
Scientists within the most venerated science organizations in the United States are mounting rebellions against those organizations and their somewhat unified policy on the science of climate change–that it is real and being driven by human activities.
A group of several hundred of 47,000 physicists have unsuccessfully proposed new language for the American Physical Society.
It reads
Greenhouse gas emissions, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, accompany human industrial and agricultural activity. While substantial concern has been expressed that emissions may cause significant climate change, measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today. In addition, there is an extensive scientific literature that examines beneficial effects of increased levels of carbon dioxide for both plants and animals.
Studies of a variety of natural processes, including ocean cycles and solar variability, indicate that they can account for variations in the Earth’s climate on the time scale of decades and centuries. Current climate models appear insufficiently reliable to properly account for natural and anthropogenic contributions to past climate change, much less project future climate.
The APS supports an objective scientific effort to understand the effects of all processes – natural and human –on the Earth’s climate and the biosphere’s response to climate change, and promotes technological options for meeting challenges of future climate changes, regardless of cause.
On Tuesday, the APS decided to let its current national climate policy statement, which was adopted in November 2007 and reaffirmed last year, stand.
It reads:
Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.
The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.
Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.
In October the 18 leading science organizations sent a letter (PDF) to the U.S. Senate, pledging assistance as the Congress enters deliberations to pass a law that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
It reads:
Dear Senator:
As you consider climate change legislation, we, as leaders of scientific
organizations, write to state the consensus scientific view.Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is
occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the
greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.
These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence,
and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of
the vast body of peer-reviewed science. Moreover, there is strong
evidence that ongoing climate change will have broad impacts on
society, including the global economy and on the environment. For the
United States, climate change impacts include sea level rise for coastal
states, greater threats of extreme weather events, and increased risk of
regional water scarcity, urban heat waves, western wildfires, and the
disturbance of biological systems throughout the country. The severity
of climate change impacts is expected to increase substantially in the
coming decades.If we are to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change, emissions
of greenhouse gases must be dramatically reduced. In addition,
adaptation will be necessary to address those impacts that are already
unavoidable. Adaptation efforts include improved infrastructure design,
more sustainable management of water and other natural resources,
modified agricultural practices, and improved emergency responses to
storms, floods, fires and heat waves.We in the scientific community offer our assistance to inform your
deliberations as you seek to address the impacts of climate change.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
I am unable to find the definition of “climate denier” in any dictionary. Does the author have a definition?
Great question. Yes, there is a definition for “climate deniers” and it goes something like this.
Deniers are scientists, business leaders and academics who either deny the existence of global warming altogether or they deny that mankind is driving the climate and its subsequent change.
I recommend reading a book called “The Deniers” by Lawrence Solomon devoted to the topic. It is eye-opening and quite illuminating.
“….mankind is driving the climate and its subsequent change.”
Your definition of “climate denier” is confusing. Was mankind responsible for climate change 130,000 years ago during the Eemian Period when according to ice core and sea floor sediment core data, the Earth was 5 degrees centigrade warmer than now?
Al Gore was recently urged to revisit peer reviewed studies in January of 2009 and as a result has admitted in a recent interview with Newsweek that he is basically forced to admit that CO2 contributes only 40% to the warming climate. There are numerous new peer reviewed studies that have come out since January 2009 to show that 40% is still way too high and that land based temperature measurements have a significant warm bias flaw.
What is clear in the latest research is that too much focus was placed on man made CO2 and as a result many other equal or greater climate threats have been overlooked.
According to NASA scientists for example black carbon and atmospheric changes are the reason for arctic ice melt and that CO2 has been “insignificant” (using NASA’s actual word) with respect to arctic ice melt. NASA accepts that reductions in CO2 will not slow arctic ice melt.
The APS statement from 2007 was based on IPCC AR4 summary findings which have already been made weaker by the latest climate research findings, it is only a matter of time before they will have to revisit the 2008 data as Al Gore did and the 2009 data which Al Gore still needs to do, and then rewrite their position to better reflect climate reality.
Please find a link to the report of the Ad‐Hoc Committee to Advise the APS President on Proposed Revisions of the 2007 Statement on Climate Change that you speak to in this article. Here is the start of the committee’s discussion of their “existing” 2007 Statement on Climate Change
Discussion
There are a number of problems with this statement. The first sentence presents as a fact what is only a surmise. Although the evidence is strong that climate warming has anthropogenic sources, as described above,
anthropogenic warming is not a proven fact. Consequently, the wording in the first sentence “are changing the atmosphere” should have been “are probably changing the atmosphere”. In the second paragraph, the first sentence states that the fact of climate warming is incontrovertible, which is true. However, by its context this is
easily misread to mean that anthropogenic warming is incontrovertible. The only clue that there are uncertainties in the predictions for the global climate is the phrase “likely to occur” in the second paragraph. This hardly conveys the great uncertainties in analysis displayed in PSB. The paragraph as a whole has an alarmist tone that belies the underlying uncertainties.
So Mr. Bradbury do you disagree with the APS committee statement that, “…..anthropogenic warming is not a proven fact.”? Shouldn’t real science be based on proven facts?
http://climaterealists.com/attachments/database/APSAdHocCommitteeKleppnerReport.pdf
What is the budget and head count of the office of accountability?
Thanks for taking the time to write about this topic. I really appreciate it. I�ll post a link of this post in my site.