-40 in North Dakota!

[skookerasbil]

Abraham was quite right. Climate scientists have not claimed that the world wouldn't ever experience cold weather again. The walleyedretard responds by pointing out that one lone scientist warned 13 years ago that snowfall would become rare in England - (David Viner and his (now famous) "children won't know what snow is" comment). What's obvious to everybody but the brainwashed denier cult retards is the fact that if Dr. Viner is "now famous" for that remark, then it must have been an unusual or extreme prediction. If all the other climate scientists had ever said anything like that then Dr. Viner's comment wouldn't be "famous" or unusual. And of course, ol' walleyed has to ignore the fact that Dr. Viner was only talking about Britain and also ignore the context for that statement and the rest of what Dr. Viner said in that article walleyed cited.

Here's another quote from Dr. Viner from walleyed's article:
"Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared."

Now, let's look at the context for Dr. Viner's remark 13 years ago in 2000. The 1970s, 80s and 90s were a time of rapid surface temperature warming. Snowfall had declined quite a bit in Britain. As the article walleyed cited said:
"Britain's winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives. Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain's culture, as warmer winters - which scientists are attributing to global climate change - produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries. The first two months of 2000 were virtually free of significant snowfall in much of lowland Britain, and December brought only moderate snowfall in the South-east. It is the continuation of a trend that has been increasingly visible in the past 15 years: in the south of England, for instance, from 1970 to 1995 snow and sleet fell for an average of 3.7 days, while from 1988 to 1995 the average was 0.7 days. London's last substantial snowfall was in February 1991."

So, given the trends they were witnessing at the time, Dr. Viner's prediction seemed logical. At that time climate scientists hadn't yet seen the changes in the path of the jet stream and some other effects produced by the rapidly shrinking Arctic ice. Because deniers are so ignorant about science, they ignore the fact that our scientific understanding of the world develops and progresses as new evidence and phenomena arise and are studied. It is only in the last 13 years that scientists have observed that the continuing rapid Arctic ice loss was changing the behavior of the jet stream, causing it to push Arctic air masses further south, and sometimes slowing it down, causing storms to linger in one area longer. Dr. Viner's prediction seems off base and premature now after some years of heavy winter snowstorms in England, Europe and parts of North America but, at the time in 2000, it was not unreasonable. Continued global warming will eventually cause much less snow in many places, but for now, other factors are overriding that trend.

You propagandists are so damned funny!

You denier cultists are so damned crazy!!! Seriously, walleyed, if you're not institutionalized or in therapy, you definitely should be, 'cause you are obviously living in a bizarre and very delusional fantasy world that has no connection to reality.





Riiiiight, walleyed, ignore the historical context for Dr. Viner's prediction, ignore the fact that he was just talking about winter snow in Britain, and be sure to ignore what else he said in the article you cited - "Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner". You denier cult retards are really good at ignoring all of the facts that don't support your cultic myths.




No, here's the reality, Mr. Retardo. NOBODY said that "there has been" any "ARCTIC ICE FREE TIME". The scientific reports I am citing are talking about the massive loss of ice cover in the Arctic since the 1950s but none of them ever said anything about the Arctic already being "ICE FREE", numbnuts.




And there you are in your own private fantasy world, stewing in your own juices until your tushy turns mushy.

In the real world, Arctic sea ice extent is less that a third of what it was in the 1950s (about 4.25 million square miles) and the volume of the ice has declined even more.

Monthly September ice extent for 1979 to 2013 shows a decline of 13.7% per decade. - Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center
(source - NSIDC)

Monthly averaged ice volume for September 2013 was 5,000 km3. This value is 56% lower than the mean over this period, 70% lower than the maximum in 1979, and 0.6 standard deviations below the 1979-2013 trend. September ice volume was about 1600 km3 larger than in September of 2012 and within 500 km3 of the 2010 September ice volume. While ice volume at the maximum during April was on par with the previous two years, reduction in ice volume during the summer months was less than in previous years. September ice volume showed the first increase since 2008 but is still below the long-term trend line.
(source - Polar Science Center - University of Washington)




Well, the Earth has been generally warming and the Arctic ice cover has been decreasing, so.....I guess we were right.

On the other hand, you have no idea what you're talking about. Arctic ice extent has been reaching record lows every few years and in between the ice comes back slightly from the last low. There were record lows in 2005, 2007 and 2012. Last year, 2012, the ice extent had declined from about 4.25 million square miles in the 1950s to a record low of only 1.32 million square miles. This year it rebounded slightly from the new record low but it is still only back up to the extent it had in 2008. Volume is still steeply declining.






Actually it looks like you're a confused delusional retard....same as always.

Here's the current Arctic ice levels. 2% below the 1981-2010 mean and we aren't even in winter yet.

The changes in ice extent from year to year are measured when the ice is at its lowest extent, which happens in September. I'm not surprised that you are too ignorant about all this to know that. Ice extent grows every winter but these winter extents have almost nothing to do with the long term ice loss trend that is revealed when the ice is at its minimum. Here's what the National Snow and Ice Data Center had to say this last October.

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis
NSIDC
October 3, 2013

September average sea ice extent for 2013 was the sixth lowest in the satellite record. The 2012 September extent was 32% lower than this year’s extent, while the 1981 to 2010 average was 22% higher than this year’s extent. Through 2013, the September linear rate of decline is 13.7% per decade relative to the 1981 to 2010 average.

That would be an epic fail for you blunder....epic.
/sunshinehours.files.wordpress.com/

Actually, walleyed, this whole thread is another one of your "epic fails", but, as always, you're way too retarded and delusional to realize that fact.

Yo nobody cares except the climate OCD's!!!


New Stanford Poll Finds Waning Concern About Man-Made Global Warming - Hit & Run : Reason.com



And global warming is at the BOTTOM of Americans environmental concerns >>> http://www.gallup.com/poll/153653/Americans-Worries-Global-Warming-Slightly.aspx





Oh.....but we are the denier cultist retards!!!

 

[westwall]

You denier cultists are so damned crazy!!! Seriously, walleyed, if you're not institutionalized or in therapy, you definitely should be, 'cause you are obviously living in a bizarre and very delusional fantasy world that has no connection to reality.





Riiiiight, walleyed, ignore the historical context for Dr. Viner's prediction, ignore the fact that he was just talking about winter snow in Britain, and be sure to ignore what else he said in the article you cited - "Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner". You denier cult retards are really good at ignoring all of the facts that don't support your cultic myths.




No, here's the reality, Mr. Retardo. NOBODY said that "there has been" any "ARCTIC ICE FREE TIME". The scientific reports I am citing are talking about the massive loss of ice cover in the Arctic since the 1950s but none of them ever said anything about the Arctic already being "ICE FREE", numbnuts.




And there you are in your own private fantasy world, stewing in your own juices until your tushy turns mushy.

In the real world, Arctic sea ice extent is less that a third of what it was in the 1950s (about 4.25 million square miles) and the volume of the ice has declined even more.

Monthly September ice extent for 1979 to 2013 shows a decline of 13.7% per decade. - Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center
(source - NSIDC)

Monthly averaged ice volume for September 2013 was 5,000 km3. This value is 56% lower than the mean over this period, 70% lower than the maximum in 1979, and 0.6 standard deviations below the 1979-2013 trend. September ice volume was about 1600 km3 larger than in September of 2012 and within 500 km3 of the 2010 September ice volume. While ice volume at the maximum during April was on par with the previous two years, reduction in ice volume during the summer months was less than in previous years. September ice volume showed the first increase since 2008 but is still below the long-term trend line.
(source - Polar Science Center - University of Washington)




Well, the Earth has been generally warming and the Arctic ice cover has been decreasing, so.....I guess we were right.

On the other hand, you have no idea what you're talking about. Arctic ice extent has been reaching record lows every few years and in between the ice comes back slightly from the last low. There were record lows in 2005, 2007 and 2012. Last year, 2012, the ice extent had declined from about 4.25 million square miles in the 1950s to a record low of only 1.32 million square miles. This year it rebounded slightly from the new record low but it is still only back up to the extent it had in 2008. Volume is still steeply declining.






Actually it looks like you're a confused delusional retard....same as always.




The changes in ice extent from year to year are measured when the ice is at its lowest extent, which happens in September. I'm not surprised that you are too ignorant about all this to know that. Ice extent grows every winter but these winter extents have almost nothing to do with the long term ice loss trend that is revealed when the ice is at its minimum. Here's what the National Snow and Ice Data Center had to say this last October.

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis
NSIDC
October 3, 2013

September average sea ice extent for 2013 was the sixth lowest in the satellite record. The 2012 September extent was 32% lower than this year’s extent, while the 1981 to 2010 average was 22% higher than this year’s extent. Through 2013, the September linear rate of decline is 13.7% per decade relative to the 1981 to 2010 average.






Actually, walleyed, this whole thread is another one of your "epic fails", but, as always, you're way too retarded and delusional to realize that fact.

Sure thing blunder. I have to say your blind devotion to a failed theory is quite astonishing. Epic even.

As usual, your response to getting your fallacious delusional bullshit thoroughly debunked is to double down on the stupidity and the reality denial.

Actually, my "blind devotion", based on a good understanding of science and the evidence, to a "failed theory", that is somehow supported and affirmed by virtually the entire world scientific community, is astonishingly sane and rational compared to your moronic devotion to the anti-science propaganda being pushed by the fossil fuel industry in their desperate efforts to preserve their trillion dollar a year profit stream.[/QUOTE]









Your last statement is the important one here. Yes, the fossil fuel industry makes tons of money. Hundreds of billions of dollars in point of fact.

Now. How much money do you people want to spend to change the entire economy of the world? 76 TRILLION dollars. And that's only the beginning, because as we all know no government estimate is ever correct. Just look at the Big Dig in Boston that was estimated to cost 2.8 billion but came in, finally, at 14.6 billion.

So, if we just guestimate you idiots only doubling the cost do to your gross incompetence, then that 76 trillion balloons to 150 trillion.

So, who's got the most money to make here? Guess what...it ain't the evil oil companies. It's you fraudsters. And, what's worse, you don't even guarantee a product that's useful for that enormous pile of cash. You give us a maybe. Maybe the temp of the planet will be lower by one degree in 100 years.

What a fucking joke. And your BS statement about the scientists of the world supporting the failed theory has been proven false so many times I won't waste my time shooting that particular bit of silliness down.

No, the political and economic drive is strongest with you fraudsters.

 

[RollingThunder]

Sure thing blunder. I have to say your blind devotion to a failed theory is quite astonishing. Epic even.

As usual, your response to getting your fallacious delusional bullshit thoroughly debunked is to double down on the stupidity and the reality denial.

Actually, my "blind devotion", based on a good understanding of science and the evidence, to a "failed theory", that is somehow supported and affirmed by virtually the entire world scientific community, is astonishingly sane and rational compared to your moronic devotion to the anti-science propaganda being pushed by the fossil fuel industry in their desperate efforts to preserve their trillion dollar a year profit stream.

Your last statement is the important one here. Yes, the fossil fuel industry makes tons of money. Hundreds of billions of dollars in point of fact.

Now. How much money do you people want to spend to change the entire economy of the world? 76 TRILLION dollars. And that's only the beginning, because as we all know no government estimate is ever correct. Just look at the Big Dig in Boston that was estimated to cost 2.8 billion but came in, finally, at 14.6 billion.

So, if we just guestimate you idiots only doubling the cost do to your gross incompetence, then that 76 trillion balloons to 150 trillion.

So, who's got the most money to make here? Guess what...it ain't the evil oil companies. It's you fraudsters. And, what's worse, you don't even guarantee a product that's useful for that enormous pile of cash. You give us a maybe. Maybe the temp of the planet will be lower by one degree in 100 years.

LOLOLOLOL....the clueless nonsense you post, walleyed, is sometimes so completely insane, laughter is the only appropriate response.

What a fucking joke.

I would have to agree that you and your moronic posts are indeed a "fucking joke".

And your BS statement about the scientists of the world supporting the failed theory has been proven false so many times I won't waste my time shooting that particular bit of silliness down.

Your deranged fantasies are a real hoot, walleyed. You seem to live in some sort of wacko denier cult bizarro-world where everything is opposite from the real world. Your disconnection from reality is symptomatic of some pretty severe mental illness. Seek help.

As far as your hallucinations about the conclusions of the world scientific community on the reality and dangers of AGW go, they also have nothing to do with reality. I recently posted this on another thread, but I guess it needs repeating. Here's what is actually happening in the real world.

Nobody said that that "all scientists" support and affirm the theory of AGW but the fact is that the vast majority of the world's scientists do support and affirm the scientific theory of AGW and the conclusions of the climate scientists on the dangers to our world and our civilization posed by AGW.

Here's the truth about the overwhelming scientific consensus on AGW and none of your frantic repetitions of your denier cult myths is going to change that truth or make you any less like the completely ignorant, brainwashed idiot that you are.

Scientific opinion on climate change
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License;
Terms of Use - You are free to:
Read and Print our articles and other media free of charge.
Share and Reuse our articles and other media under free and open licenses.)

The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is extremely likely (at least 95% probability) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. In addition, it is likely that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by increased aerosols.[1][2][3][4] This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on climate change. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), summarized below:

* Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[5]
* Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[6]
* "Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.[7] Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[7] Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming."[7]
* "[...] the range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time"[8]
* "The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources)"[9]​

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[10] which in 2007[11] updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[12] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.

Synthesis reports

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007

In February 2007, the IPCC released a summary of the forthcoming Fourth Assessment Report. According to this summary, the Fourth Assessment Report finds that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability. Global warming in this case is indicated by an increase of 0.75 degrees in average global temperatures over the last 100 years.[14]

The New York Times reported that “the leading international network of climate scientists has concluded for the first time that global warming is 'unequivocal' and that human activity is the main driver, very likely' causing most of the rise in temperatures since 1950”.[15]

A retired journalist for The New York Times, William K. Stevens wrote: “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said the likelihood was 90 percent to 99 percent that emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, spewed from tailpipes and smokestacks, were the dominant cause of the observed warming of the last 50 years. In the panel’s parlance, this level of certainty is labeled 'very likely'. Only rarely does scientific odds-making provide a more definite answer than that, at least in this branch of science, and it describes the endpoint, so far, of a progression.”.[16]

The Associated Press summarized the position on sea level rise:
On sea levels, the report projects rises of 7 to 23 inches by the end of the century. An additional 3.9 to 7.8 inches are possible if recent, surprising melting of polar ice sheets continues.[17]

U.S. Global Change Research Program
formerly the Climate Change Science Program

The U.S. Global Change Research Program reported in June 2009[18] that:
Observations show that warming of the climate is unequivocal. The global warming observed over the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. These emissions come mainly from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas), with important contributions from the clearing of forests, agricultural practices, and other activities.

The report, which is about the effects that climate change is having in the United States, also says:

Climate-related changes have already been observed globally and in the United States. These include increases in air and water temperatures, reduced frost days, increased frequency and intensity of heavy downpours, a rise in sea level, and reduced snow cover, glaciers, permafrost, and sea ice. A longer ice-free period on lakes and rivers, lengthening of the growing season, and increased water vapor in the atmosphere have also been observed. Over the past 30 years, temperatures have risen faster in winter than in any other season, with average winter temperatures in the Midwest and northern Great Plains increasing more than 7°F. Some of the changes have been faster than previous assessments had suggested.

Arctic Climate Impact Assessment

In 2004, the intergovernmental Arctic Council and the non-governmental International Arctic Science Committee released the synthesis report of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment:[19]

Climate conditions in the past provide evidence that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are associated with rising global temperatures. Human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas), and secondarily the clearing of land, have increased the concentration of carbon dioxide, methane, and other heat-trapping ("greenhouse") gases in the atmosphere...There is international scientific consensus that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[20]

Policy

There is an extensive discussion in the scientific literature on what policies might be effective in responding to climate change.[21] Some scientific bodies have recommended specific policies to governments (refer to the later sections of the article).[22] The natural and social sciences can play a role in informing an effective response to climate change.[23] However, policy decisions may require value judgements.[23] For example, the US National Research Council[24] has commented:

The question of whether there exists a "safe" level of concentration of greenhouse gases cannot be answered directly because it would require a value judgment of what constitutes an acceptable risk to human welfare and ecosystems in various parts of the world, as well as a more quantitative assessment of the risks and costs associated with the various impacts of global warming. In general, however, risk increases with increases in both the rate and the magnitude of climate change.

This article mostly focuses on the views of natural scientists. However, social scientists,[21] medical experts,[25] engineers[21] and philosophers[26] have also commented on climate change science and policies. Climate change policy is discussed in several articles: climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation, geoengineering, politics of global warming, climate ethics, and economics of global warming.

Statements by scientific organizations of national or international standing

This is a list of scientific bodies of national or international standing, that have issued formal statements of opinion, classifies those organizations according to whether they concur with the IPCC view, are non-committal, or dissent from it.

Concurring

Academies of science (general science)

Since 2001 34 national science academies, three regional academies, and both the international InterAcademy Council and International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences have made formal declarations confirming human induced global warming and urging nations to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The 34 national science academy statements include 33 who have signed joint science academy statements and one individual declaration by the Polish Academy of Sciences in 2007.

Joint national science academy statements

2001 Following the publication of the IPCC Third Assessment Report, seventeen national science academies issued a joint statement, entitled "The Science of Climate Change", explicitly acknowledging the IPCC position as representing the scientific consensus on climate change science. The statement, printed in an editorial in the journal Science on May 18, 2001,[27] was signed by the science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, Turkey, and the United Kingdom.[28]

2005 The national science academies of the G8 nations, plus Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, signed a statement on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action, and explicitly endorsed the IPCC consensus. The eleven signatories were the science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.[29]

2007 In preparation for the 33rd G8 summit, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a declaration referencing the position of the 2005 joint science academies' statement, and acknowledging the confirmation of their previous conclusion by recent research. Following the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, the declaration states, "It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken." The thirteen signatories were the national science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States.[30]

2007 In preparation for the 33rd G8 summit, the Network of African Science Academies submitted a joint “statement on sustainability, energy efficiency, and climate change”:

A consensus, based on current evidence, now exists within the global scientific community that human activities are the main source of climate change and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible for driving this change. The IPCC should be congratulated for the contribution it has made to public understanding of the nexus that exists between energy, climate and sustainability.

— The thirteen signatories were the science academies of Cameroon, Ghana, Kenya, Madagascar, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe, as well as the African Academy of Sciences , [31]

2008 In preparation for the 34th G8 summit, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a declaration reiterating the position of the 2005 joint science academies’ statement, and reaffirming “that climate change is happening and that anthropogenic warming is influencing many physical and biological systems.” Among other actions, the declaration urges all nations to “(t)ake appropriate economic and policy measures to accelerate transition to a low carbon society and to encourage and effect changes in individual and national behaviour.” The thirteen signatories were the same national science academies that issued the 2007 joint statement.[32]

2009 In advance of the UNFCCC negotiations to be held in Copenhagen in December 2009, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a joint statement declaring, "Climate change and sustainable energy supply are crucial challenges for the future of humanity. It is essential that world leaders agree on the emission reductions needed to combat negative consequences of anthropogenic climate change". The statement references the IPCC's Fourth Assessment of 2007, and asserts that "climate change is happening even faster than previously estimated; global CO2 emissions since 2000 have been higher than even the highest predictions, Arctic sea ice has been melting at rates much faster than predicted, and the rise in the sea level has become more rapid." The thirteen signatories were the same national science academies that issued the 2007 and 2008 joint statements.[22]

Polish Academy of Sciences

In December 2007, the General Assembly of the Polish Academy of Sciences (Polska Akademia Nauk), which has not been a signatory to joint national science academy statements issued a declaration endorsing the IPCC conclusions, and stating:

it is the duty of Polish science and the national government to, in a thoughtful, organized and active manner, become involved in realisation of these ideas.
Problems of global warming, climate change, and their various negative impacts on human life and on the functioning of entire societies are one of the most dramatic challenges of modern times.

PAS General Assembly calls on the national scientific communities and the national government to actively support Polish participation in this important endeavor.[33]

Additional national science academy and society statements

American Association for the Advancement of Science as the world's largest general scientific society, adopted an official statement on climate change in 2006:

The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society....The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.[34]

Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies in 2008 published FASTS Statement on Climate Change[35] which states:

Global climate change is real and measurable...To reduce the global net economic, environmental and social losses in the face of these impacts, the policy objective must remain squarely focused on returning greenhouse gas concentrations to near pre-industrial levels through the reduction of emissions. The spatial and temporal fingerprint of warming can be traced to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, which are a direct result of burning fossil fuels, broad-scale deforestation and other human activity.

United States National Research Council through its Committee on the Science of Climate Change in 2001, published Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions.[36] This report explicitly endorses the IPCC view of attribution of recent climate change as representing the view of the scientific community:

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 IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue.[36]

Royal Society of New Zealand having signed onto the first joint science academy statement in 2001, released a separate statement in 2008 in order to clear up "the controversy over climate change and its causes, and possible confusion among the public":

The globe is warming because of increasing greenhouse gas emissions. Measurements show that greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere are well above levels seen for many thousands of years. Further global climate changes are predicted, with impacts expected to become more costly as time progresses. Reducing future impacts of climate change will require substantial reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.[37]

The Royal Society of the United Kingdom has not changed its concurring stance reflected in its participation in joint national science academies' statements on anthropogenic global warming. According to the Telegraph, "The most prestigious group of scientists in the country was forced to act after fellows complained that doubts over man made global warming were not being communicated to the public".[38] In May 2010, it announced that it "is presently drafting a new public facing document on climate change, to provide an updated status report on the science in an easily accessible form, also addressing the levels of certainty of key components."[39] The society says that it is three years since the last such document was published and that, after an extensive process of debate and review,[40][41] the new document was printed in September 2010. It summarises the current scientific evidence and highlights the areas where the science is well established, where there is still some debate, and where substantial uncertainties remain. The society has stated that "this is not the same as saying that the climate science itself is in error – no Fellows have expressed such a view to the RS".[39] The introduction includes this statement:
There is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has been caused largely by human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use, including agriculture and deforestation.

International science academies

African Academy of Sciences in 2007 was a signatory to the "statement on sustainability, energy efficiency, and climate change", the joint statement of African science academies, organized through the Network of African Science Academies, confirming anthropogenic global warming and presented to the leaders meeting at the G8 Summit in Heiligendamm, Germany.

European Academy of Sciences and Arts in 2007 issued a formal declaration on climate change titled Let's Be Honest:

Human activity is most likely responsible for climate warming. Most of the climatic warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Documented long-term climate changes include changes in Arctic temperatures and ice, widespread changes in precipitation amounts, ocean salinity, wind patterns and extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves and the intensity of tropical cyclones. The above development potentially has dramatic consequences for mankind’s future.[42]

European Science Foundation in a 2007 position paper [43] states:

There is now convincing evidence that since the industrial revolution, human activities, resulting in increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases have become a major agent of climate change... On-going and increased efforts to mitigate climate change through reduction in greenhouse gases are therefore crucial.

InterAcademy Council As the representative of the world’s scientific and engineering academies,[44][45] the InterAcademy Council issued a report in 2007 titled Lighting the Way: Toward a Sustainable Energy Future.

Current patterns of energy resources and energy usage are proving detrimental to the long-term welfare of humanity. The integrity of essential natural systems is already at risk from climate change caused by the atmospheric emissions of greenhouse gases.[46] Concerted efforts should be mounted for improving energy efficiency and reducing the carbon intensity of the world economy.[47]
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences (CAETS) in 2007, issued a Statement on Environment and Sustainable Growth:[48]

As reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), most of the observed global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human-produced emission of greenhouse gases and this warming will continue unabated if present anthropogenic emissions continue or, worse, expand without control. CAETS, therefore, endorses the many recent calls to decrease and control greenhouse gas emissions to an acceptable level as quickly as possible.

Physical and chemical sciences

American Chemical Society[49]
American Institute of Physics[50]
American Physical Society[51]
Australian Institute of Physics[52]
European Physical Society[53]

Earth sciences

American Geophysical Union

The American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement, adopted by the society in 2003, revised in 2007,[54] and revised and expanded in 2013,[55] affirms that rising levels of greenhouse gases have caused and will continue to cause the global surface temperature to be warmer:

“Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate system for millennia.

While important scientific uncertainties remain as to which particular impacts will be experienced where, no uncertainties are known that could make the impacts of climate change inconsequential. Furthermore, surprise outcomes, such as the unexpectedly rapid loss of Arctic summer sea ice, may entail even more dramatic changes than anticipated."

American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America

In May, 2011, the American Society of Agronomy (ASA), Crop Science Society of America (CSSA), and Soil Science Society of America (SSSA) issued a joint position statement on climate change as it relates to agriculture:

A comprehensive body of scientific evidence indicates beyond reasonable doubt that global climate change is now occurring and that its manifestations threaten the stability of societies as well as natural and managed ecosystems. Increases in ambient temperatures and changes in related processes are directly linked to rising anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere.
Unless the emissions of GHGs are curbed significantly, their concentrations will continue to rise, leading to changes in temperature, precipitation, and other climate variables that will undoubtedly affect agriculture around the world.
Climate change has the potential to increase weather variability as well as gradually increase global temperatures. Both of these impacts have the potential to negatively impact the adaptability and resilience of the world’s food production capacity; current research indicates climate change is already reducing the productivity of vulnerable cropping systems.[56]

European Federation of Geologists

In 2008, the European Federation of Geologists[57] (EFG) issued the position paper Carbon Capture and geological Storage:

The EFG recognizes the work of the IPCC and other organizations, and subscribes to the major findings that climate change is happening, is predominantly caused by anthropogenic emissions of CO2, and poses a significant threat to human civilization.

It is clear that major efforts are necessary to quickly and strongly reduce CO2 emissions. The EFG strongly advocates renewable and sustainable energy production, including geothermal energy, as well as the need for increasing energy efficiency.

CCS [Carbon Capture and geological Storage] should also be regarded as a bridging technology, facilitating the move towards a carbon free economy.[58]

European Geosciences Union

In 2005, the Divisions of Atmospheric and Climate Sciences of the European Geosciences Union (EGU) issued a position statement in support of the joint science academies’ statement on global response to climate change. The statement refers to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as "the main representative of the global scientific community", and asserts that the IPCC represents the state-of-the-art of climate science supported by the major science academies around the world and by the vast majority of science researchers and investigators as documented by the peer-reviewed scientific literature.[59]

Additionally, in 2008, the EGU issued a position statement on ocean acidification which states, "Ocean acidification is already occurring today and will continue to intensify, closely tracking atmospheric CO2 increase. Given the potential threat to marine ecosystems and its ensuing impact on human society and economy, especially as it acts in conjunction with anthropogenic global warming, there is an urgent need for immediate action." The statement then advocates for strategies "to limit future release of CO2 to the atmosphere and/or enhance removal of excess CO2 from the atmosphere."[60]

Geological Society of America

In 2006, the Geological Society of America adopted a position statement on global climate change. It amended this position on April 20, 2010 with more explicit comments on need for CO2 reduction.

Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s. If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twentyfirst century will result in large impacts on humans and other species. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.[61]

Geological Society of London

In November 2010, the Geological Society of London issued the position statement Climate change: evidence from the geological record:

The last century has seen a rapidly growing global population and much more intensive use of resources, leading to greatly increased emissions of gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane, from the burning of fossil fuels (oil, gas and coal), and from agriculture, cement production and deforestation. Evidence from the geological record is consistent with the physics that shows that adding large amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere warms the world and may lead to: higher sea levels and flooding of low-lying coasts; greatly changed patterns of rainfall; increased acidity of the oceans; and decreased oxygen levels in seawater.

There is now widespread concern that the Earth’s climate will warm further, not only because of the lingering effects of the added carbon already in the system, but also because of further additions as human population continues to grow. Life on Earth has survived large climate changes in the past, but extinctions and major redistribution of species have been associated with many of them. When the human population was small and nomadic, a rise in sea level of a few metres would have had very little effect on Homo sapiens. With the current and growing global population, much of which is concentrated in coastal cities, such a rise in sea level would have a drastic effect on our complex society, especially if the climate were to change as suddenly as it has at times in the past. Equally, it seems likely that as warming continues some areas may experience less precipitation leading to drought. With both rising seas and increasing drought, pressure for human migration could result on a large scale.[62]

International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics

In July 2007, the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics (IUGG) adopted a resolution titled “The Urgency of Addressing Climate Change”. In it, the IUGG concurs with the “comprehensive and widely accepted and endorsed scientific assessments carried out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and regional and national bodies, which have firmly established, on the basis of scientific evidence, that human activities are the primary cause of recent climate change.” They state further that the “continuing reliance on combustion of fossil fuels as the world’s primary source of energy will lead to much higher atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, which will, in turn, cause significant increases in surface temperature, sea level, ocean acidification, and their related consequences to the environment and society.”[63]

National Association of Geoscience Teachers

In July 2009, the National Association of Geoscience Teachers[64] (NAGT) adopted a position statement on climate change in which they assert that "Earth's climate is changing [and] "that present warming trends are largely the result of human activities":

NAGT strongly supports and will work to promote education in the science of climate change, the causes and effects of current global warming, and the immediate need for policies and actions that reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.[65]

Meteorology and oceanography

American Meteorological Society

The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2012 concluded:

There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities. This scientific finding is based on a large and persuasive body of research. The observed warming will be irreversible for many years into the future, and even larger temperature increases will occur as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere. Avoiding this future warming will require a large and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. The ongoing warming will increase risks and stresses to human societies, economies, ecosystems, and wildlife through the 21st century and beyond, making it imperative that society respond to a changing climate. To inform decisions on adaptation and mitigation, it is critical that we improve our understanding of the global climate system and our ability to project future climate through continued and improved monitoring and research. This is especially true for smaller (seasonal and regional) scales and weather and climate extremes, and for important hydroclimatic variables such as precipitation and water availability.
Technological, economic, and policy choices in the near future will determine the extent of future impacts of climate change. Science-based decisions are seldom made in a context of absolute certainty. National and international policy discussions should include consideration of the best ways to both adapt to and mitigate climate change. Mitigation will reduce the amount of future climate change and the risk of impacts that are potentially large and dangerous. At the same time, some continued climate change is inevitable, and policy responses should include adaptation to climate change. Prudence dictates extreme care in accounting for our relationship with the only planet known to be capable of sustaining human life.[66]

Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

The Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society has issued a Statement on Climate Change, wherein they conclude:

Global climate change and global warming are real and observable ... It is highly likely that those human activities that have increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have been largely responsible for the observed warming since 1950. The warming associated with increases in greenhouse gases originating from human activity is called the enhanced greenhouse effect. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased by more than 30% since the start of the industrial age and is higher now than at any time in at least the past 650,000 years. This increase is a direct result of burning fossil fuels, broad-scale deforestation and other human activity.”[67]

Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences

In November 2005, the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences (CFCAS) issued a letter to the Prime Minister of Canada stating that
We concur with the climate science assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001 ... We endorse the conclusions of the IPCC assessment that 'There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities'. ... There is increasingly unambiguous evidence of changing climate in Canada and around the world. There will be increasing impacts of climate change on Canada’s natural ecosystems and on our socio-economic activities. Advances in climate science since the 2001 IPCC Assessment have provided more evidence supporting the need for action and development of a strategy for adaptation to projected changes.[68]

Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

In November 2009, a letter to the Canadian Parliament by The Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society states:

Rigorous international research, including work carried out and supported by the Government of Canada, reveals that greenhouse gases resulting from human activities contribute to the warming of the atmosphere and the oceans and constitute a serious risk to the health and safety of our society, as well as having an impact on all life.[69]

Royal Meteorological Society (UK)

In February 2007, after the release of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, the Royal Meteorological Society issued an endorsement of the report. In addition to referring to the IPCC as “world’s best climate scientists”, they stated that climate change is happening as “the result of emissions since industrialization and we have already set in motion the next 50 years of global warming – what we do from now on will determine how worse it will get.”[70]

World Meteorological Organization

In its Statement at the Twelfth Session of the Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change presented on November 15, 2006, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) confirms the need to “prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” The WMO concurs that “scientific assessments have increasingly reaffirmed that human activities are indeed changing the composition of the atmosphere, in particular through the burning of fossil fuels for energy production and transportation.” The WMO concurs that “the present atmospheric concentration of CO2 was never exceeded over the past 420,000 years;” and that the IPCC “assessments provide the most authoritative, up-to-date scientific advice.” [71]

Paleoclimatology

American Quaternary Association

The American Quaternary Association (AMQUA) has stated
Few credible Scientists now doubt that humans have influenced the documented rise of global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution,” citing “the growing body of evidence that warming of the atmosphere, especially over the past 50 years, is directly impacted by human activity.[72]

International Union for Quaternary Research

The statement on climate change issued by the International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA) reiterates the conclusions of the IPCC, and urges all nations to take prompt action in line with the UNFCCC principles.

Human activities are now causing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases — including carbon dioxide, methane, tropospheric ozone, and nitrous oxide — to rise well above pre-industrial levels….Increases in greenhouse gases are causing temperatures to rise…The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action….Minimizing the amount of this carbon dioxide reaching the atmosphere presents a huge challenge but must be a global priority.[73]

Biology and life sciences

Life science organizations have outlined the dangers climate change pose to wildlife.

American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians[74]
American Institute of Biological Sciences. In October 2009, the leaders of 18 US scientific societies and organizations sent an open letter to the United States Senate reaffirming the scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and is primarily caused by human activities. The American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) adopted this letter as their official position statement.[75][76] The letter goes on to warn of predicted impacts on the United States such as sea level rise and increases in extreme weather events, water scarcity, heat waves, wildfires, and the disturbance of biological systems. It then advocates for a dramatic reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases.[77]

American Society for Microbiology[78]
Australian Coral Reef Society[79]
Institute of Biology (UK)[80]
Society of American Foresters issued two position statements pertaining to climate change in which they cite the IPCC[81] and the UNFCCC.[82]
The Wildlife Society (international)[83]

Human health

A number of health organizations have warned about the numerous negative health effects of global warming
American Academy of Pediatrics[84]
American College of Preventive Medicine[85]
American Medical Association[86]
American Public Health Association[87]
Australian Medical Association in 2004[88] and in 2008[89]
World Federation of Public Health Associations[90]

World Health Organization[91]

There is now widespread agreement that the Earth is warming, due to emissions of greenhouse gases caused by human activity. It is also clear that current trends in energy use, development, and population growth will lead to continuing – and more severe – climate change.

The changing climate will inevitably affect the basic requirements for maintaining health: clean air and water, sufficient food and adequate shelter. Each year, about 800,000 people die from causes attributable to urban air pollution, 1.8 million from diarrhoea resulting from lack of access to clean water supply, sanitation, and poor hygiene, 3.5 million from malnutrition and approximately 60,000 in natural disasters. A warmer and more variable climate threatens to lead to higher levels of some air pollutants, increase transmission of diseases through unclean water and through contaminated food, to compromise agricultural production in some of the least developed countries, and increase the hazards of extreme weather.

Miscellaneous

A number of other national scientific societies have also endorsed the opinion of the IPCC:
American Astronomical Society[92]
American Statistical Association[93]
Engineers Canada
The Institution of Engineers Australia[94]
International Association for Great Lakes Research[95]
Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand[96]
The World Federation of Engineering Organizations (WFEO)

Non-committal

American Association of Petroleum Geologists

As of June 2007, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) Position Statement on climate change stated:

the AAPG membership is divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has on recent and potential global temperature increases ... Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming trend will continue, as reported through NAS, AGU, AAAS and AMS. AAPG respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data. These data do not necessarily support the maximum case scenarios forecast in some models.[97]

Prior to the adoption of this statement, the AAPG was the only major scientific organization that rejected the finding of significant human influence on recent climate, according to a statement by the Council of the American Quaternary Association.[10] Explaining the plan for a revision, AAPG president Lee Billingsly wrote in March 2007:

Members have threatened to not renew their memberships… if AAPG does not alter its position on global climate change... And I have been told of members who already have resigned in previous years because of our current global climate change position… The current policy statement is not supported by a significant number of our members and prospective members.[98]

AAPG President John Lorenz announced the "sunsetting" of AAPG’s Global Climate Change Committee in January 2010. The AAPG Executive Committee determined:

Climate change is peripheral at best to our science […] AAPG does not have credibility in that field […] and as a group we have no particular knowledge of global atmospheric geophysics.[99]

American Geological Institute

In 1999, the American Geological Institute (AGI) issued the position statement ‘’Global Climate Change’’:

The American Geological Institute (AGI) strongly supports education concerning the scientific evidence of past climate change, the potential for future climate change due to the current building of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, and the policy options available.

Understanding the interactions between the solid Earth, the oceans, the biosphere, and the atmosphere both in the present and over time is critical for accurately analyzing and predicting global climate change due to natural processes and possible human influences.[100]

American Institute of Professional Geologists

In 2009, the American Institute of Professional Geologists[101] (AIPG) sent a statement to President Barack Obama and other US government officials:
The geological professionals in AIPG recognize that climate change is occurring and has the potential to yield catastrophic impacts if humanity is not prepared to address those impacts. It is also recognized that climate change will occur regardless of the cause. The sooner a defensible scientific understanding can be developed, the better equipped humanity will be to develop economically viable and technically effective methods to support the needs of society.[102]
Concerned that the original statement issued in March 2009 was too ambiguous, AIPG’s National Executive Committee approved a revised position statement issued in January 2010:

The geological professionals in AIPG recognize that climate change is occurring regardless of cause. AIPG supports continued research into all forces driving climate change.[103]

In March 2010, AIPG’s Executive Director issued a statement regarding polarization of opinions on climate change within the membership and announced that the AIPG Executive had made a decision to cease publication of articles and opinion pieces concerning climate change in AIPG’s news journal, The Professional Geologist.[104] The Executive Director said that “the question of anthropogenicity of climate change is contentious.”[105]

Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences

The science of global climate change is still evolving and our understanding of this vital Earth system is not as developed as is the case for other Earth systems such as plate tectonics. What is known with certainty is that regardless of the causes, our global climate will continue to change for the foreseeable future... The level of CO2 in our atmosphere is now greater than at any time in the past 500,000 years; there will be consequences for our global climate and natural systems as a result.[106]

Dissenting

As of 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[11] no scientific body of national or international standing rejected the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.[10][12]

Surveys of scientists and scientific literature

Summary of opinions from climate and earth scientists regarding climate change.

Just over 97% of published climate researchers say humans are causing global warming.[107][108][109]

Main article: Surveys of scientists' views on climate change

Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming. They have concluded that the majority of scientists support the idea of anthropogenic climate change.

In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[110] She analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Seventy-five per cent of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories (either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view); 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. None of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."
In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. 97% of the scientists surveyed agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years; 84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring, and 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiated its occurrence. Catastrophic effects in 50–100 years would likely be observed according to 41%, while 44% thought the effects would be moderate and about 13 percent saw relatively little danger. 5% said they thought human activity did not contribute to greenhouse warming.[111][112][113][114]

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 different countries.[115] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 373 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18.2%. No paper on climate change consensus based on this survey has been published yet (February 2010), but one on another subject has been published based on the survey.[116]

The survey was composed of 76 questions split into a number of sections. There were sections on the demographics of the respondents, their assessment of the state of climate science, how good the science is, climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation, their opinion of the IPCC, and how well climate science was being communicated to the public. Most of the answers were on a scale from 1 to 7 from 'not at all' to 'very much'.

To the question "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?", 67.1% said they very much agreed, 26.7% agreed to some large extent, 6.2% said to they agreed to some small extent (2–4), none said they did not agree at all. To the question "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" the responses were 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent, 15.1% to a small extent, and 1.35% not agreeing at all.

A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. The authors summarised the findings:
It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.[117]

A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:

(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[118]

A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers, finding 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming and reporting:

Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.[119]

Additionally, the authors of the studies were invited to categorise their own research papers, of which 1,381 discussed the cause of recent global warming, and:
Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.

Scientific consensus

See also: Scientific consensus

A question that frequently arises in popular discussion of climate change is whether there is a scientific consensus on climate change.[120] Several scientific organizations have explicitly used the term "consensus" in their statements:
American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2006: "The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Joint National Academies' statement."[34]

US National Academy of Sciences: "In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth’s warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. ... On climate change, [the National Academies’ reports] have assessed consensus findings on the science..."[121]

Joint Science Academies' statement, 2005: "We recognise the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."[122]
Joint Science Academies' statement, 2001: "The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus."[28]

American Meteorological Society, 2003: "The nature of science is such that there is rarely total agreement among scientists. Individual scientific statements and papers—the validity of some of which has yet to be assessed adequately—can be exploited in the policy debate and can leave the impression that the scientific community is sharply divided on issues where there is, in reality, a strong scientific consensus.... IPCC assessment reports are prepared at approximately five-year intervals by a large international group of experts who represent the broad range of expertise and perspectives relevant to the issues. The reports strive to reflect a consensus evaluation of the results of the full body of peer-reviewed research.... They provide an analysis of what is known and not known, the degree of consensus, and some indication of the degree of confidence that can be placed on the various statements and conclusions."[123]

Network of African Science Academies: “A consensus, based on current evidence, now exists within the global scientific community that human activities are the main source of climate change and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible for driving this change.”[31]

International Union for Quaternary Research, 2008: "INQUA recognizes the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."[73]

Australian Coral Reef Society,[124] 2006: "There is almost total consensus among experts that the earth’s climate is changing as a result of the build-up of greenhouse gases.... There is broad scientific consensus that coral reefs are heavily affected by the activities of man and there are significant global influences that can make reefs more vulnerable such as global warming...."[125]

 

[percysunshine]

I have this suspicion that RollingThunders posts are designed to not be read. Like the Obamacare law.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I have this suspicion that RollingThunders posts are designed to not be read. Like the Obamacare law.

It's the old "baffle em with bullshit" ploy!

 

[RollingThunder]

I have this suspicion that RollingThunders posts are designed to not be read. Like the Obamacare law.

It's the old "baffle em with bullshit" ploy!

Unfortunately for you denier cult nitwits, all you're demonstrating here is your moronic inability to read anything longer than a matchbook cover and your brainwashed refusal to accept the facts, no matter how clearly they are presented to you. No scientific organization with any international standing, no scientific society or national academy of science or university disputes the conclusions of the climate scientists on the reality and dangers of anthropogenic global warming/climate changes. Instead they say things like this:

The American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement, adopted by the society in 2003, revised in 2007,[54] and revised and expanded in 2013,[55] affirms that rising levels of greenhouse gases have caused and will continue to cause the global surface temperature to be warmer:

“Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate system for millennia.

While important scientific uncertainties remain as to which particular impacts will be experienced where, no uncertainties are known that could make the impacts of climate change inconsequential. Furthermore, surprise outcomes, such as the unexpectedly rapid loss of Arctic summer sea ice, may entail even more dramatic changes than anticipated."​

The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2012 concluded:

"There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities. This scientific finding is based on a large and persuasive body of research. The observed warming will be irreversible for many years into the future, and even larger temperature increases will occur as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere. Avoiding this future warming will require a large and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. The ongoing warming will increase risks and stresses to human societies, economies, ecosystems, and wildlife through the 21st century and beyond, making it imperative that society respond to a changing climate. To inform decisions on adaptation and mitigation, it is critical that we improve our understanding of the global climate system and our ability to project future climate through continued and improved monitoring and research. This is especially true for smaller (seasonal and regional) scales and weather and climate extremes, and for important hydroclimatic variables such as precipitation and water availability.

Technological, economic, and policy choices in the near future will determine the extent of future impacts of climate change. Science-based decisions are seldom made in a context of absolute certainty. National and international policy discussions should include consideration of the best ways to both adapt to and mitigate climate change. Mitigation will reduce the amount of future climate change and the risk of impacts that are potentially large and dangerous. At the same time, some continued climate change is inevitable, and policy responses should include adaptation to climate change. Prudence dictates extreme care in accounting for our relationship with the only planet known to be capable of sustaining human life.[66]"​

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I have this suspicion that RollingThunders posts are designed to not be read. Like the Obamacare law.

It's the old "baffle em with bullshit" ploy!

Unfortunately for you denier cult nitwits, all you're demonstrating here is your moronic inability to read anything longer than a matchbook cover and your brainwashed refusal to accept the facts, no matter how clearly they are presented to you. No scientific organization with any international standing, no scientific society or national academy of science or university disputes the conclusions of the climate scientists on the reality and dangers of anthropogenic global warming/climate changes. Instead they say things like this:

The American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement, adopted by the society in 2003, revised in 2007,[54] and revised and expanded in 2013,[55] affirms that rising levels of greenhouse gases have caused and will continue to cause the global surface temperature to be warmer:

“Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate system for millennia.

While important scientific uncertainties remain as to which particular impacts will be experienced where, no uncertainties are known that could make the impacts of climate change inconsequential. Furthermore, surprise outcomes, such as the unexpectedly rapid loss of Arctic summer sea ice, may entail even more dramatic changes than anticipated."​

The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2012 concluded:

"There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities. This scientific finding is based on a large and persuasive body of research. The observed warming will be irreversible for many years into the future, and even larger temperature increases will occur as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere. Avoiding this future warming will require a large and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. The ongoing warming will increase risks and stresses to human societies, economies, ecosystems, and wildlife through the 21st century and beyond, making it imperative that society respond to a changing climate. To inform decisions on adaptation and mitigation, it is critical that we improve our understanding of the global climate system and our ability to project future climate through continued and improved monitoring and research. This is especially true for smaller (seasonal and regional) scales and weather and climate extremes, and for important hydroclimatic variables such as precipitation and water availability.

Technological, economic, and policy choices in the near future will determine the extent of future impacts of climate change. Science-based decisions are seldom made in a context of absolute certainty. National and international policy discussions should include consideration of the best ways to both adapt to and mitigate climate change. Mitigation will reduce the amount of future climate change and the risk of impacts that are potentially large and dangerous. At the same time, some continued climate change is inevitable, and policy responses should include adaptation to climate change. Prudence dictates extreme care in accounting for our relationship with the only planet known to be capable of sustaining human life.[66]"​

You do realize board rules dictate that you validate your source and not to cut and paste the whole link?

 

[RollingThunder]

I have this suspicion that RollingThunders posts are designed to not be read. Like the Obamacare law.

It's the old "baffle em with bullshit" ploy!

Unfortunately for you denier cult nitwits, all you're demonstrating here is your moronic inability to read anything longer than a matchbook cover and your brainwashed refusal to accept the facts, no matter how clearly they are presented to you. No scientific organization with any international standing, no scientific society or national academy of science or university disputes the conclusions of the climate scientists on the reality and dangers of anthropogenic global warming/climate changes. Instead they say things like this:

The American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement, adopted by the society in 2003, revised in 2007,[54] and revised and expanded in 2013,[55] affirms that rising levels of greenhouse gases have caused and will continue to cause the global surface temperature to be warmer:

“Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate system for millennia.

While important scientific uncertainties remain as to which particular impacts will be experienced where, no uncertainties are known that could make the impacts of climate change inconsequential. Furthermore, surprise outcomes, such as the unexpectedly rapid loss of Arctic summer sea ice, may entail even more dramatic changes than anticipated."​

The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2012 concluded:

"There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities. This scientific finding is based on a large and persuasive body of research. The observed warming will be irreversible for many years into the future, and even larger temperature increases will occur as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere. Avoiding this future warming will require a large and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. The ongoing warming will increase risks and stresses to human societies, economies, ecosystems, and wildlife through the 21st century and beyond, making it imperative that society respond to a changing climate. To inform decisions on adaptation and mitigation, it is critical that we improve our understanding of the global climate system and our ability to project future climate through continued and improved monitoring and research. This is especially true for smaller (seasonal and regional) scales and weather and climate extremes, and for important hydroclimatic variables such as precipitation and water availability.

Technological, economic, and policy choices in the near future will determine the extent of future impacts of climate change. Science-based decisions are seldom made in a context of absolute certainty. National and international policy discussions should include consideration of the best ways to both adapt to and mitigate climate change. Mitigation will reduce the amount of future climate change and the risk of impacts that are potentially large and dangerous. At the same time, some continued climate change is inevitable, and policy responses should include adaptation to climate change. Prudence dictates extreme care in accounting for our relationship with the only planet known to be capable of sustaining human life.[66]"​

You do realize board rules dictate that you validate your source and not to cut and paste the whole link?

I linked to the source in my previous post, from which I extracted a couple of snippets to make a point. You don't seem to comprehend the meaning of the word "validate".

The forum rules as written are specifically referring to copyrighted materials -
"Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material."

The material that I quoted from Wikipedia is not under copyright. It is published under a Creative Commons license that specifically allows users to copy and reprint entire articles for educational purposes. A notice that I included in the Wiki quote.

You just don't like having your crackpot denier cult myths about the very real scientific consensus on AGW exposed as nonsense by the facts.

 

[flacaltenn]

Any opinion survey of "climate scientists" done before ClimateGate or the pause in temp. rise is invalid.

So that leaves 2010 to 2013..

Any opinion survey of "climate scientists" concieved and crafted by zealots at skepticalscience is invalid (for many reasons)

Rules out Cook and Nuticelli..

So what ya got left??

Any statement that 97% of "climate scientists" agree that is warming is invalid..
Since THAT is not the issue..

"How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" the responses were 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent, 15.1% to a small extent, and 1.35% not agreeing at all.

What does "to a large extent" mean exactly? Is that 30% contribution from man or 60% contribution from man? More inexact science from AGW...

How about THESE results??

STATS:

A need to know more

Overall, only 5% describe the study of global climate change as a “fully mature” science, but 51% describe it as “fairly mature,” while 40% see it as still an “emerging” science. However, over two out of three (69%) believe there is at least a 50-50 chance that the debate over the role of human activity in global warming will be settled in the next 10 to 20 years.

Only 29% express a “great deal of confidence” that scientists understand the size and extent of anthropogenic [human] sources of greenhouse gases,” and only 32% are confident about our understanding of the archeological climate evidence.


Climate scientists are skeptical of the media

Only 1% of climate scientists rate either broadcast or cable television news about climate change as “very reliable.” Another 31% say broadcast news is “somewhat reliable,” compared to 25% for cable news. (The remainder rate TV news as “not very” or “not at all” reliable.) Local newspapers are rated as very reliable by 3% and somewhat reliable by 33% of scientists. Even the national press (New York Times, Wall St. Journal etc) is rated as very reliable by only 11%, although another 56% say it is at least somewhat reliable.

 

[kiwiman127]

This thread is retarded. Like it's never been even colder than that in North Dakota! It has. It was 60 degrees below zero without counting wind chill in 1936. 40 below would have been a heat wave back then!
The below attached photo is of Miss North Dakota 1936 as she celebrated North Dakota's coldest day ever (circa; February 15, 1936).

 

[RollingThunder]

Any opinion survey of "climate scientists" done before ClimateGate or the pause in temp. rise is invalid.

LOLOLOL....oh, fecalhead, you are such a deranged and deluded little reality denier. Leaving aside the fact that your so-called "ClimateGate" was a fraudulent fossil fuel industry propaganda ploy that has been repeatedly debunked by the real scientists and by every official investigation, and the fact that there has been no "pause" in the increase in global warming, you're still full of shit. The conclusions of the climate scientists and the rest of the world scientific community on AGW have not changed in recent years except that they have become even more certain about mankind's responsibility for the abrupt warming trend, based on all of the latest research and data.

(source - Scientific opinion on climate change
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

The American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement, adopted by the society in 2003, revised in 2007, and revised and expanded in 2013,[55] affirms that rising levels of greenhouse gases have caused and will continue to cause the global surface temperature to be warmer:

"Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years."​

The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2012 concluded:

"There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities. This scientific finding is based on a large and persuasive body of research."​

 

[flacaltenn]

Those are not opinion surveys Meathead. Those are statements from the Management of those organizations and do not reflect the opinions of the membership.. I know --- my organization makes them all the time.. And the policy wonks in charge take a lot of flak for making them.. Former Directors of AGU have spoken out against the propaganda campaigns of AGW..

 

[percysunshine]

Cutting off grant money is verboten....

 

[westwall]

This thread is retarded. Like it's never been even colder than that in North Dakota! It has. It was 60 degrees below zero without counting wind chill in 1936. 40 below would have been a heat wave back then!
The below attached photo is of Miss North Dakota 1936 as she celebrated North Dakota's coldest day ever (circa; February 15, 1936).

Yes indeed! Just like it's been WARMER in the past too. Funny how natural cycles work isn't it.....

 

[HenryBHough]

Who knew that NORTH Dakota is a northern state!

Certainly not lib public school stoonts 'cause they no longer are taught geography.

 

[RollingThunder]

Those are not opinion surveys Meathead. Those are statements from the Management of those organizations and do not reflect the opinions of the membership..

LOLOLOL....those are the myths you denier cultists have to tell yourselves as part of your 'denial of reality' shtick, but of course they are as fallacious as the rest of your crackpot cultic myths and fantasies. And, as usual, you can present no actual evidence to support your moronic claims.

Whereas, I can see some very obvious evidence of the actual scientific understanding that the AGU, for example, presents to the membership.

The 86 scientific papers on 'Global Environmental Change' (global warming and climate changes) presented at the fall 2012 meeting of the American Geophysical Union can be found here.

 

[westwall]

Those are not opinion surveys Meathead. Those are statements from the Management of those organizations and do not reflect the opinions of the membership..

LOLOLOL....those are the myths you denier cultists have to tell yourselves as part of your 'denial of reality' shtick, but of course they are as fallacious as the rest of your crackpot cultic myths and fantasies. And, as usual, you can present no actual evidence to support your moronic claims.

Whereas, I can...

The 86 scientific papers on 'Global Environmental Change' presented at the fall 2012 meeting of the American Geophysical Union can be found here.

How apropos.... This is the result for every one of the links


Internal Server Error
The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.

Please contact the server administrator, root@localhost and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error.

More information about this error may be available in the server error log.

 

[Politico]

Awesome. Wish I had a sled.

 

[Abraham3]

How apropos.... This is the result for every one of the links


Internal Server Error

Probably sabotaged by some Heartland Institute hacker. Glad to see you honest enough to publicly celebrate the suppression of information.

Did you note the titles of those 86 papers? Did it look to you as if the world's geoscientists are having any difficulty finding undesirable and generally unprecedented effects of global warming? Did it look as if the science is overflowing with evidence refuting AGW? Did it look as if any significant portion of climate scientists were in the denier camp or had their minds changed by the stolen CRU emails?

 

[westwall]

How apropos.... This is the result for every one of the links


Internal Server Error

Probably sabotaged by some Heartland Institute hacker. Glad to see you honest enough to publicly celebrate the suppression of information.

Did you note the titles of those 86 papers? Did it look to you as if the world's geoscientists are having any difficulty finding undesirable and generally unprecedented effects of global warming? Did it look as if the science is overflowing with evidence refuting AGW? Did it look as if any significant portion of climate scientists were in the denier camp or had their minds changed by the stolen CRU emails?

Why yes, I did. And for the record the ONLY documented case of Heartland ever being involved in computer hacking of any nature was when one of you asshats hacked them! Gleick is his name and as usual you asshats absolve him of his well known and self admitted felonious behavior.

So you take your libelous insults and shove them up your ass, where most of your "thoughts" originate.