"Global warming. Really. We are not kidding." The nation's top scientists are getting fed up with being asked to write climate change reports which are then ignored.

Last week the National Research Council, one the nation's leading scientific bodies, published yet another report on the current state of climate research. What was newsworthy about this effort was the degree to which (from my perspective) the nation's best scientists seemed to be getting fed up with being asked to write reports which are then ignored. The message was simple: climate change is happening and its happening now.

As the report states:
"The risks associated with doing business as usual are a much greater concern than the risks associated with engaging in ambitious but measured response efforts. This is because many aspects of an 'overly ambitious' policy response could be reversed or otherwise addressed, if needed, through subsequent policy change, whereas adverse changes in the climate system are much more difficult (indeed, on the time scale of our lifetimes, may be impossible) to 'undo.' "

What really set this report apart was the addition of business and political leaders in the author list. The report was commisioned by congress a couple of years ago and, reading through it, one senses a kind of growing desperation in the nation's scientific establishment as they watch their best efforts and best understanding swept out to sea under the currents of anything and everything but the science.
Source http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2011/0...medium=twitter

They should be fed up; not even the current administration and President - who made promises to address CO2 emissions - have really taken them seriously. The only way that the extensive hard work of these scientists will be put to use and the only way that global warming will be addressed in any effective way is for the U.S. to put a price on CO2 in some way.

Too bad Congress is populated by people who are as bull-headed and dogmatic in their denial of basic science as the morons we always rant about for refusing to vaccinate their children.

Is there any amount of evidence which would lead to a reversal in your current assessment, or are you open to the possibility that you may be wrong? I'm just wondering how I'm supposed to play this...

This is a good starter... http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

National Geographic has a good intro here with several links from their site (Borderline childish graphs, but really good links):


General overview of the climate change skepticism as it stands today


Take note of the quote in the first paragraph...

"The controversy is significantly more pronounced in the popular media than in the scientific literature,[1][2] where there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused mainly by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases. No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view,[3][4] though a few organisations hold non-committal positions."

Basically, what I'm gathering from all of this is that there IS, in fact, a consensus amongst a vast majority of individuals within the scientific community. I suppose that your counterpoint would entail questions of their methods and ethics. If you are indeed insinuating that there is a conspiracy amongst experts in dozens of different scientific pursuits, in hundreds of countries, in thousands of university, than I must say that such an allegation must come with more proof than what you have offered here, or that I have found during my own research into the subject.

Here is a list of organizations that accept anthropogenic global warming as real and scientifically well-supported:

NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS): http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm

National Academy of Sciences (NAS): http://books.nap.edu/collections/glo...ing/index.html

State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) - http://www.socc.ca/permafrost/permafrost_future_e.cfm

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): http://epa.gov/climatechange/index.html

The Royal Society of the UK (RS) - http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3135

American Geophysical Union (AGU): http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/cl..._position.html

American Meteorological Society (AMS): http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climat...arch_2003.html

American Institute of Physics (AIP): http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html

National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR): http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html

American Meteorological Society (AMS): http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/jointacademies.html

Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS): http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html

Every major scientific institution dealing with climate, ocean, and/or atmosphere agrees that the climate is warming rapidly and the primary cause is human CO2 emissions. In addition to that list, see also this joint statement (PDF) that specifically and unequivocally endorses the work and conclusions of the IPCC Third Assessment report. The statement was issued by:

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

Russian Academy of Sciences

Royal Society (United Kingdom)

National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)

Australian Academy of Sciences

Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts

Caribbean Academy of Sciences

Indonesian Academy of Sciences

Royal Irish Academy

Academy of Sciences Malaysia

Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand

Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

But if scientists are too liberal and politicians too unreliable, perhaps you find the opinion of key industry representatives more convincing:

BP, the largest oil company in the UK and one of the largest in the world, has this opinion: There is an increasing consensus that climate change is linked to the consumption of carbon based fuels and that action is required now to avoid further increases in carbon emissions as the global demand for energy increases.

Shell Oil (yes, as in oil, the fossil fuel) says: Shell shares the widespread concern that the emission of greenhouse gases from human activities is leading to changes in the global climate.

Eighteen CEOs of Canada's largest corporations had this to say in an open letter to the Prime Minister of Canada:

Our organizations accept that a strong response is required to the strengthening evidence in the scientific assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). We accept the IPCC consensus that climate change raises the risk of severe consequences for human health and security and the environment. We note that Canada is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.

Have the environazis seized the reigns of industrial power, in addition to infiltrating the U.N., the science academies of every developed nation, and the top research institutes of North America? That just doesn't seem very likely. You seem like an intelligent person, which can be a bit of a double edged sword. The capacity of the human mind to convince itself of many things, even with an insurmountable pile of evidence staring them in the face, is a really interesting part of psychology. I know you hold your opinions very strongly, which I respect in itself, but remember, a reversal in the light of overwhelming evidence is not a weakness. I would really enjoy it if you could specifically address any concerns or doubts you still have and perhaps I could assist you in finding a reputable source we can both trust either affirming or discounting your apprehension to accepting the theory of climate change. Thanks for the discourse, always fun.