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.”
Science the institution is fked, completely and utterly fked, backwards and ignorant. That letter was gibberish and lies
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.
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.
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.
~^~
○¿●
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.
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.
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.
The science is marginal. The conspiracy resides in the groupthink.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
These societies are primarily political organizations run by politicians.
Real scientists don’t have the time.
Pleased to see that the APS: American Physical Society
is not a signatory to this nonsense.
Both the APS and the AIP are seriously on the AGW bandwagon. They preceded the ACS there.
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.
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.
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…
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.
““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.
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.
The Gov., Tell us what we believe or you can kiss your funding good bye.
“…nonpartisan scientific societies…”
Oh yeah, sure – and Lassy is a kitty!
Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious
http://cdn.phys.org/newman/csz/news/800/2016/2016climatet.png
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
http://phys.org/news/2016-07-climate-trends.html
https://youtu.be/tRFHXMQP-QU
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.
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.
You just need to parse the sentence…
“Climate-change impacts” (NOAA/NASA pronouncements) have clearly “included increased threats” of all manner of catastrophic events. The *threats* have been increasing, geometrically… //SARC
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?
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?
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.
“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.
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.
The SkepSciBots would call this an endorsement of the so-called consensus…
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.
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.
‘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?
“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?
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: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3697044/Scorchio-Britain-braced-one-hottest-July-days-temperatures-set-reach-35C-Twitter-users-going-heatwave-meltdown.html#ixzz4EswbIuRU 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.
I suppose a cloudless day would scare them also.
How anyone here in the UK believes this tosh beggars belief – climate often changes several times a day here.
More problems due to BREXIT, no doubt!
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?
Orthodoxy with “benefits”.