 pm

This is not about science. It is about telling politicians what they want to hear in order to keep the gravy train rolling.
Our next president (Donald Trump) won’t be as naive as the last three (Obama, Bush and Clinton).

July 19, 2016 1:15 pm

It’s also not marketing, as in x out of y peer reviewed model studies say something while leaving out the hard part of validation.

July 19, 2016 1:19 pm

Ah yes, the American Association for the Advancement of Science via Eurekalert. Or the AAASE, as they are know. Taking science by press release to a whole other level.
Apparently Anthony was even closer then he knew when he coined the phrase ‘Tabloid Climatology’. ^¿^

Tom Judd
July 19, 2016 1:30 pm

We, therefore, the leaders, in NONPARTISAN (honest) SCIENCE ORGANIZATIONS assembled, appealing to the funding sources of the World for the rectitude of our intentions, DO, in the Name, and by Authority of nobody in particular but ourselves, solemnly PUBLISH and DECLARE, That, thanks to CAGW, these Scientific Organizations are, and of Right, ought to be free of scrutiny; that they are Absolved from always having to beg for funding, and that all political connection between them and the State, is and ought to be totally permanent; and that, as FREE and INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which INDEPENDENT scientists until now have never had the juicy power to be able to do. AND for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other your Livelihoods, your Fortunes and our sacred … um, er, uh Ha, Ha, Hon, uh, Honor (oh, skip that last part).

July 19, 2016 1:39 pm

It’s all about the money. When politicians are handing out research grants based on what issues seem to capture the most public attention (and voters), then *EVERYBODY* wants a piece of the pie!

July 19, 2016 1:42 pm

‘Thirty-one top scientific societies speak with one voice on global climate change’
That to me is a bald faced lie . . societies didn’t sign those statements, individual people did. Please wake up smart people . . EACH of you ; )

Ron Clutz
July 19, 2016 2:03 pm

It should be noted that the AAAS letter in 2009 triggered the Climategate release of emails.

Mickey Reno
July 19, 2016 2:05 pm

…31 leading nonpartisan scientific societies today reaffirmed…

…31 financially co-opted interest groups today reaffirmed…
Fixed it.

July 19, 2016 2:09 pm

“”American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists”
Wow. Such an authority!

H. D. Hoese
Reply to  rogerthesurf
July 19, 2016 3:00 pm

I am probably the only (former) member of ASIH who will read this, a very old staid organization that I joined in college in 1955 and quit paying dues this year. Nobody noticed and a few years ago I could not get the correction of the misspelling of the name of one my mentors. I have belonged to more than few organizations that I have dropped over the years for various reasons, including expense. As others have noted here these organizations have been captured by the more political, activist types. Like politics in general, the members let this happen. Science, and academia in general, has become over-organized
ASIH members have been involved in a number cases where their beloved species they were researching were actually threatened by human actions, among other factors, especially species in western springs drying since the end of the Pleistocene. Another mentor reasonably helped save such species. Others, like the Snail Darter were different, partly a problem of inadequate homework.

H. D. Hoese
Reply to  H. D. Hoese
July 19, 2016 3:31 pm

I am behind in reading Copeia, the ASIH journal, but historically they were concerned with taxonomy, zoogeography, ecology, and evolution along with the many relevant related fields. Good, basic science. Obviously, all were concerned with climate, nearly everybody interested in temperature. Over the years, working in estuarine and marine waters I was always further interested in salinity, pH and a few other factors. You will find my name as a reviewer of one the NIPCC reports, because as Popeye said something like “I can’t stands it no more” about the nonsense of the misunderstanding of pH grabbed me. So, I guess I am a anti-activist-advocate. At least this nonsense stimulated research about a poorly understood, but important, ecological factor.
Another factor I noted was the development of students of taxonomic groups to produce “authoritative” common names for species, long standardized by scientific names. Lists of these were more useful as checklists than the standardization, which often just added complexity, but might show a symptom of what led to this.
I learned early about the resistance to hypotheses, often justified by claims of the conservatism of science. However, more than a few questions that came up in my graduate education have not been answered or even researched so I suspect that are other reasons. Not new, but I suspect, especially but even considering numbers, this bias has increased. The sad thing is that there has been, often among well educated types, for at least a couple of decades a loss of science credibility. I could go on and on, and it seems well understood here but is important that we do not “throw the baby out with the bath water.”

July 19, 2016 2:22 pm

It’s all about the Money, just look here at the ‘Membership’ page,some of the benefits,a copy of ‘Science Magazine’ and a lighter Bank balance.

Science or Fiction
July 19, 2016 2:25 pm

Why don´t these “top scientific societies” refer to papers having looked into the Climate Models:
North American Climate in CMIP5 Experiments: Part III: Assessment of 21st Century Projections
(Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 4.5 is a scenario of long-term, global emissions of greenhouse gases, short-lived species, and land-use-land- cover which stabilizes radiative forcing at 4.5 Watts per meter squared (W m- 2, approximately 650 ppm CO2-equivalent) in the year 2100 without ever exceeding that value. – Ref- somewhere on the web.)

8. Conclusions
We have examined 21st Century projections of NA climate in CMIP5 models under the
761 RCP4.5 and RCP8.5.”

Although many projected changes in NA climate are robust across CMIP5 models, substantial disagreement in some areas helps to define priorities for future research.
The sign of mean precipitation changes across the southern U.S. is inconsistent among models. Models disagree on annual mean precipitation changes in the NA monsoon region. Models disagree on snow water equivalent changes on a regional basis, especially in transitional regions where competing effects occur due to greater snowfall and warming temperatures.
In the southeastern U.S., the multimodel mean diurnal temperature range (DTR) signal is rather weak, accompanied by larger variance among the models.
The western U.S. is characterized by large inter-model variability in the number of frost days in the Western U.S., where multimodel mean decreases in frost days (greater than 70 days in RCP8.5) are also largest.
Models do not agree on how intraseasonal variability will change over the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico, which may have implications for future modulation of hurricane activity.
Projected changes in seasonal mean Atlantic and east Pacific tropical cyclone activity are inconsistent among models, which disagree on the sign and amplitude of changes in environmental factors that modulate hurricane activity.
Models are highly inconsistent in projecting how the ENSO teleconnection to NA will change.”
Oh – by the way – we now know that the climate models seem to be the worlds most expensive crap:
Controversy over comparing models with observationscomment image

Science or Fiction
July 19, 2016 2:59 pm

“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
No it isn´t – If something happens we adapt – if nothing happens we keep on rolling – Just as if people have understood the complex processes involved in climate change in all the past climate changes people have experienced and adapted to – and just as if complex climate processes can be readily understood!

July 19, 2016 3:04 pm

I weep for science when I see these “learned” statements. Perhaps they could enlighten us all by defining the “perfect” average global temperature. As I understand it, today the global average temperature is about 15 degrees C. Would 16 degrees be catastrophic? But wait, didn’t it hit that mark at the peak of the El Nino? People, plants and animals all thrive in temperatures a long way from that average. In Singapore the average is about 27 degrees while in London it is about 10 degrees. In Moscow it varies from an average of 17 degrees in July to -8 degrees in December.

July 19, 2016 3:08 pm

This all sounds like a lot of “same old, same old” to me.
Is it funding time or something?
I’m beginning to smell fear in some quarters, as well.

Billy Liar
July 19, 2016 3:13 pm

David Cameron, former Prime Minister of the UK, recently learnt to his great personal cost that doom-mongering does not work.
It’s time the bozos in the AAAS wised up

Danley Wolfe
July 19, 2016 3:23 pm

The climate advocates call climate change a movement, which acknowledges that the position on climate science is flakey. Movements call for signs and protests in the streets not debate on science. A very bad sign for the climate “movement” – in the end the science will prevail.

Donald Kasper
July 19, 2016 3:34 pm

I am truly amazed that ten thousand organizations did not sign up for the policy statement that they need more Federal money to support them. Only the American Meteorological Society actually studies weather and climate. This is a truly impressive bandwagon of wannabies.

July 19, 2016 5:31 pm

Scientists never registered and voted on the AGW conjecture as if such a vote would actually mean anything. Science is not a democracy. Theories are no validated by voting on them. The Laws of science are not some sort of legislation. This consensus business is all politics and not science. Despite all the claims and the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is no such evidence in the paleoclimate record. There is evidence that warmer temperatures cause more CO2 to enter the atmosphere but there is no evidence that this additional CO2 causes any more warming. If additional greenhouse gases caused additional warming then the primary culprit would have to be H2O which depends upon the warming of just the surfaces of bodies of water and not their volume but such is not part of the AGW conjecture. In other words CO2 increases in the atmosphere as huge volumes of water increase in temperature but more H2O enters the atmosphere as just the surface of bodies of water warm. We live in a water world where the majority of the Earth’s surface is some form of water. Models have been generated that show that the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which Man has no control.
The AGW theory is that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes an increase in its radiant thermal insulation properties causing restrictions in heat flow which in turn cause warming at the Earth’s surface and the lower atmosphere. In itself the effect is small because we are talking about small changes in the CO2 content of the atmosphere and CO2 comprises only about .04% of dry atmosphere if it were only dry but that is not the case. Actually H2O, which averages around 2%, is the primary greenhouse gas. The AGW conjecture is that the warming causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere which further increases the radiant thermal insulation properties of the atmosphere and by so doing so amplifies the effect of CO2 on climate. At first this sounds very plausible. This is where the AGW conjecture ends but that is not all what must happen if CO2 actually causes any warming at all.
Besides being a greenhouse gas, H2O is also a primary coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere transferring heat energy from the Earth;s surface to where clouds form via the heat of vaporization. More heat energy is moved by H2O via phase change then by both convection and LWIR absorption band radiation combined. More H2O means that more heat energy gets moved which provides a negative feedback to any CO2 based warming that might occur. Then there is the issue of clouds. More H2O means more clouds. Clouds not only reflect incoming solar radiation but they radiate to space much more efficiently then the clear atmosphere they replace. Clouds provide another negative feedback. Then there is the issue of the upper atmosphere which cools rather than warms. The cooling reduces the amount of H2O up there which decreases any greenhouse gas effects that CO2 might have up there. In total, H2O provides negative feedback’s which must be the case because negative feedback systems are inherently stable as has been the Earth’s climate for at least the past 500 million years, enough for life to evolve. We are here. The wet lapse rate being smaller then the dry lapse rate is further evidence of H2O’s cooling effects.
The entire so called, “greenhouse” effect that the AGW conjecture is based upon is at best very questionable. A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the heat trapping effects of greenhouse gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass reduces cooling by convection. This is a convective greenhouse effect. So too on Earth..The surface of the Earth is 33 degrees C warmer than it would be without an atmosphere because gravity limits cooling by convection. This convective greenhouse effect is observed on all planets in the solar system with thick atmospheres and it has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of greenhouse gases. the convective greenhouse effect is calculated from first principals and it accounts for all 33 degrees C. There is no room for an additional radiant greenhouse effect. Our sister planet Venus with an atmosphere that is more than 90 times more massive then Earth’s and which is more than 96% CO2 shows no evidence of an additional radiant greenhouse effect. The high temperatures on the surface of Venus can all be explained by the planet’s proximity to the sun and its very dense atmosphere. The radiant greenhouse effect of the AGW conjecture has never been observed. If CO2 did affect climate then one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused an increase in the natural lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. Considering how the natural lapse rate has changed as a function of an increase in CO2, the climate sensitivity of CO2 must equal 0.0.
This is all a matter of science

July 19, 2016 5:48 pm

Based upon their comments, the leaders of Consortium for Ocean Leadership and Geological Society of America totally disagree with the certainty of the letter.

July 19, 2016 6:51 pm

My first well-reasoned comment on a AAAS article on paleoclimate at their site was summarily deleted. When such a thing happens you immediately know you are dealing with ideology, not science. I have therefore renamed the AAAS as the American Association for the Advancement of Anti-science, or the AAAA.

July 19, 2016 7:45 pm

@vukcevic, July 19, 2016 at 11:44 am
“I was member only of one professional organisation, the IEE.”
Like you I was a member of the IEE (also the IEEE and LEOS). I am happy to note that none of these organizations supported the corrupt “Scientific Societies” that are getting rich by promoting the CAGW fraud.
Consensus does not matter in science but for those who think it does take a look at the people who signed the Oregon Petition:
Here is my take on the Montreal and Kyoto protocols:

Latimer Alder
July 19, 2016 8:59 pm

Of course climate change is real.
But is it necessarily ‘bad’?

Johann Wundersamer
July 19, 2016 10:00 pm

“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.”
says: in 2009 there were 18 ‘scientific’ organizations appealing to political authority.
Till 2016 that number nearly doubled.

Johann Wundersamer
July 19, 2016 10:14 pm

Leaves the question:
Why are those scientists not accepted authorities by most earnest politicians.

Ian Macdonald
July 20, 2016 12:37 am

Leaders of participating organizations added the following request:
“-Can we have our research grant now, please?”

July 20, 2016 12:39 am

just how many of those 31 scientific organizations are really responsible for predicting climate change or global warming??

Robert from oz
July 20, 2016 1:18 am

So let me get this right , The American Chemical Society thinks that a ph of 8.1 is acidic ?
What do they hand these diplomas to derelicts off the street now ?

Reply to  Robert from oz
July 22, 2016 12:57 am

“So let me get this right , The American Chemical Society thinks that a ph of 8.1 is acidic ?”
They should get their info about the pH scale from Naomi Oreskes.

July 20, 2016 1:35 am

There’s nothing wrong with consensus if it is based on rigorously gathered, impeccably analysed data.
It’s a bit more challenging when the consensus is: ‘the way to keep this gravy train rolling if for all of us to be given our briefing papers on the official party line and not to deviate from it upon pain of being excommunicated from the congregation for life….’

July 20, 2016 5:38 am

As well noted in previous comments, taking a few moments to read the 31 letters is quite illuminating. They each tell a little tale as to the likely process which led to the final letters as submitted, a process something like:
1. An external agency convinces one or more society leaders that the society should write an official climate consensus statement, and provides previous examples of such ( the 18 letters from 2009?)
2. Society leadership drafts a proposed letter. The original draft might be the extemporaneous product of one person or the result of an extensive and extended collaboration.
3. Depending on the bylaws of the society, the letter is either issued as is, published to the membership with a brief period for comment, subjected to multiple rounds of draft and redraft by a committee of the entire membership, or any possible combination of the above.
In the end, many of the letters are such weak tea that one can only conclude that someone in the society insisted that the organisation sign-on to the consensus, and that others in the organisation put up enough resistance that the resulting letter said little or nothing about the actual science. They are the distilled opinions of the 50 percent plus one of the members who were aware of the proposed letter, who had a strong opinion, and who had enough power to affect its wording.
Twenty-first century science in action.

Shawn Marshall
July 20, 2016 6:11 am

I would venture this statement of lunacy has been prompted by a Whitehouse or Markey or some other sinister operative of the authoritarian totalitarians. If one is a member of these ‘professional’ organizations, why not send them the recent video by Tony Heller which shows conclusively how the data has been deliberately corrupted?

July 21, 2016 12:16 am

How do they know the cure (mitigation) won’t be worse than the disease (global warming)? They have no means of calculating that, and no expertise with which to find the means. They haven’t even considered the question. Scientists, are they?

July 21, 2016 4:35 am

Does any of these leaders use the word “manmade” or do they talk about climate change in general?

July 29, 2016 9:44 am

You can add to the list; NASA,NSA,WMO,..pretty well ALL major scientific institutions world-wide!!! What will it take for all you nay-sayers to admit it-you’ve been duped and you’ve lost the argument. Suck it up,put on your ‘big boy pants’ and move on. Let’s stop arguing about ‘if’ it’s real and move on to how we are going to deal with it.

Reply to  Jerry
July 29, 2016 9:57 am

What will it take for all you nay-sayers to admit it-you’ve been duped and you’ve lost the argument.

As soon as I see some actual evidence of warming from Co2.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights