Early in his career, a scientist named Mario J. Molina was pulled into seemingly obscure research about strange chemicals being spewed into the atmosphere. Within a year, he had helped discover a global environmental emergency, work that would ultimately win a Nobel Prize. Now, at 70, Dr. Molina is trying to awaken the public to an even bigger risk. He spearheaded a committee of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the worldâs largest general scientific society, which released a stark report Tuesday on global warming. The report warns that the effects of human emissions of heat-trapping gases are already being felt, that the ultimate consequences could be dire, and that the window to do something about it is closing. âThe evidence is overwhelming: Levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are rising,â says the report. âTemperatures are going up. Springs are arriving earlier. Ice sheets are melting. Sea level is rising. The patterns of rainfall and drought are changing. Heat waves are getting worse, as is extreme precipitation. The oceans are acidifying.â In a sense, this is just one more report about global warming in a string going back decades. For anybody who was already paying attention, the report contains no new science. But the language in the 18-page report, called âWhat We Know,â is sharper, clearer and more accessible than perhaps anything the scientific community has put out to date. And the association does not plan to stop with the report. The group, with a membership of 121,200 scientists and science supporters around the world, plans a broad outreach campaign to put forward accurate information in simple language. The scientists are essentially trying to use their powers of persuasion to cut through public confusion over this issue. Polls show that most Americans are at least somewhat worried about global warming. But people generally do not understand that the problem is urgent â that the fate of future generations (not necessarily that far in the future) is being determined by emission levels now. Moreover, the average citizen tends to think there is more scientific debate about the basics than there really is. The report emphasizes that the experts have come to a consensus, with only a few dissenters. âBased on well-established evidence, about 97 percent of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening,â it says. That is not the same as claiming that all questions about climate change have been answered. In fact, enormous questions remain, and the science of global warming entails a robust, evolving discussion. The new report walks through a series of potential consequences of planetary warming, without asserting that any is sure to happen. They are possibilities, not certainties, and the distinction is crucial for an intelligent public debate about what to do. The worst-case forecasts include severe food shortages as warming makes it harder to grow crops; an accelerating rise of the sea that would inundate coastlines too rapidly for humanity to adjust; extreme heat waves, droughts and floods; and a large-scale extinction of plants and animals. âWhatâs extremely clear is that thereâs a risk, a very significant risk,â Dr. Molina said by telephone from Mexico, where he spends part of his time. âYou donât need 100 percent certainty for society to act.â Some of the scientists on Dr. Molinaâs committee like to point out that people can be pretty intelligent about managing risk in their personal lives. It is unlikely that your house will burn down, yet you spend hundreds of dollars a year on insurance. When you drive to work in the morning, the odds are low that some careless driver will slam into you, but it is possible, so we have spent tens of billions of dollars putting seatbelts and air bags in our cars. The issue of how much to spend on lowering greenhouse gases is, in essence, a question about how much insurance we want to buy against worst-case outcomes. Scientists cannot decide that for us â and the report recognizes that by avoiding any specific recommendations about what to do. But it makes clear that lowering emissions, by some means, is the only way to lower the risks. Because so many people are confused about the science, the nation has never really had a frank political discussion about the options. Only a few decades ago, the world confronted a similar question regarding chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons, then common in refrigerators, air-conditioners, cans of hair spray and deodorant. At a Fort Lauderdale, Fla., conference in 1972, a California scientist named F. Sherwood Rowland learned that they were accumulating in the air. What, he wondered, would happen to them? He eventually put a young researcher in his laboratory, Dr. Molina, onto the question. To their own shock, the team figured out that the chemicals would break down the ozone layer, a blanket of gas high above the ground that protects the world from devastating levels of ultraviolet radiation. As the scientific evidence of a risk accumulated, the public demanded action â and eventually got it, in the form of a treaty phasing out the compounds. Global warming has been much harder to understand, not least because of a disinformation campaign financed by elements of the fossil-fuel industry. But the new report is a recognition among scientists that they bear some responsibility for the confusion â that their well-meaning attempts to convey all the nuances and uncertainties of a complex field have obscured the core message about risks. The report reflects their resolve to try again, by clearing the clutter. Will the American people hear the message this time?
"We're the largest general scientific society in the world, and therefore we believe we have an obligation to inform the public and policymakers about what science is showing about any issue in modern life, and climate is a particularly pressing one," said Dr. Alan Leshner, CEO of AAAS. "As the voice of the scientific community, we need to share what we know and bring policymakers to the table to discuss how to deal with the issue." Nobel laureate Dr. Mario Molina, distinguished professor of chemistry and biochemistry at the University of California, San Diego and Scripps Institution of Oceanography and co-chairs, Dr. Diana Wall, distinguished professor of biology and director at Colorado State University's School of Global Environmental Sustainability and Dr. James McCarthy, Alexander Agassiz Professor of Biological Oceanography at Harvard, chaired the climate science panel that generated the report. They, along with the 10 panelists spanning climate science specialties, will engage in the initiative in various ways, from speaking engagements to testimonials on a forthcoming interactive web site to knowledge sharing with other professionals. The initiative encourages Americans to think of climate change as a risk management issue; the panel aims to clarify and contextualize the science so the public and decision-makers can be more adequately informed about those risks and possible ways to manage them. The report provides three key messages for every American about climate change: Climate scientists agree: climate change is happening here and now. We are at risk of pushing our climate system toward abrupt, unpredictable, and potentially irreversible changes with highly damaging impacts. The sooner we act, the lower the risk and cost. And there is much we can do. "This new effort is intended to state very clearly the exceptionally strong evidence that Earth's climate is changing, and that future climate change can seriously impact natural and societal systems," Dr. McCarthy said. "Even among members of the broader public who already know about the evidence for climate change and what is causing it, some do not know the degree to which many climate scientist are concerned about the risks of possibly rapid and abrupt climate change â that's something we are dedicated to discussing with multiple audiences, from business leaders and financial experts to decision makers in all walks of life." Bob Litterman, former Goldman & Sachs Co. executive and senior partner at Kepos Capital, has participated in discussions with the panel on how to accurately measure climate-related risks and the need for a language to talk about climate change through the lens of risk management. "Scientists have developed a solid understanding of how the climate is responding to the build-up of greenhouse gases, but they recognize the considerable uncertainty about the long-run impacts â especially potential economic damages. Economists understand how to create incentives to limit pollution production with maximum effect and minimum collateral damage, but crafting the appropriate response is a complex valuation process that requires quantifying those same uncertainties," Litterman said. "To do so requires scientists and economists to work together, ask tough questions, and break the boundaries of their professional silos. That's what's this initiative aims to do."
http://whatweknow.aaas.org/ THE REALITY, RISKS AND RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE The overwhelming evidence of human-caused climate change documents both current impacts with significant costs and extraordinary future risks to society and natural systems. The scientific community has convened conferences, published reports, spoken out at forums and proclaimed, through statements by virtually every national scientific academy and relevant major scientific organization â including the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) â that climate change puts the well-being of people of all nations at risk. Surveys show that many Americans think climate change is still a topic of significant scientific disagreement. Thus, it is important and increasingly urgent for the public to know there is now a high degree of agreement among climate scientists that human-caused climate change is real. Moreover, while the public is becoming aware that climate change is increasing the likelihood of certain local disasters, many people do not yet understand that there is a small, but real chance of abrupt, unpredictable and potentially irreversible changes with highly damaging impacts on people in the United States and around the world. It is not the purpose of this paper to explain why this disconnect between scientific knowledge and public perception has occurred. Nor are we seeking to provide yet another extensive review of the scientific evidence for climate change. Instead, we present key messages for every American about climate change: 1. Climate scientists agree: climate change is happening here and now. Based on well-established evidence, about 97% of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening. This agreement is documented not just by a single study, but by a converging stream of evidence over the past two decades from surveys of scientists, content analyses of peer-reviewed studies, and public statements issued by virtually every membership organization of experts in this field. Average global temperature has increased by about 1.4Ë F over the last 100 years. Sea level is rising, and some types of extreme events â such as heat waves and heavy precipitation events â are happening more frequently. Recent scientific findings indicate that climate change is likely responsible for the increase in the intensity of many of these events in recent years. 2. We are at risk of pushing our climate system toward abrupt, unpredictable, and potentially irreversible changes with highly damaging impacts. Earthâs climate is on a path to warm beyond the range of what has been experienced over the past millions of years.[ii] The range of uncertainty for the warming along the current emissions path is wide enough to encompass massively disruptive consequences to societies and ecosystems: as global temperatures rise, there is a real risk, however small, that one or more critical parts of the Earthâs climate system will experience abrupt, unpredictable and potentially irreversible changes. Disturbingly, scientists do not know how much warming is required to trigger such changes to the climate system. 3. The sooner we act, the lower the risk and cost. And there is much we can do. Waiting to take action will inevitably increase costs, escalate risk, and foreclose options to address the risk. The CO2 we produce accumulates in Earthâs atmosphere for decades, centuries, and longer. It is not like pollution from smog or wastes in our lakes and rivers, where levels respond quickly to the effects of targeted policies. The effects of CO2 emissions cannot be reversed from one generation to the next until there is a large- scale, cost-effective way to scrub carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Moreover, as emissions continue and warming increases, the risk increases. By making informed choices now, we can reduce risks for future generations and ourselves, and help communities adapt to climate change. People have responded successfully to other major environmental challenges such as acid rain and the ozone hole with benefits greater than costs, and scientists working with economists believe there are ways to manage the risks of climate change while balancing current and future economic prosperity. As scientists, it is not our role to tell people what they should do or must believe about the rising threat of climate change. But we consider it to be our responsibility as professionals to ensure, to the best of our ability, that people understand what we know: human-caused climate change is happening, we face risks of abrupt, unpredictable and potentially irreversible changes, and responding now will lower the risk and cost of taking action.
so we have all this... and no science explain how man made co2 causes warming? surprised? -- Was there every any question the global warming nutter whores would team up with Goldman Sachs? Here it is proof that this is all about money.... having whore economists, whore scientists and Goldman Sachs working together. read below... from your article.... it should send shivers through tax payers bones. And it should be obvious why Obama, the left and I am sure soon Boehner and McConnell will be talking about the need to do something.... "Bob Litterman, former Goldman & Sachs Co. executive and senior partner at Kepos Capital, has participated in discussions with the panel on how to accurately measure climate-related risks and the need for a language to talk about climate change through the lens of risk management. "Scientists have developed a solid understanding of how the climate is responding to the build-up of greenhouse gases, but they recognize the considerable uncertainty about the long-run impacts â especially potential economic damages. Economists understand how to create incentives to limit pollution production with maximum effect and minimum collateral damage, but crafting the appropriate response is a complex valuation process that requires quantifying those same uncertainties," Litterman said. "To do so requires scientists and economists to work together, ask tough questions, and break the boundaries of their professional silos. That's what's this initiative aims to do.""
Yes jerm. Virtually the entire world's science community is in consensus that most of the warming is due to man. But they have no science. Where do you get the balls to speak such obvious nonsense?
your consensus is bullshit built on 75 of 77 scientists in a group of 3000 scientists. and even then your consensus was only that man contributed to warming. not that man made co2 caused the warming. you have no science saying man made co2 causes warming. Just failed models.
Ha ha. You're a funny guy. Like those guys collecting bottles and yelling at no-one in particular. To recap: CO2 is the earth's most important greenhouse gas and we have increased it's level by 40% in addition 1)Oreskes found that out of all the papers on climate science between 1993 and 2003 that not a single one rejected the consensus position. 2) Doran in 2009 found that 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes. ..... "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" 3)...in 2010 Anderegg did a study that surveyed all climate scientists who have publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting the consensus. They find between 97% to 98% of climate experts support the consensus (Anderegg 2010) 4) The Vision Prize is an online poll of scientists about climate risk. It is an impartial and independent research platform for incentivized polling of experts on important scientific issues that are relevant to policymakers. In addition to assessing the views of scientists, Vision Prize asked its expert participants to predict the views of their scientific colleagues. The participant affiliations and fields are illustrated in Figure 3. vision prize participants the majority (~85%) of participants are academics, and approximately half of all participants are Earth Scientists. Thus the average climate science expertise of the participants is quite good. Approximately 90% of participants responded that human activity has had a primary influence over global temperatures over the past 250 years, with the other 10% answering that it has been a secondary cause, and none answering either that humans have had no influence or that temperatures have not increased. For today..... 5) Scientific organizations endorsing the consensus The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities": American Association for the Advancement of Science American Astronomical Society American Chemical Society American Geophysical Union American Institute of Physics American Meteorological Society American Physical Society Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO British Antarctic Survey Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Environmental Protection Agency European Federation of Geologists European Geosciences Union European Physical Society Federation of American Scientists Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies Geological Society of America Geological Society of Australia Geological Society of London International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA) International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics National Center for Atmospheric Research National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Royal Meteorological Society Royal Society of the UK The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 13 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position: Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil) Royal Society of Canada Chinese Academy of Sciences Academie des Sciences (France) Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany) Indian National Science Academy Accademia dei Lincei (Italy) Science Council of Japan Academia Mexicana de Ciencias (Mexico) Russian Academy of Sciences Academy of Science of South Africa Royal Society (United Kingdom) National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release) A letter from 18 scientific organizations to US Congress states: "Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science." The consensus is also endorsed by a Joint statement by the Network of African Science Academies (NASAC), including the following bodies: African Academy of Sciences Cameroon Academy of Sciences Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences Kenya National Academy of Sciences Madagascar's National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences Nigerian Academy of Sciences l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal Uganda National Academy of Sciences Academy of Science of South Africa Tanzania Academy of Sciences Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences Zambia Academy of Sciences Sudan Academy of Sciences Other Academies of Sciences that endorse the consensus: Australian Academy of Science Royal Society of New Zealand Polish Academy of Sciences No science organization of national or international standing denies the consensus position for today............. A follow-up study by the Skeptical Science team of over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subjects of 'global warming' and 'global climate change' published between 1991 and 2011 found that of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming, over 97% agreed that humans are causing it (Cook 2013). The scientific authors of the papers were also contacted and asked to rate their own papers, and again over 97% whose papers took a position on the cause said humans are causing global warming.
The cook paper was debunked in a peer reviewed papers and here on site... where I explained to you what the abstract meant.... http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9 Abstract Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007â2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019â2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate âmisinformationâ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education. Doran was a bullshit reccount of as I said 75 of 77 of 3000 papers. Every part of you consensus has been debunked and you can not reproduce it in real life because in real life the split is far different. So you rely on crooked counts like cooks... the al gore sponsored whore.
you keep repeating the same bullshit... so I will post the same response. 1. These are the stats from the Doran Paper itself. ------------------- 2. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/0...r-math-errors/ Oreskes data base also shows very few if any papers support your agw consensus and state man made co2 is causing warming. The vast majority are neutral... or if they did support the consensus they were using now failed computer models to speculate. there is zero evidence man made co2 is causing warming and there is no consensus. â0.3% climate consensus, not 97.1%â PRESS RELEASE â September 3rd, 2013 A major peer-reviewed paper by four senior researchers has exposed grave errors in an earlier paper in a new and unknown journal that had claimed a 97.1% scientific consensus that Man had caused at least half the 0.7 Cº global warming since 1950. A tweet in President Obamaâs name had assumed that the earlier, flawed paper, by John Cook and others, showed 97% endorsement of the notion that climate change is dangerous: âNinety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.â [Emphasis added] The new paper by the leading climatologist Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal, now in its 21st year of publication, reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was âdangerousâ. The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%. Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it. -------------- 3. the vision prize pays people to pick answers...it is a clever scam. its by IOP the nutters who published cooks discredited paper. http://www.visionprize.com/faq How does the poll work? Each Vision Prize question has two parts â the first part will ask which answer you believe to be most likely and the second part will ask you to predict how all participants will answer. Based on your answers and how accurately you predict the answers of the other participants, you will receive a Vision Score. The higher your Vision Score, the more you earn in charity gift cards to support the charity of your choice. Charity gift cards are our way of thanking you for your participation. Not all participants will earn charity donations in every poll, but to maximize your Vision Score and charity donation, you should answer both parts of each question in accordance with your best guess even if you are very uncertain. All questions in this poll ask for your best guess about what you expect â not what you hope â will be the true outcomes. Gift Card winners can choose any public charity to which to donate their prizes through the Give page on the Vision Prize website. TOP.... The Vision Prize incentivized scoring system is designed to reward answers that represent your best guess of the true answer (which, for some questions, may not be known for many years). For the first part of each question, it does this by rewarding answers that are more common than the group expects them to be. (You are free to think strategically when giving your answer, but answering truthfully will earn you just as high a Vision Score.) For the second part of each question, the scoring algorithm rewards accurate prediction of the group's responses to the first part. Your Vision Score is a combination of these rewards. Refer to the example below, which illustrates high scores in a hypothetical case. TOP 4. The cook paper was debunked in a peer reviewed papers and here on site... where I explained to you what the abstract meant.... http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9 Abstract Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007â2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019â2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate âmisinformationâ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education. Doran was a bullshit reccount of as I said 75 of 77 of 3000 papers. Every part of you consensus has been debunked and you can not reproduce it in real life because in real life the split is far different. So you rely on crooked counts like cooks... the al gore sponsored whore.