From the “so what?” department and the American Association for the Advancement of Science via Eurekalert:
Thirty-one top scientific societies speak with one voice on global climate change
In a consensus letter to U.S. policymakers, a partnership of 31 leading nonpartisan scientific societies today reaffirmed the reality of human-caused climate change, noting that greenhouse gas emissions “must be substantially reduced” to minimize negative impacts on the global economy, natural resources, and human health.
“Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research concludes that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver,” the collaborative said in its 28 June letter to Members of Congress. “This conclusion is based on multiple independent lines of evidence and the vast body of peer-reviewed science.”
Climate-change impacts in the United States have already included increased threats of extreme weather events, sea-level rise, water scarcity, heat waves, wildfires, and disturbances to ecosystems and animals, the intersociety group reported. “The severity of climate change impacts is increasing and is expected to increase substantially in the coming decades,” the letter added. It cited the scientific consensus of the vast majority of individual climate scientists and virtually every leading scientific organization in the world, including the U.S. Global Change Research Program, the U.S. National Academies, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society, the American Statistical Association, the Ecological Society of America, and the Geological Society of America.
“To reduce the risk of the most severe impacts of climate change, greenhouse gas emissions must be substantially reduced,” the group said, adding that adaptation is also necessary to “address unavoidable consequences for human health and safety, food security, water availability, and national security, among others.”
The 28 June letter, representing a broad range of scientific disciplines, reaffirmed the key climate-change messages in a 2009 letter signed by 18 leading scientific organizations. The letter is being released again, by a larger consortium of 31 scientific organizations, to reassert the scientific consensus on climate change, and to provide objective, authoritative information to policymakers who must work toward solutions.
“Climate change is real and happening now, and the United States urgently needs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” said AAAS Chief Executive Officer Rush Holt, executive publisher of the Science family of journals. “We must not delay, ignore the evidence, or be fearful of the challenge. America has provided global leadership to successfully confront many environmental problems, from acid rain to the ozone hole, and we can do it again. We owe no less to future generations.”
The 28 June letter was signed by leaders of the following organizations:
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Meteorological Society
American Public Health Association
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists
American Society of Naturalists
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography
Association for Tropical Biology and Conservation
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
BioQUEST Curriculum Consortium
Botanical Society of America
Consortium for Ocean Leadership
Crop Science Society of America
Ecological Society of America
Entomological Society of America
Geological Society of America
National Association of Marine Laboratories
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society for Mathematical Biology
Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles
Society of Nematologists
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
Leaders of participating organizations offered the following comments:
“Climate change has far-reaching implications to everyone on our planet, as it is tied closely with national security, economics, human health, and food security. There is consensus in the scientific community – climate is changing. Now we need policymakers to act, to invest in research to understand the effects of climate change and opportunities to mitigate its drivers, and to adapt to its impacts.”
— RADM Jonathan W. White, USN (Ret.), president and CEO, Consortium for Ocean Leadership
“Climate change poses significant challenges to natural and managed ecosystems. Now is the time for scientists and policy-makers to work together to address the issue of climate change in order to protect agricultural productivity, global food security and environmental resources.”
— Harold van Es, president, Soil Science Society of America
“The environmental, social, and economic challenges posed by climate change are among the most important issues of our time. Comprehensive solutions grounded in understanding of ecological systems – our lands, waters, oceans, and atmosphere — and society are urgently needed. A sustainable future remains possible if we work together and act now.”
— Monica G. Turner, president, Ecological Society of America
“This letter, signed by a diverse set of scientific organizations, conveys the solid scientific consensus view that anthropogenic climate change is occurring. How climate change will manifest for specific geographic regions within the next decade and beyond is a topic of intense research. Statisticians are experts in making decisions when specifics aren’t clear and stand ready to work with decision-makers.”
— Jessica Utts, president, American Statistical Association
“Geological studies have demonstrated that climate has changed repeatedly in the past and that future climate change is inevitable. Understanding the complex processes involved in climate change is necessary for adaptation and mitigation.”
— Jonathan G. Price, Ph.D., CPG, President, Geological Society of America
“The reality of climate change is already upon us, and is affecting not only our lives but that of all life on earth. We must do all that we can to mitigate these effects using scientific knowledge and mobilizing society for action. It is the responsibility of our politicians to move us forward in these actions.”
–Dr. Robin L. Chazdon, executive director of the Association for Tropical Biology and Conservation,
“The phenomenon of human-mediated climate change is not a matter of opinion, but of careful evaluation of data from a vast spectrum of scientific disciplines. What remains unclear is the degree to which climate change will cause environmental, social, and economic havoc. Estimates range from severe to catastrophic. We owe it to our children and to our children’s children to take bold action now so that our descendants do not pay the price for our generation’s greed.”
— Anne D. Yoder, president, Society of Systematic Biologists
“Climate change is one of the most profound challenges facing our society. Consensus on this matter is evident in the diversity of organizations that have signed this letter. Science can be a powerful tool in our efforts to mitigate and adapt to the impacts of climate change, and we stand ready to work with policymakers as they deliberate various options for action.”
— Christine McEntee, executive director/CEO of the American Geophysical Union
“Climate influences where plants and animals live. Rapid climate change will force species to find new habitat in hospitable conditions, but many species will not be able to and will go extinct. This isn’t good. It disrupts our ecosystems, which are the source for our food, and clean air and water.”
— Robert Gropp, Ph.D., interim co-executive director, American Institute of Biological Sciences
A PDF of the consensus letter is available at http://www.eurekalert.org/images/2016climateletter6-28-16.pdf
###
Notably absent is the American Physical Society, who had a real internal fight on their hands a few years ago thanks to Hal Lewis.
I wonder if their views changed thanks to the courage of Hal Lewis and others working behind the scenes?
It is instructive to remember what Einstein said about consensus science. When Einstein was told of the publication of a book entitled, ‘100 Authors Against Einstein’,
He replied:
“Why one hundred? If I were wrong, one would have been enough.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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
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).
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.
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’. ^¿^
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).
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!
‘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 ; )
It should be noted that the AAAS letter in 2009 triggered the Climategate release of emails.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/07/06/climategate-redux/
…31 financially co-opted interest groups today reaffirmed…
Fixed it.
“”American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists”
Wow. Such an authority!
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.com
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.
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.”
.
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.
http://membercentral.aaas.org/membership/categories
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 observations
“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!
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
Based upon their comments, the leaders of Consortium for Ocean Leadership and Geological Society of America totally disagree with the certainty of the letter.
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.
@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:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
Here is my take on the Montreal and Kyoto protocols:
https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2014/12/16/countering-consensus-calculations/
Of course climate change is real.
But is it necessarily ‘bad’?
Why?
“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.
Leaves the question:
Why are those scientists not accepted authorities by most earnest politicians.
Leaders of participating organizations added the following request:
“-Can we have our research grant now, please?”