Lists of scientists

[Gary Keedwell]

I guess a whole thread was DELETED. Before I left for work this morning, I seen a list of scientists on a Global warming thread. I came home after hours of anticipation, to discover the thread completely gone. Is there a way to find a deleted thread? Seems like alot of good reference material...just wasted.:(
Could someone re-post the list of this morning's thread? Thanks.

Gary K.

[Wayne Watling]

I guess a whole thread was DELETED. Before I left for work this morning, I seen a list of scientists on a Global warming thread. I came home after hours of anticipation, to discover the thread completely gone. Is there a way to find a deleted thread? Seems like alot of good reference material...just wasted.:(
Could someone re-post the list of this morning's thread? Thanks.

Gary K.

Gary and others,

I have made a request to Mr Jim Becker that he and the other Moderators respectifully look at re-instating the thread with any offending parts removed. I know its hard for them because it can be quite a job to edit the posts. If it gets re-instated then we should try to keep it as civil as possible. Having said that I dont recall any really nasty things that took place in that thread unless it happened at the end in which case I dont know how to solve that type of problem. If someome decides they dont like what is being said they can just jump in and post something they know will get the thread deleted..

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Wayne......some of the posts that listed the information you refer to....also called the people whose opinions differed "idiots" and other names.

I didn't pull the thread but I went upstairs for a cup of coffee and when I came back down, Jim had already done so.

One can discuss something without resorting to name calling and insulting others. When you resort to those tactics, I can only think of a couple possible reasons......(1) you are unsure of your position and that is your last resort....(2) you are overly emotional and if that's the case you can't argue your side logically...

One thing is almost certain.......calling people names and/or insulting them is NOT going to convince them to change their opinion in your favor! And if you really want to win this war on global warming, you need a lot of people siding with you. If you don't believe global warming is a problem, you need to convince a lot of people. In either case, insulting those who disagree with you isn't going to sway their opinion in your favor.

This is a very emotional subject and is really more suited for a scientific or environmental forum.

It's very hard for some to discuss an emotional subject like this without bringing politics into the subject. That too is against SMC
TOSs.

BTW...the thread was not deleted. We don't delete threads ...we move them to the moderators forum where the general public can't see or respond to them. Then if for any legal reason we need them, they are still available.

[Chris Padilla]

I moderate a BMW board and us mods have our own section where we move posts/threads all the time. In fact, we have 3 such sections:

Warming Forum
Controversial Forum
Moderator Forum

Nothing is ever truly deleted.

:)

[Jim Becker]

I need to add to Ken's comments...we moderators are not paid employees. We do what we can in the time we have outside of work, family, shop time, etc. To expect us to always go in and edit a bunch of posts to bring them and a thread into compliance with general civil behavior, not to mention the rules of SMC, is sometimes asking a lot. Especially when the issue is not related to the purpose of this site. I'd really tell you how strongly I feel about this, but I'd have to pull this thread for non-compliance with the TOS... ;)

What really needs to happen is that folks need to post in a manner the first time that is compliant with the community standard. This is a woodworking family community first and foremost. The "Off Topic" forum certainly has a lot of flexibility, but it's not here to provide a battle ground for sensitive issues nor abusing others who don't share the same view. There are plenty of other places where many of these issues are discussed at length and without the restrictions we place as a family-oriented woodworking forum site.

"Think...consider your words and how they might be perceived...then post if you still feel the need." Especially on controversial topics.

Jim
SMC Moderator

[Wayne Watling]

Ken and Jim,

I dont think any of us expect you moderators to spend all your time editing offensive postings. It happens ocassionally that a post or two in an otherwise very spirited but otherwise cordial discussion may breach the forum etiquette and rather than remove the entire thread the offending post could simply be removed. If any member takes offense with a particular post there is recourse for them to report that particular post which makes it very easy for the moderators to verify the content in question and make a decision. If a post has not been reported then you have to assume that members are not offended to the extent they feel it necessary to report it. To expect all the thousands of members never to take offence with any other member is in my opinion unreasonable, its going to happen on ocassions.
One thing that i'd like to respectifully point out to the moderators; during these types of discusions\debates many of the members go to great lengths to research and compile their arguments and to have it all disappear without a word is dispiriting to say the least when the removal of 1 or 2 (reported?) post would have covered it.

Its good to have a forum where we (woodworkers) can discuss worldly topics affecting us woodworkers, after all we dont do WWing 24/7. Apart from the debate getting a little spirited (which I sincerely hope is not against the SMC rules) and a few minor excursions into the politics associated with the topic I honestly thought we were doing pretty well after the first warning, unless something happened right at the end and I missed reading it.

Political issues are difficult to avoid totally, it occurs unintentionally at times that a minor political reference is made but I dont recall any major political argument in that thread.
I know you are unpaid workers in a sometimes unwinable position as moderators but if the reason you are removing entire threads instead of offending posts is due to the lack of workers then maybe there in lies the answer.

Respectfully

[Gary Keedwell]

Jim,
I know it can be time consuming to moderate and I'm sure everybody appreciates all the mod's efforts. That being said, I know there are other places to voice opinions, but it is different here because were exchanging ideas with people we KNOW, and I think that makes a big difference.
I'm a little surprised that it got out of hand because mostly it is well behaved . I do question some people's motives when they post something outrageous or inflammatory. Like someone else said, if someone didn't like what is in print, or were losing a debate and didn't want anybody to see it......well you get the message.
I do think that it is shameful that one or two people could ruin it for everybody. Couldn't just the guilty be punished and not the whole. Seems like the Army:)

Gary K.

[Keith Outten]

Gary,

The guilty are punished here, swiftly and without warning. First guilt must be established as we don''t want to punish anyone for an honest mistake.

Many threads that are removed from public view will show up later when we can find the time to edit out innapropriate posts. We also believe as Wayne does that it is a shame for so many of our Members contributions to be removed just because a few fail to grasp the idea of civil behavior.

.

[Andrew Poptech]

Gary here is the list,

Scientists Disputing "Man-Made" Global Warming Theory:

August H. Auer Jr., AMS Certified Meteorologist, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science, University of Wyoming, USA
Arthur B. Robinson, Ph.D. Chemistry, University of California, San Diego, USA
Arthur Rorsch, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands
Benny Peiser, Ph.D. Professor of Social Anthropology, Liverpool John Moores University, UK
Bjørn Lomborg, Ph.D. Political Science, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Chris de Freitas, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Geography and Environmental Science, University of Auckland, Australia
Claude Allegre, Ph.D. Physics, University of Paris, France
Christopher Essex, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics Professor, University of Western Ontario, Canada
David Deming, Ph.D. Geophysics, University of Utah, USA
David J. Bellamy, B.Sc. Botany, Ph.D. Ecology, Durham University, UK
David R. Legates, Ph.D. Climatology, University of Delaware, USA
Dennis Avery, M.S. Agricultural Economics, The University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA
Dennis P. Lettenmaier, Ph.D. Professor of Hydrology, University of Washington, USA
Douglas Leahey, Meteorologist, Calgary, Canada
Douglas V. Hoyt, Solar Physicist and Climatologist, Retired, Raytheon, USA
Frederick Seitz, Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University, USA
Fred Singer, Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University, USA
Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus, Physics, Princeton, USA
Gary D. Sharp, Ph.D. Marine Biology, University of California, USA
Gary Novak, M.S. Microbiology, USA
George H. Taylor, M.S. Meteorology, University of Utah, USA
George V. Chilingarian, Ph.D. Geology, University of Southern California, USA
Habibullo Abdussamatov, Ph.D. Astrophysicist, The University of Leningrad, Russia
Henrik Svensmark, Solar System Physics, Danish National Space Center, Denmark
Howard Hayden, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut, USA
Hugh W. Ellsaesser, Ph.D. Meteorology, Formerly with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, USA
Ian D. Clark, Professor Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Canada
Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology, University of Adelaide, Australia
Jack Barrett, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, Manchester, UK
James Spann, AMS Certified Meteorologist, USA
Ján Veizer, Professor Emeritus Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Canada
John R. Christy, Ph.D. Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois, USA
Joseph Conklin, M.S. Meteorology, Rutgers University, USA
Keith D. Hage, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, University of Alberta, Canada
Luboš Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physicist, Harvard, USA
Madhav Khandekar, Ph.D. Meteorology, Florida State University, USA
Marcel Leroux, Professor Emeritus, Climatology, University of Lyon, France
Michael Crichton, M.D. Harvard, USA
Michael Savage, B.S. Biology, M.S. Anthropology, M.S. Ethnobotany, Ph.D. Nutritional Ethnomedicine, USA
Nir J. Shaviv, Ph.D. Astrophysicist, Israel Institute of Technology, Israel
Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA
Petr Chylek, Ph.D. Physics, University of California, USA
Philip Stott, Professor Emeritus, Department of Biogeography, University of London, UK
Reid A. Bryson, Ph.D. Meteorology, University of Chicago, USA
Richard S. Courtney, PhD. Geography, The Ohio State University, USA
Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT, USA
Roger A. Pielke, Ph.D. Meteorology, Penn State, USA
Robert C. Balling, Ph.D. Geography, University of Oklahoma, USA
Robert H. Essenhigh, M.S. Natural Sciences, Ph.D. Chemical Engineering, University of Sheffield, UK
Robert Johnston, M.S. Physics, B.A. Astronomy, USA
Robert M. Carter, Geologist, James Cook University, Australia
Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Economics, University of British Columbia, Canada
Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin, USA
Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D. Astrophysics, Harvard, USA
Sami Solanki, Ph.D Astronomy, EHT Zurich, Switzerland
Sherwood B. Idso, Ph.D. Soil Science, University of Minnesota, USA
Simon C. Brassell, B.Sc. Chemistry & Geology, Ph.D. Organic Geochemistry, University of Bristol, UK
Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Ph.D. Department of Geography, University of Hull, UK
Steve Milloy, B.A. Natural Sciences, M.S. Health Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, USA
Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc. Mathematics, University of Toronto, Canada
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Ph.D. Founding Director International Arctic Research Center, USA
Tad S. Murty, Ph.D. Oceanography and Meteorology, University of Chicago, USA
Tim Patterson, Ph.D. Professor of Geology, Carleton University, Canada
Timothy F. Ball, Ph.D. Geography, Historical Climatology, University of London, UK
Vincent Gray, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, Cambridge University, UK
Wibjorn Karlen, Ph.D, Emeritus Professor of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
William J.R. Alexander, Professor Emeritus, Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa
William M. Gray, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, USA
Willie Soon, Ph.D. Astrophysics, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, USA
Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D. Ph.D., Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Poland


Organizations Disputing "Man-Made" Global Warming Theory:

Cato Institute
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Cooler Heads Coalition
Fraser Institute
Friends of Science
George C. Marshall Institute
Global Climate Coalition
Greening Earth Society
Heartland Institute
Heritage Foundation
High Park Group
International Policy Network
National Center for Policy Analysis
Natural Resources Stewardship Project
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine
Science & Environmental Policy Project
Scientific Alliance


Ken, just an FYI I did not call anyone an "idiot", someone - I do not recall called me a "Deniar" ect.. (which is uncalled for). It still did not make any sense to delete(move) the whole thread. It takes less time to simply delete an offense post then to move a whole thread. I agree with Gary that tactic could be used to delete or censor information once they have lost the debate.

[Gary Keedwell]

Andrew,
Thank-you very much...that is the list I was asking for. Someone sent me a list by PM and it definitely wasn't the list I was expecting. LOL
Gary K.

[Glen Gunderson]

I spent a little time looking into these organizations. I want to make clear, that I wasn't necessarily intending to pick them apart, because if there is a credible group that counters the global warming argument, I'd like to hear it. However, after a little research I came to realize that many of these organizations, despite their scientific sounding names, are merely business oriented think tanks. Most of the others are policy groups advocating the as free a market as possible. While these groups' economic policies may be sound, there is little to suggest that they have any background in science or have anything to add to the scientific debate.




Organizations Disputing "Man-Made" Global Warming Theory:

Competitive Enterprise Institute: A free market think tank that advocates as little regulation as possible.

Cooler Heads Coalition: A defunct coalition formed by the above CEI

Fraser Institute: I know a fair bit about the Fraser Institute, and while many of their ideas and policies may have merit, they have shown several times in the past that their studies have cherry picked data to support their conclusions.

Friends of Science: This is a Canadian group that appears to be one of the most credible on this list. It is made up of various experts and interested parties who dispute the science behind the Kyoto protocol.

George C. Marshall Institute: Another group that may or may not have reliable research. However, having Frederick Seitz on their Board of Directors certainly doesn't help their credibility in my eyes.

Global Climate Coalition: A now defunct coalition of Exxon, Shell, BP, Texaco, and the Big 3 American car manufacturers. These businesses slowly left one by one, and now many leaders in these companies (BP for one) have admitted that action must be taken to combat global warming.

Greening Earth Society: A public relations organization formed by the Western Fuels Association.

Natural Resources Stewardship Project: A Canadian group headed by GW skeptic Tom Harris. Harris is a PR director/lobbyist who has no scientific background.

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine: The source of that much disputed petition on global warming. I don't know a whole lot about them, but I'm not aware of any research they've done or anything of value they've really added to the debate other than the petition.

Science & Environmental Policy Project: Group formed by Fred Singer, who is noted for his skepticism not only on global warming, but also on cigarettes' relation to cancer and the link between UV-B rays and melanoma.


The following are all conservative think tanks. While they may have expertise on political and economic matters, little if any information of scientific value has ever come from a political think tank, on the left or the right. If we focus only on the economic impacts of Kyoto or environmental regulations, then they may be of some value. However, the fact that these groups don't believe the science behind global warming is, to me at least, irrelevant.

Cato Institute
Heartland Institute
Heritage Foundation
High Park Group
International Policy Network
National Center for Policy Analysis





Now this is not to say that many groups that support the theory of global warming don't operate in the same manner. Greenpeace, for instance, is noted for its lack of peer review and scholarly research for many of it's studies.

However, when no major scientific group can be included on a list advocating a scientific position, I'm naturally skeptical towards that position.

[Glenn Clabo]

Ken, just an FYI I did not call anyone an "idiot", someone - I do not recall called me a "Deniar" ect.. (which is uncalled for). It still did not make any sense to delete(move) the whole thread. It takes less time to simply delete an offense post then to move a whole thread. I agree with Gary that tactic could be used to delete or censor information once they have lost the debate.

Andrew,
First off...this is a woodworkers forum...I can't find one example of your interest in the reason that Saw Mill Creek exists. However, in the interest of our welcoming nature here...welcome to SMC.

Also, your crediblity (which I do not question as one of my most interesting Futurist btw) would be much higher here if you used your real name in accordance with the Saw Mill Creek TSO.

[Steven Wilson]

It's nice to a list more related to Bovine Flatuance than real science presented by Andrew (care to site sources), but for those of you who care to partake in real science you may care to browse the following;

The Consensus on Global Warming:
From Science to Industry & Religion
By: Logical Science



Climate change critics like Richard Lindzen try to say "There's no consensus on global warming." in the Wall Street Journal, in front of Congress, and many other places. This argument has also been made repeatedly on Fox News.1,2 Other researchers like Dean Dr. Mark H. Thiemens say this "has nothing to do with reality".1,2,3 The following is a list of quotes from scientific organizations, academies, scientists, industry spokesmen, etc supporting the existence of man made climate change and the need to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Many of these quotes reference the IPCC or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which is widely regarded by mainstream scientists as either the "most reliable" or one of the most reliable sources for accurate information on climate change. As you will notice, the evidence against the consensus critics like Lindzen and pundits on Fox News is overwhelming. If you are confused as to whose opinion matters, just pay attention to the peer review science journals and the National Academy of Sciences. For those that don't know, the National Academies are like the Supreme Court of science. The number of climate scientists in the US can be found by examining the members of the American Geophysical Union (AGU). As of November 10, 2006 we know that there is a minimum (no official count of foreign climatologists is available) of 20,000 working climatologists worldwide 1,2. An important fact to remember is that many high profile critics you see in the news do not qualify as climate scientists when these standards are applied. Keep both of these concepts in mind the next time you see a handful of self proclaiming "climate scientists" with dissenting opinions. It is also important to note that Exxon Mobil is funding a $10,000 bounty for climate denialists and skeptics. If only 2% of the 20,000 climatologists were bought out then we'd have 400 deniers (skeptics are convinced by science not money). If you have suggestions for the addition of other quotes please post them at our blog.

Index

International Statements
Individual Societies and Organizations
Peer Review Scientific Journals
Individual Scientists (including a 11,885+ long petition) Industry
Military
Religion
Administrative Officials
Mainstream Media
Politicians


International Statements
anchor

Below is a list of joint statements calling for action on mitigating climate change. The National Academies representing the 21 following countries and districts have signed joint statements:

Australia
Belgium
Brazil
Caribbean
Canada China
France
Germany
India
Indonesia Ireland
Italy
Japan
Malaysia
Mexico New Zealand
Russia
South Africa
Switzerland
United Kingdom United States

G8 Statement

National Academy of Sciences: 2007 Joint science academies’ statement on growth and responsibility: sustainability, energy efficiency and climate protection:

The problem is not yet insoluble, but becomes more difficult with each passing day. A goal of confining global warming to an average of 2 centigrade degrees above pre-industrial levels would be very challenging, and even this amount of warming would be likely to have some severe impacts. . . .

We call on world leaders, especially those meeting at the G8 Summit in June 2007, to:
• Set standards and promote economic instruments for efficiency, and commit to promoting energy efficiency for buildings, devices, motors, transportation systems
and in the energy sector itself.
• Promote understanding of climate and energy issues and encourage necessary behavioural changes within our societies.
• Define and implement measures to reduce global deforestation.
• Strengthen economic and technological exchange with developing countries, in order to leapfrog to cleaner and more efficient modern technologies.
• Invest strongly in science and technology related to energy efficiency, zero-carbon energy resources and carbon-removing technologies.

Academia Brasileira de Ciéncias,Brazil
Académie des Sciences, France
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia
National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
Royal Society of Canada, Canada
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina, Germany
Science Council of Japan, Japan
Academy of Science of South Africa, South Africa
Chinese Academy of Sciences, China
Indian National Science Academy, India
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias, Mexico
Royal Society, United Kingdom
Joint Statement I

Here is a press release from the National Academy of Sciences (USA) which opens with the words “Climate Change is real”. It’s conclusion begins with “We urge all nations, in the line with the UNFCCC principles, to take prompt action to reduce the causes of climate change, adapt to its impacts and ensure that the issue is included in all relevant national and international strategies.” It recognizes the international consensus of the IPCC (2001), IEA (2004), and UNFCCC. It is signed by:



National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
Chinese Academy of Sciences, China
Royal Society, United Kingdom
Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências, Brazil
Royal Society of Canada, Canada
Academié des Sciences, France
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher, Germany
Indian National Science Academy, India
Accademia dei Lincei, Italy
Science Council of Japan, Japan


Joint Statement II

Here is another press release from the Royal Society (UK) which says “The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise (sic) IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes”. It is signed by:



Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Brazilian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society of Canada
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Chinese Academy of Sciences
French Academy of Sciences
German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
Indian National Science Academy
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy)
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (UK)



Individual Societies and Organizations Not Listed Above
anchor


Union of Concerned Scientists
Global warming is one of the most serious challenges facing us today. To protect the health and economic well-being of current and future generations, we must reduce our emissions of heat-trapping gases by using the technology, know-how, and practical solutions already at our disposal."1
Woods Hole Research Center
"We may recall the extensive and incredibly successful campaign of the American tobacco companies to conceal the link between cancer and the use of tobacco products. For decades, they knew the reality of the addictive nature of nicotine and the carcinogenic effects of tobacco use. For decades, they successfully kept that reality hidden from the American public. The oil, coal, gas, and mining industries stand to lose tremendously if the truth about global warming becomes accepted by American society. As the tobacco industry invested millions in keeping its deadly secret, so also have the oil, coal, gas, and mining industries attempted to hide and discredit the link between CO2 emissions and a warming earth."1
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
Even the minimum predicted shifts in climate for the 21st century are likely to be significant and disruptive.”1
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society [snip]The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus
represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (www.ipcc.ch/), and the Joint National Academies’ statement (http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf)..- AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change Approved by the AAAS Board of Directors 9 December 2006

"AAAS President John P. Holdren and CEO Alan I. Leshner Sunday called for the U.S. public and their leaders to “muster the political will for serious evasive action” to address climate change. Writing in the San Francisco Chronicle, the two AAAS leaders said that there can be no doubt about the reality of climate change."1
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
The American Meteorological Society endorses the "Joint Academies' Statement: Global Response to Climate Change" released by the national academies of science of 11 countries, including the U.S., on 7 June 2005.”1

"Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases and other trace constituents ... [that] interact strongly with the Earth's energy balance, resulting in the prospect of significant global warming. ... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems. It is a long-term problem that requires a long-term perspective. Important decisions confront current and future national and world leaders." - Bull. Amer. Met. Soc., 84, 508—515
National Research Council
The following assessment was produced by the NRC, a branch of the National Academies of Sciences, at the request of the White House in 2001:

"Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century. ... The impacts of [climate change] will be critically dependent on the magnitude of the warming and the rate with which it occurs." - Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questiosn, 2001
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
"CMOS endorses the process of periodic climate science assessment carried out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and supports the conclusion, in its Third Assessment Report, which states that the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate." 1
Federal Climate Change Science Program
Discrepancies between the data sets and the models have been reduced and our understanding of observed climate changes and their causes has increased. Given this, there is no longer sufficient evidence to conclude that there exists any notable discrepancy between our understanding of recent global average temperature changes and model simulations of these changes. This represents a change from conclusions of earlier reports (see above) and should constitute a valuable source of information to policymakers.”1, 2, 3
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
While Milankovitch cycles have tremendous value as a theory to explain ice-ages and long-term changes in the climate, they are unlikely to have very much impact on the decade-century timescale. Over several centuries, it may be possible to observe the effect of these orbital parameters, however for the prediction of climate change in the 21st century, these changes will be far less important than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases.” 1
UN Project on Climate Variability and Predictability
Video of their Chairman, Tim Palmer
American Geophysical Union
Because human activities are contributing to and accelerating climate change, we have a collective responsibility to develop and undertake carefully considered response actions.”1

"Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century. ... A particular concern is that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide may be rising faster than at any time in Earth's history, except possibly following rare events like impacts from large extraterrestrial objects. ... Moreover, research indicates that increased levels of carbon dioxide will remain in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years. It is virtually certain that increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will cause global surface climate to be warmer. ... The unprecedented increases in greenhouse gas concentrations, together with other human influences on climate over the past century and those anticipated for the future, constitute a real basis for concern." - Human Impacts on Climate, 2003
Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries. Furthermore, the potential implications of global climate change and the time scale over which such changes will likely occur require active, effective, long-term planning. ... GSA strongly encourages that the following efforts be undertaken internationally: (1) adequately research climate change at all time scales, (2) develop thoughtful, science-based policy appropriate for the multifaceted issues of global climate change, (3) organize global planning to recognize, prepare for, and adapt to the causes and consequences of global climate change, and (4) organize and develop comprehensive, long-term strategies for sustainable energy, particularly focused on minimizing impacts on global climate."- Position Statement, Global Climate Change, 2006
American Chemical Society - (world's largest scientific organization with over 155,000 members)
"Accumulating evidence clearly shows that our environment and the global climate system are changing. Global average temperatures, atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, sea levels, and extreme weather events are on the rise. ... There is now general agreement among scientific experts that the recent warming trend is real (and particularly strong within the past 20 years), that most of the observed warming is likely due to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and that climate change could have serious adverse effects by the end of this century. ... In addition to climate research, scientists, industry, and government should implement measures to cost-effectively protect the climate and intensify efforts to develop technologies that—in addition to meeting other societal goals—could help us mitigate and adapt to the potential effects of climate change." - Global Climate Change, 2004
Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006 - commissioned by the Bush administration in 2002
Studies ... show clear evidence of human influences on the climate system (due to changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols, and stratospheric ozone). ... The observed patterns of change over the past 50 years cannot be explained by natural processes alone, nor by the effects of short-lived atmospheric constituents (such as aerosols and tropospheric ozone) alone. -Source
Stratigraphy Commission - Geological Society of London - The world's oldest and the United Kingdom's largest geoscience organization
"Global climate change is increasingly recognised as the key threat to the continued development – and even survival - of humanity. ... We find that the evidence for human-induced climate change is now persuasive, and the need for direct action compelling." -
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
"Engineers Australia believes that Australia must act swiftly and proactively in line with global expectations to address climate change as an economic, social and environmental risk... We believe that addressing the costs of atmospheric emissions will lead to increasing our competitive advantage by minimising risks and creating new economic opportunities. Engineers Australia believes the Australian Government should ratify the Kyoto Protocol." -Source
American Association of State Climatologists
"The AASC recognizes that human activities have an influence on the climate system. Such activities, however, are not limited to greenhouse gas forcing and include changing land use and sulfate emissions, which further complicates the issue of climate prediction. Furthermore, climate predictions have not demonstrated skill in projecting future variability and changes in such important climate conditions as growing season, drought, flood-producing rainfall, heat waves, tropical cyclones and winter storms. These are the type of events that have a more significant impact on society than annual average global temperature trends. ... The difficulty of prediction and the impossibility of verification of predictions decades into the future are important factors that allow for competing views of the long-term climate future. Therefore, the AASC recommends that policies related to long-term climate not be based on particular predictions, but instead should focus on policy alternatives that make sense for a wide range of plausible climatic conditions regardless of future climate. ... [O]ngoing political debate about global energy policy should not stand in the way of common sense action to reduce societal and environmental vulnerabilities to climate variability and change." - Policy Statement on Climate Variability and Change by the American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
US Geological Survey (USGS)
The most authoritative report on this issue is Climate Change 1995: IPCC Second Assessment Report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is part of the United Nations Environmental Programme. The IPCC has a large amount of information on their web site dealing with this topic.Geochange FAQ
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
To slow the rate of climate change, we can decrease the amount of carbon dioxide that we release into the atmosphere.”12
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
From my perspective, strong evidence is already accumulating that weighs heavily against the skeptics contentions that there is no significant global warming and that climate sensitivity is low.”1 –Dr. James Hansen, lead climate scientist and director of Goddard
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute – Ocean and Climate Change Institute
Global warming is pretty well accepted by the scientific community. Because greenhouse gas concentrations are projected to continue rising throughout the next century, our expectations over the next 100 or 200 years are that we will continue to see an upward trend in temperatures.”1
World Meteorological Organization
WMO Stresses Importance of Adaptation Strategies to Complement Climate Change Mitigation Efforts”1
United Nations Environment Program
The potential consequences of climate change are profound, particularly on people in the less developed countries. The question is therefore not whether climate change is happening, but what to do about it.”1
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospherice Sciences
90 Canadian climate science leaders from the academic, public and private sectors sent the Prime Minister of Canada an open letter. It says "We concur with the climate science assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001,.....We urge you and your government to develop an effective national strategy to deal with the many important aspects of climate that will affect both Canada and the rest of the world in the near future."1
International Council on Science
"The Earth’s environment is changing due to human activities, and is undermining sustainable development"1

State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
http://www.socc.ca/permafrost/permafrost_future_e.cfm
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarming.nsf/content/index.html
American Astronomical Society
In endorsing the "Human Impacts on Climate" statement, the AAS recognizes the collective expertise of the AGU in scientific subfields central to assessing and understanding global change, and acknowledges the strength of agreement among our AGU colleagues that the global climate is changing and human activities are contributing to that change. -American Astronomical Society, 2004
American Institute of Physics
The Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics has endorsed a position statement on climate change adopted by the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Council in December 2003.- American Institute of Physics, 2003
Pew Center on Climate Change
The scientific community has reached a strong consensus regarding the science of global climate change. The world is undoubtedly warming. This warming is largely the result of emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from human activities... - Global Warming Basics
World Wildlife Fund
Climate change is among the most pervasive threats to the web of life, yet we have the power to address its root causes and limit its impact on the planet. Smart energy choices made by individuals and businesses can dramatically reduce CO2 emissions and slow global warming. Without action, climate change will cause the extinction of countless species and destroy some of the world's most precious ecosystems. - http://worldwildlife.org/climate/
Peer Review Scientific Journals
anchor
Science / AAAS
In addition, a paper published in the premier scientific journal Science describes a survey of peer review journals from 1993-2003 containing the words “global climate change”. Of the 928 papers surveyed not a single paper disagreed with the scientific consensus. Naomi Oreskes describes her paper via an op-ed in the Washington Post.
We read 928 abstracts published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and listed in the database with the keywords "global climate change." Seventy-five percent of the papers either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view. The remaining 25 percent dealt with other facets of the subject, taking no position on whether current climate change is caused by human activity. None of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.”
Individual Scientists
anchor

The Petition - 11,885+ individual scientists listed by name
A petition signed by 52 Nobel Laureates, 63 National Medal of Science recipients, 195 members of the National Academies, and over 11,885+ other scientists criticizing the misuse and politicization of science in Washington. The list is continually growing so these are minimum numbers. Here is an excerpt from that petition:
“For example, in support of the president’s decision to avoid regulating emissions that cause climate change, the administration has consistently misrepresented the findings of the National Academy of Sciences, government scientists, and the expert community at large. Thus in June 2003, the White House demanded extensive changes in the treatment of climate change in a major report by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). To avoid issuing a scientifically indefensible report, EPA officials eviscerated the discussion of climate change and its consequences.”
Texas A&M - Department of Atmospheric Sciences Unanimous Endorsement of the IPCC
We, the tenured and tenure-track faculty of the Dept. of Atmospheric Sciences of Texas A&M, agree with the recent reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that:

1. It is virtually certain that the climate is warming, and that it has warmed by about 0.7 deg. C over the last 100 years.
2. It is very likely that humans are responsible for most of the recent warming.
3. If we do nothing to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases, future warming will likely be at least two degrees Celsius over the next century.
4. Such a climate change brings with it a risk of serious adverse impacts on our environment and society.

Kenneth Bowman
Sarah D. Brooks
Larry Carey
Ping Chang
Don Collins
Andrew Dessler
Robert Duce
Craig Epifanio
Rob Korty
Mark Lemmon
Don Lucas
Shaima L. Nasiri
John Nielsen-Gammon
Gerald North
Richard Orville
Lee Panetta
R. Saravanan
Gunnar W. Schade
Courtney Schumacher
Thomas Wilheit
Ping Yang
Fuqing Zhang
Renyi Zhang

Sources:
Thebatt.com, Changes on the way Department unanimously endorses climate report, Kristin Leveille 7/10/07
Dept Texas A&M statement
Scientific Consensus Statement on the Likely Impacts of Climate Change on the Pacific Northwest - June 15, 2004
The signatories of this consensus statement agree with the scientific findings about climate change as reported in the Third Assessment Report of Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), published in 2001. [snip] The statement is signed by 50 Ph.D.-level scientists with expertise on the impacts of climate change in the Pacific Northwest. Names of the signatories appear below.....
Realclimate.org articles
“One could debate whether overwhelming consensus is adequate grounds for action on climate change, but there are no grounds for debating whether such consensus actually exists.”1

[Steven Wilson]

part 2

More articles at:

Statistical analysis of consensus

The Wall Street Journal vs. The Scientific Consensus

Just what is this Consensus anyway?

NASA's Gavin Schmidt
"Regardless of these spats, the fact that the community overwhelmingly supports the consensus is evidenced by picking up any copy of Journal of Climate or similar, any scientific program at the AGU or EGU meetings, or simply going to talk to scientists (not the famous ones, the ones at your local university or federal lab). I challenge you, if you think there is some un-reported division, show me the hundreds of abstracts at the Fall meeting (the biggest confernce in the US on this topic) that support your view - you won't be able to. You can argue whether the consensus is correct, or what it really implies, but you can't credibly argue it doesn't exist." -gavin
Stephen H. Schneider Ph.D. - Professor at Stanford University
A handful of "contrarian" scientists and public figures who are not scientists have challenged mainstream climatologists' conclusions that the warming of the last few decades has been extraordinary and that at least part of this warming has been anthropogenically induced. What must be emphasized here is that, despite the length of this section, there are truly only a handful of climatologist contrarians relative to the number of mainstream climatologists out there. - Contrarians
Dr. James Baker - NOAA
"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know - except maybe Newton's second law of dynamics". -Deltoid, ECOS Letter
Michael Tobis Ph.D. - University of Texas Institute for Geophysics
It's easy to refute all the contrarian arguments but that seems to have very little effect on how commonly they are believed. Refuted arguments seem to live on in the public imagination. To bring the public on board to a rational discussion of climate policy needs more than logical argument. So what should we actually do? -Only In it For The Gold
Steven Sherwood Ph.D. - Yale
"Things being debated now are details about the models," ... "Nobody is debating any more that significant climate changes are coming." - NYT's, Errors Cited in Assessing Climate Data, ANDREW C. REVKIN, Aug, 12, 2005
Steven Hawking
"very worried about global warming." -Steven Hawking, China Daily, ABC (correction by gavin schmidt for accuracy)
Jerry Mahlman, NOAA
"Global warming is almost a no-brainer at this point," said Mahlman, who lives now on a mountain in Colorado. "You really can't find intelligent, quantitative arguments to make it go away." - The Star Ledger, Tempest brews in weather think tank
MIT
Video Link
Jason Pontin - MIT's Technology Review
Video Link
Industry
anchor
Shell Oil Co.

"It's a waste of time to debate it," he said. "Policymakers have a responsibility to address it. The nation needs a public policy. We'll adjust." - President John Hofmeister : MSNBC: Shell Oil chief: U.S. needs global warming plan


Munich Re: Insurance

"We need to stop this dangerous experiment humankind is conducting on the Earth's atmosphere." - Thomas Loster
14 Corporate leaders urging the Prime Minister to take bold action on climate change

"In May 2005 the Corporate Leaders Group on Climate Change wrote to you about the need to take urgent action on climate change. We welcomed the leadership that the Government had shown internationally and offered to work in partnership with you." ... "Bold leadership on domestic climate change policy has the potential to deliver significant economic benefits to the UK. " 1, 2

Which is signed by:

Bart Becht, Chief Executive Officer, Reckitt Benckiser
Neil Carson, Chief Executive, Johnson Matthey
Ian Cheshire, Chief Executive, B&Q
Mike Clasper, Chief Executive, BAA
Jonson Cox, Chief Executive, Anglian Water Group
Mervyn Davies, Group Chief Executive, Standard Chartered Bank
Alain Grisay, Chief Executive, F&C Asset Management
Sir Stuart Hampson, Executive Chairman, John Lewis Partnership
Sir Julian Horn-Smith, Deputy Chief Executive, Vodafone Group
Gavin Neath, National Manager, Unilever U.K.
Lucy Neville-Rolfe, Company Secretary and Group Corporate and Legal Affairs Director, Tesco
Trudy Norris-Grey, Managing Director UK & Ireland, Sun Microsystems
Hugh Scott-Barrett, Chief Financial Officer, ABN Amro
James Smith, Chairman, Shell U.K. Limited


18 Major Canadian Industries

The following is from a letter given at the Montreal Conference:

Our organizations accept that a strong response is required to the strengthening evidence in the scientific assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). We accept the IPCC consensus that climate change raises the risk of severe consequences for human health and security and the environment.” -[PDF] which is signed by:
Travis Engen, President & CEO, Alcan Inc.
Bob Elton, President & CEO, BC Hydro
Laurent Beaudoin, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, Bombardier Inc.
Russell Horner, President & CEO, Catalyst Paper Corporation
John Murray, President, CH2MHILL Canada Ltd.
Alban D’Amours, President & CEO, Desjardins Group
George Cooke, President & CEO, The Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company
Doug Muzyka, President & CEO, DuPont Canada
Derek Pannell, President & CEO, Falconbridge Limited
Annette Verschuren, President, The Home Depot Canada
David Wilmot, Chair, Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction
John R. Wells, President & CEO, Interface Americas
Brian Foody, President & CEO, Iogen Corporation
Jack Cogen, President & CEO, Natsource Asset Management
André Desmarais, President & Co-CEO, Power Corporation
Clive Mather, President & CEO, Shell Canada
Frank Dottori, President & CEO, Tembec Inc.
Gregg Hanson, President & CEO, The Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company
Virgin Trains and Virgin Atlantic

Sir Richard Branson is to invest $3bn (£1.6bn) to fight global warming. The Virgin boss said he would commit all profits from his travel firms, such as airline Virgin Atlantic and Virgin Trains, over the next 10 years. "We must rapidly wean ourselves off our dependence on coal and fossil fuels," Sir Richard said. - BBC: Branson makes $3bn climate pledge
British Petroleum
"Companies composed of highly skilled and trained people can't live in denial of mounting evidence gathered by hundreds of the most reputable scientists in the world."1,2 - Lord Browne. CEO
Wal-Mart
"Global warming is real, now, and it must be addressed." 1, 2, 3 - Lee Scott., CEO
Cinergy

If we stonewall this thing [carbon limitations] to five years out, all of a sudden the cost to us and ultimately to our consumers can be gigantic,"1 – James E. Rogers, manager of 20 coal fire plants
DuPont

"we came to the conclusion that the science was compelling and that action should be taken," 1 - Charles O. "Chad" Holliday Jr., CEO
Swiss Re. – (The world's second largest reinsurance company1,2)
"Risk of climate change is real. It's here. It's affecting our business today," 1 - John Coomber, CEO

"Property. Life. Health. Crops. D&O -- you name it. It's the perfect storm for insurers." 1 - Chris Walker, managing director, Swiss Re's Greenhouse Gas Risk Solutions

"Climate change is a phenomenon that is starting to have a major impact on Swiss Re, its partners and clients. The question is no longer whether global warming is happening, but how it will affect our business, as well as our personal lives." -CEO John Coomber, sponser of the documentary The Great Warming.
Fitch Ratings Ltd.
"Global warming is on the radar screen of a lot of financial institutions," 1 - Denise Furey, senior director, Fitch Ratings Ltd.
Turner Construction
Even the chance that [global warming] is a real issue should motivate each and every one of us to action,"1 - Thomas Leppert, CEO
;Goldman Sachs
"We support the need for a national policy to limit greenhouse gas emissions" -Environmental Policy Framework
JPMorgan Chase
"JPMorgan Chase advocates the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions." -Environmental Policy

"[JPMorgan advocates] that the US government adopt a market-based national policy on greenhouse gas emissions, which includes all sources of emissions and is fair. Options include either a cap-and-trade or tax policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the lowest possible cost. " - Climate change policy
General Electric
Ecomagination
Duke Energy
"I have become personally engaged in one such issue—global climate change. In the past, Duke Energy has supported voluntary efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In 2005, we decided it was time to take a more proactive leadership role and promote a federal, economy wide U.S. policy. We believe the best approach is a carbon tax, which would address greenhouse gas emissions from all sectors of the economy. A carbon tax would provide conservation incentives for everyone. It would promote higher utilization of power plants that are low emitters of carbon, and encourage low-carbon fuel choices for the future." -Paul Anderson, Chairman and CEO
NRG Energy
"companies and industries which deny the issue will be marginalized." - physorg,Power execs foresee carbon emission caps
Statoil
Has been working with BP on climate change mitigation since 1998.
Citigroup
Since 2002, Citigroup has collected data on the energy used in the 13,000 buildings that we own or lease globally in order to track and manage our greenhouse gas emissions as well as other elements of our environmental footprint. Earlier this year, Citigroup announced a goal to reduce our global emissions by 10%, from our 2005 level, by the year 2011. To further this effort, we have joined the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Climate Leaders Program, an industry-government partnership of leaders that are adopting aggressive goals to reduce emissions at facilities. -Climate Policy
Pfizer

To contribute to the world's efforts to reduce GHG emissions, we joined the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Climate Leaders program in 2002. - Climate Policy
AstraZeneca
"We are committed to minimising our impact on climate change" - Climate policyAn increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is widely thought by climate scientists to be causing a rise in the earth’s temperature, leading to climate change.
GlaxoSmithKline
"In 2004 we developed a draft position statement on our future use of energy, which will be finalised in 2005. This was in response to feedback showing that energy use is a key area of concern among our stakeholders. The draft position sets out a strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions through energy efficiency, renewable energy and emissions trading. It also acknowledges that climate change may affect disease patterns and proposes that GSK should support research to help society plan for the consequences of climate change." - Responsibility Report 2004
Business for Social Responsibility
"The global consequences of climate change - some of which we are seeing already - threaten to both disrupt natural ecosystem functions and jeopardize the natural capital that provides the economy's resource base." - Climate Change
EPA's Climate Leaders Program
http://www.epa.gov/stateply/partners/index.html
6 Business leaders including Westpac's CEO David Morgan
Their message is that Australia, and the world, needs to deeply cut greenhouse emissions, not just slow their growth. We cannot get there on the soft path the Government has taken. We need to switch paths, get tough, introduce a carbon charge, set targets and meet them. - The Age, Time to make tough choices on climate change
Military & Military Think Tanks
anchor
The Pentagon
The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents. Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life. - Guardian, Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us, Mark Townshend & Paul Harris, Sunday Feb, 22, 2004

There is substantial evidence to indicate that significant global warming will occur during the 21st century. ...With inadequate preparation, the result could be a significant drop in the human carrying capacity of the Earth’s environment. - Report, Grist,
Six Retired Admirals & Five Retired Generals
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Global warming poses a "serious threat to America's national security" and the U.S. likely will be dragged into fights over water and other shortages, top retired military leaders warn in a new report. The report says that in the next 30 to 40 years there will be wars over water, increased hunger instability from worsening disease and rising sea levels and global warming-induced refugees. "The chaos that results can be an incubator of civil strife, genocide and the growth of terrorism," the 35-page report predicts. -CNN, Report (PDF)
Royal United Services Institute - British military think tank founded in 1831
Just a slight rise in sea level would plunge roughly half of that country underwater, forcing perhaps 17 million people to seek refuge in neighboring India But India is constructing a 3,000-kilometer fence along its border with Bangladesh, and could hardly feed or shelter such a huge influx of people. . - Conference Focuses On Terror Potential Of Abrupt Climate Change
Administrative Officials
anchor

Presidents from 319+ Universities and Colleges
We, the undersigned presidents and chancellors of colleges and universities, are deeply concerned about the unprecedented scale and speed of global warming and its potential for large-scale, adverse health, social, economic and ecological effects. We recognize the scientific consensus that global warming is real and is largely being caused by humans. We further recognize the need to reduce the global emission of greenhouse gases by 80% by mid-century at the latest, in order to avert the worst impacts of global warming and to reestablish the more stable climatic conditions that have made human progress over the last 10,000 years possible.

-American College & University Presidents Climate Commitment

To see all the signatories please go here. I'm not typing out 319 different names.
Politicians
anchor

Arnold Schwarzenegger
"I say the [global warming] debate is over. We know the science," "We see the threat, and we know the time for action is now." - California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, United Nations summit.
Tony Blair
"the risks of climate change may well be greater than we thought." - Tony Blair 1,

"[Climate change is] Probably long term the single most important issue that we face as a global community". -Tony Blair

"Our effect on the environment, and in particular on climate change, is large and growing; he said." -Tony Blair
President Clinton
"The Earth is warming at an alarming rate, we are running out of fossil fuels, and it is long past time for us to take action to correct these problems," Clinton said. "This is also a tremendous opportunity and there are countless good new jobs to be created in the field of green energy." - Associated Press: Clinton conference raises $7B
British Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks
"The people in denial now are the equivalent of the Flat Earth Society,"-Get ready for freak weather, world's polluters told, Reuters, Catherine Bermer
Seattle Mayor Gregory Nickels
“The reality of global climate change is urgent. The stakes are high – locally and globally – and we need to act.” 1
Bill White, Mayor of Houston
Flannery allows the reader to understand and explain why humans ought to alter the atmosphere with humility. We and other species already have experienced climate change, and humans have tipped the 10,000-year balance between carbon dioxide emissions and absorption. Through a combination of personal responsibility and international law, we must slow the pace of change to give the global community a chance to reflect and plan.” —Bill White, Mayor of Houston
John McCain
"I'm concerned about climate change. I'm going to do something about it." -Meet Captain Climate


Map of ~300 mayors that have signed the Climate Protection Agreement:



Climate Protection Agreement Text
List of majors who have signed




Mainstream Media
anchor
The Economist
The uncertainty surrounding climate change argues for action, not inaction. America should lead the way - The heat is on, Sep 7th 2006
USA Today
“not only is the science in, it is also overwhelming.”- Dan Vergano
BBC
;‘An expert panel convened by BBC News has concluded that climate change is "real and dangerous". Temperatures are likely to rise by 3C to 5C by the end of the century, with impacts probably "severe" but perhaps not "catastrophic", the panel said.’ - BBC

"Several said they have never known such a positive atmosphere. Nobody doubted the reality of climate science anymore." - Mixed outcomes at climate talks, BBC News, Roger Harrabin
The Australian
"THE debate on climate change is over. As far as the Howard Government is concerned, Australians must accept that humans contribute to global warming and adapt their behaviour to save the planet." -Matt Price
Jared Diamond, author of Guns, Germs & Steel

At last, here is a clear and readable account of one of the most important but controversial issues facing everyone in the world today. If you are not already addicted to Tim Flannery's writing, discover him now: The Weather Makers is his best book yet.” —Jared Diamond, author of Collapse and Guns, Germs & Steel 1
Christian Science Monitor
Honest and spirited writing that makes this book a compelling read, and one that could melt public ambivalence. Flannery . . . deftly brings the complex field of climate science and its components such as greenhouse gases and global warming within reach of the lay reader.” —Lori Valigra, Christian Science Monitor 1


Religion
anchor

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops -(the official leadership body of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States)
WASHINGTON (June 1, 2007)—In an unprecedented action, the Presidents of the Catholic Bishops’ Conferences of seven countries, including the United States, have written to the leaders of the Group of 8 Countries to urge bold action on global poverty, health care, climate change and peace and security, at next week’s G8 Summit in Germany. - Official Media Relations

“The G8 Summit will explore many issues of critical importance to human life and dignity,” the bishops said. “We pray that your meeting will be blessed by a spirit of collaboration that enables the G8 leaders to advance the global common good by adopting concrete measures on global poverty, health care, climate change and peace and security.” - Official Media Relations

Our national debate over solutions to global climate change needs to move beyond the uses and abuses of science, sixty-second ads, and exaggerated claims. Because this issue touches so many people, as well as the planet itself, all parties need to strive for a civil and constructive debate about U.S. decisions and leadership in this area. As people of religious faith, we bishops believe that the atmosphere that supports life on earth is a God-given gift, one we must respect and protect. It unites us as one human family. If we harm the atmosphere, we dishonor our Creator and the gift of creation. -Climate Statement
National Association of Evangelicals
"But support on the issue has broadened. God's call on his people is to care for his creation." - Jim Jewell, serving (52 denominations serving 30 million parishioners) Businessweek, The Race Againse Climate Change, 12, 12, 2005
Evangelical Climate Initiative
Human-Induced Climate Change is Real... The Consequences of Climate Change Will Be Significant, and Will Hit the Poor the Hardest ... Christian Moral Convictions Demand Our Response to the Climate Change Problem ... The need to act now is urgent. Governments, businesses, churches, and individuals all have a role to play in addressing climate change—starting now. -Climate Change An Evangelical Call to Action , Signatories


-Copyright © 2006-2007 Logicalscience.com-

[Kyle Kraft]

I'm sorry if this is considered hijacking, but how does one determine if someones name is for real or an alias? I know of several people who have name combinations that really make you wonder "What in the heck were his/her parents thinking when they came up with that?"

The blatantly obvious ones I can figure out myself, but some others make me wonder......

[Steven Wilson]

Well, let's see if any of Andrew's organizations have anything to do with real science or if they're just fronts for the denialists and their mumbo jumbo pseudoscience.

Hmmm, the Union of Concerned Scientists found a few

---------------------------

backgrounder
Responding to Global Warming Skeptics
—Prominent Skeptics Organizations



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Global Climate Coalition

Founded in 1989 by 46 corporations and trade associations representing all major elements of US industry, the GCC presents itself as a "voice for business in the global warming debate." The group funded several flawed studies on the economics of the cost of mitigating climate change, which formed the basis of their 1997/1998 multi-million dollar advertising campaign against the Kyoto Protocol. The GCC began to unravel in 1997 when British Petroleum withdrew its membership. Since then many other corporations have followed BP s lead and left the coalition. This exodus reached a fevered pitch in the early months of 2000 when DaimlerChrysler, Texaco and General Motors all announced their exodus from the GCC. Since these desertions, the GCC restructured and remains a powerful and well-funded force focused on obstructing meaningful efforts to mitigate climate change.

Spin: Global Warming is real, but it is too expensive to do anything about. The Kyoto Protocol is fundamentally flawed.

Funding: Corporate members (industries, trade associations etc.)

George Marshall Institute

This conservative think tank shifted its focus from Star Wars to climate change in the late 1980s. In 1989, the Marshall Institute released a report claiming that "cyclical variations in the intensity of the sun would offset any climate change associated with elevated greenhouse gases." Though refuted by the IPCC, the report was very influential in influencing the Bush Sr. Administration s climate change policy. The Marshall Institute has since published numerous reports downplaying the severity of global climate change.


Spin: Blame the Sun. The Kyoto Protocol is fatally flawed.

Affiliated Individuals: Sallie Baliunas, an astrophysicist from Harvard; and Frederick Seitz.

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine


The Marshall Institute co-sponsored with the OISM a deceptive campaign -- known as the Petition Project -- to undermine and discredit the scientific authority of the IPCC and to oppose the Kyoto Protocol. Early in the spring of 1998, thousands of scientists around the country received a mass mailing urging them to sign a petition calling on the government to reject the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was accompanied by other pieces including an article formatted to mimic the journal of the National Academy of Sciences. Subsequent research revealed that the article had not been peer-reviewed, nor published, nor even accepted for publication in that journal and the Academy released a strong statement disclaiming any connection to this effort and reaffirming the reality of climate change. The Petition resurfaced in 2001.

Spin: There is no scientific basis for claims about global warming. IPCC is a hoax. Kyoto is flawed.

Funding: Petition was funded by private sources.

Affiliated Individuals: Arthur B. Robinson, Sallie L. Baliunas, Frederick Seitz




Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)

Founded in 1990 by widely publicized climate skeptic S. Fred Singer, SEPP s stated purpose is to "document the relationship between scientific data and the development of federal environmental policy." SEPP has mounted a sizeable media campaign -- publishing articles, letters to the editor, and a large number of press releases -- to discredit the issues of global warming, ozone depletion, and acid rain.

Spin: Moreover, climate change won t be bad for us anyway. Action on climate change is not warranted because of shaky science and flawed policy approaches.

Funding: Conservative foundations including Bradley, Smith Richardson, and Forbes. SEPP has also been directly tied to ultra right-wing mogul Reverend Sung Myung Moon s Unification Church, including receipt of a year s free office space from a Moon-funded group and the participation of SEPP s director in church-sponsored conferences and on the board of a Moon-funded magazine.

Affiliated Individuals:S. Fred Singer,Frederick Seitz




Greening Earth Society

The Greening Earth Society (GES) was founded on Earth Day 1998 by the Western Fuels Association to promote the view that increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 are good for humanity. GES and Western Fuels are essentially the same organization. Both used to be located at the same office suite in Arlington, VA. Until December 2000, Fred Palmer chaired both institutions. The GES is now chaired by Bob Norrgard, another long-term Western Fuels associate. The Western Fuels Assocation (WFA) is a cooperative of coal-dependent utilities in the western states that works in part to discredit climate change science and to prevent regulations that might damage coal-related industries.




Spin: CO2 emissions are good for the planet; coal is the best energy source we have.

Affiliated Individuals: Patrick Michaels, Robert Balling, David Wojick, Sallie Baliunas, Sylvan Wittwer, John Daley, Sherwood Idso

Funding: The Greening Earth Society receives its funding from the Western Fuels Association, which in turn receives its funding from its coal and utility company members.




Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide & Global Change

The Center claims to "disseminate factual reports and sound commentary on new developments in the world-wide scientific quest to determine the climactic and biological consequences of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content." The Center is led by two brothers, Craig and Keith Idso. Their father, Sherwood Idso, is affiliated with the Greening Earth Society; the Center also shares a board member (Sylvan Wittwer) with GES. Both Idso brothers have been on the Western Fuels payroll at one time or another.

Spin: Increased levels of CO2 will help plants, and that's good.

Funding: The Center is extremely secretive of its funding sources, stating that it is their policy not to divulge it funders. There is evidence for a strong connection to the Greening Earth Society (ergo Western Fuels Association).

Affiliated Individuals: Craig Idso, Keith Idso, Sylvan Wittwer

UPDATE:

butterfly links
UCS Global Warming Program
ExxonMobil Report: Smoke Mirrors & Hot Air The Union of Concerned Scientists report, Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to "Manufacture Uncertainty" on Climate Change, details how ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics, as well as some of the same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue. According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science. See the report for a list of these organizations.

[Gary Keedwell]

#16 (http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showpost.php?p=625544&postcount=16) http://www.sawmillcreek.org/images/buttons/report.gif (http://www.sawmillcreek.org/report.php?p=625544)
http://www.sawmillcreek.org/images/statusicon/post_new.gif Today, 5:19 PM
Steven Wilson (http://www.sawmillcreek.org/member.php?u=476) http://www.sawmillcreek.org/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif vbmenu_register("postmenu_625544", true);
Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,232


Well, let's see if any of Andrew's organizations have anything to do with real science or if they're just fronts for the denialists and their mumbo jumbo pseudoscience.




It is inflammatory remarks like these that incite people. There are tons of respected people on the other side of the fence. These types of remarks are not constructive.:mad:
Gary K.

[Andrew Poptech]

Glen Gunderson,

If you actually look at the board members of these groups, especially the ones with 'Scientific' Names, you will find reputable scientists. The point of listing the groups is to show that their is no consensus amoung organizations either. The list of scientists speaks for itself however.

Steve,

What point would you like to address? Copy and pasting the information off: http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensus.htm does not really address anything. If you like I can do the same off other pages and this page would get very long real quick.

As for consensus...


Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

But see you have to use these words, denialist, psuedoscience (even though they are posted in Peer Review Journals) and of course "Consensus". Then of course launch attacks on their credibility by claiming they are all funded by big oil ect...

[Andrew Poptech]

Quick Facts:

- Global surface temperatures have increased only about 0.6°C in the last 100 years. ( IPCC (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/005.htm) )
- Global average sea level has risen only about 6 inches in the last 100 years. (Based on tidal guage data) ( IPCC (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/409.htm) )
- Global mean sea level rise is in the range of 1.0 to 2.0 mm/yr. (Based on tidal guage data) ( IPCC (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/409.htm) )
- No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected. ( IPCC (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/409.htm) )
- Carbon Dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere have risen by about 30% (280-370 ppmv) over the past 100 years. ( IPCC (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/096.htm) )
- Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is only about 0.038% of the atmosphere. ( NASA (http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html) )
- Humans can only claim responsibility for about 3.4% of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere annually. ( Source (http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/) )
- Ice core records show Carbon Dioxide (CO2) levels lag behind Temperature changes by hundreds of years. ( Source (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/299/5613/1728) )
- Carbon Dioxide accounts for somewhere between 4.2% and 8.4% of the greenhouse effect. ( Source (http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/) )
- Water Vapor + Clouds account for about 90-95% of the greenhouse effect. ( Source (http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/) ) ( NASA (http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/Products/WaterVapor/) )

* Anthropogenic (man-made) Global Warming is an unproven Theory.
* There is no "scientific consensus" that global warming will cause catastrophic climate change.
* Science is not determined by "consensus" but by the Scientific Method.

[Andy Hoyt]

You guys have had your say. For the last time.

I'm locking this thread without deleting anything so your words are preserved for all time.

They do not need to be repeated here at SMC. Ever.