Frazzled wrote:
They are not reporting. This is no reporting any more if there ever was. They are selling a product for a profit. In this instance that is minimovies: stories with as much blood, sex, and righteous outrage as possible. If there were Baysplosions on top, that would be the best.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
They are not reporting. This is no reporting any more if there ever was. They are selling a product for a profit. In this instance that is minimovies: stories with as much blood, sex, and righteous outrage as possible. If there were Baysplosions on top, that would be the best.

To be fair, they are still "reporting" the news.
They're just doing so with a heavy case of sensationalism as well.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

That's a bunch of hooey.

You say that, but a couple posts up you misquoted Nancy Pelosi. People that want to be informed generally like to be accurate when attributing statements to others.

Anyway, responding to sensation and affirmation is easy, but being informed and carefully deliberating on the basis of that information is difficult. This is part of why the majority of people (the public) avoid the latter two. The other part centers on the fact that some people got there first, and are better at the game as a result. This can make the process of becoming informed, such that one might deliberate carefully, intimidating; rendering the easy option all the more attractive. This is not to say the people who got there first bear no responsibility, they most assuredly do, but from my experience as a TA I can confidently state that the old adage about horses and water holds true.

 whembly wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

That's a bunch of hooey.

You say that, but a couple posts up you misquoted Nancy Pelosi. People that want to be informed generally like to be accurate when attributing statements to others.

She wasn't "misquoted"... she.said.those.words.

i'm sure you're arguing that's it's taken out of context...

Anyway, responding to sensation and affirmation is easy, but being informed and carefully deliberating on the basis of that information is difficult. This is part of why the majority of people (the public) avoid the latter two. The other part centers on the fact that some people got there first, and are better at the game as a result. This can make the process of becoming informed, such that one might deliberate carefully, intimidating; rendering the easy option all the more attractive. This is not to say the people who got there first bear no responsibility, they most assuredly do, but from my experience as a TA I can confidently state that the old adage about horses and water holds true.

In a general sense, you're right.

However, there were HEIGHTENED interests in reforming healthcare. There were OPPORTUNITIES abounds for politicians, interest groups and constituents to engage in a method to debate and define what needed to be fixed.

Unfortunately, the democrats flubbed this... even hired Jonathan Gruber to help mislead the public.

 whembly wrote:

She wasn't "misquoted"... she.said.those.words.

i'm sure you're arguing that's it's taken out of context...

 whembly wrote:

However, there were HEIGHTENED interests in reforming healthcare.

 whembly wrote:

There were OPPORTUNITIES abounds for politicians, interest groups and constituents to engage in a method to debate and define what needed to be fixed.

 Kanluwen wrote:

When idiots are believing crap about the government having a group of people who are going to kill your lil' ol' granny?

And?

The American public IS stupid, whembly. The fact that we have to write bills to hide the actual content from morons who THINK they're smart but in reality shouldn't be trusted with the keys to their own cars much less the right to vote is sadly true.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Lets just all blame Lobbyists. Too many special interests

 whembly wrote:

When I said republicans... i meant the democrats.

 whembly wrote:

Elitism at it's best.

 whembly wrote:

Nah... just blame it on Republican rhetoric or Climate Change that is the rage at the moment.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

She wasn't "misquoted"... she.said.those.words.

i'm sure you're arguing that's it's taken out of context...

No, I'm arguing that you misquoted her. Pelosi did not say those words. A quick Google search prooves as much.

“But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy.”

 whembly wrote:

However, there were HEIGHTENED interests in reforming healthcare.

So long as the reform was lead by Republicans.

 whembly wrote:

There were OPPORTUNITIES abounds for politicians, interest groups and constituents to engage in a method to debate and define what needed to be fixed.

The opposition created the "Death Panels" scandal while setting Obama up as history's greatest monster. There were abundant political opportunities, but they mostly entailed appealing to voters who like sensation and affirmation.

 Ahtman wrote:
While I don't think people are as bad as Kanluwen says, it seems Whembly is doing his best to prove Kan right.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

When I said republicans... i meant the democrats.

Ok. Why are you specifically attacking the Democrats?

 whembly wrote:

Elitism at it's best.

Elites are better by definition.

 whembly wrote:

Nah... just blame it on Republican rhetoric or Climate Change that is the rage at the moment.

When has anything been blamed on Climate Change?

 whembly wrote:
Are you willfully ignoring that?
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-sanders-doubles-down-climate-change-terrorism-link/
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/curtis-houck/2015/05/21/obama-pushes-serious-threat-global-warming-days-after-fall-ramadi

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Are you willfully ignoring that?
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-sanders-doubles-down-climate-change-terrorism-link/
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/curtis-houck/2015/05/21/obama-pushes-serious-threat-global-warming-days-after-fall-ramadi

I guess you don't understand the difference between "climate change could be a security threat in the future" and "we blame climate change, don't bother with any other explanations"?

 whembly wrote:
The former is something we should hedge our actions... not dictate.

The latter is, unfortunately, the rhetoric of the current Climate Change hysteria.

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
The former is something we should hedge our actions... not dictate.

The latter is, unfortunately, the rhetoric of the current Climate Change hysteria.

So you oppose taking actions based on reasonable predictions and think we should just wait until we actually have a problem before we do something about it? You call it "hysteria", but I think the label much more accurately applies to your obsessive skepticism and denial about the subject.

 whembly wrote:

You were saying?

 whembly wrote:

Put'n words in my mouf there.

 whembly wrote:

Aaaaaaand we're done here.

 whembly wrote:

Are you willfully ignoring that?

 whembly wrote:
None of the so called "reasonable predictions" has panned out.

I'm very skeptical on this subject since people still push that whole "97% of scientist agreed" scam.

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
None of the so called "reasonable predictions" has panned out.

{citation needed}

I would love to know how you can say this, given the fact that we're talking about long-term climate predictions, not "it's going to be warmer next year".

I'm very skeptical on this subject since people still push that whole "97% of scientist agreed" scam.

{citation needed}

Do you have any evidence for a significant percentage of legitimate and relevant* scientists disagreeing with climate change? And I mean significant, not merely nitpicking and trying to claim that the actual number is 95%, not 97%.

*IOW, scientists in unrelated fields or "scientists" with credentials from far-right diploma mills do not count.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Whembly, you did not provide evidence that not even one single reasonable prediction projected the reality. A list of theories that did not turn out to be true won't provide any support for the argument you made unless it constitutes a reasonable sample size of all reasonable predictions. You also did not produce any support for your argument that there isnt a ~97% consensus among scientists.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136
...
The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.
...
In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.

Mr. Cook's work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found "only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse" the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.
...

 whembly wrote:

I'm simply an IT dude specializing data analytic in the healthcare industry who dabbles in many-scientific stuff. I need to change jobs so that I can afford this...

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Revisions of IPCC predictions similarly do not sufficiently represent "all reasonable predictions" and this does not adequately support your argument on its own.

One article that debunks one supporting study similarly does not constitute sufficient enough evidence to state that there is not a strong scientific consensus; far more evidence than that study is used to support the argument that the consensus is strong.

You have still failed to provide sufficient support for your arguments to render them valid.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

I'm simply an IT dude specializing data analytic in the healthcare industry who dabbles in many-scientific stuff. I need to change jobs so that I can afford this...

You do that and you can't afford a Tesla?

 Peregrine wrote:
And I mean significant, not merely nitpicking and trying to claim that the actual number is 95%, not 97%.

 whembly wrote:
IPCC has had to revised it's projection six times.... downward.

As to the 97% bs...

 Peregrine wrote:

The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.

This is what I mean about considering relevant scientists. The fact that it's only 79 out of 3,146 is a meaningless claim because those 79 people are the relevant experts. The purpose of discarding the other 3067 is that the positions of people who aren't specialists in a field carry much less weight. If you consider only people who specialize in climate science (and have significant published work to back up that self-identification) then you're polling the people who are most likely to have the correct answer to your question. And what we see is that those people agree, by an overwhelming margin, that the accepted theories on climate change are accurate.

 whembly wrote:
Only 79 responded to that survey.

79.

Not something you'd want to pull all your eggs to push massive changes that'd cost massive amount of money (which the few connected will recieve the windfall) on only 79 people who responded to that survey.

The ‘scientific consensus’ about global warming turns out to have a lot more to do with manipulating the numbers

How do we know there’s a scientific consensus on climate change? Pundits and the press tell us so. And how do the pundits and the press know? Until recently, they typically pointed to the number 2,500 — that’s the number of scientists associated with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Those 2,500, the pundits and the press believed, had endorsed the IPCC position.

To their embarrassment, most of the pundits and press discovered they were mistaken — those 2,500 scientists hadn’t endorsed the IPCC’s conclusions, they had merely reviewed some part or other of the IPCC’s mammoth studies. To add to their embarrassment, many of those reviewers from within the IPCC establishment actually disagreed with the IPCC’s conclusions, sometimes vehemently.

The upshot? The punditry looked for and found an alternative number to tout: “97% of the world’s climate scientists” accept the consensus, articles in the Washington Post, the U.K.’s Guardian, CNN and other news outlets now claim, along with some two million postings in the blogosphere.

This number will prove a new embarrassment to the pundits and press who use it. The number stems from a 2008 master’s thesis by student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at the University of Illinois, under the guidance of Peter Doran, an associate professor of Earth and environmental sciences. The two researchers obtained their results by conducting a survey of 10,257 Earth scientists. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers — in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.

The two researchers started by altogether excluding from their survey the thousands of scientists most likely to think that the Sun, or planetary movements, might have something to do with climate on Earth — out were the solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, astronomers and meteorologists. That left the 10,257 scientists in such disciplines as geology, geography, oceanography, engineering, paleontology and geochemistry who were somehow deemed more worthy of being included in the consensus. The two researchers also decided scientific accomplishment should not be a factor in who could answer — those surveyed were determined by their place of employment (an academic or a governmental institution). Neither was academic qualification a factor — about 1,000 of those surveyed did not have a PhD, some didn’t even have a master’s diploma.

To encourage a high participation among these remaining disciplines, the two researchers decided on a quickie survey that would take less than two minutes to complete, and would be done online, saving the respondents the hassle of mailing a reply. Nevertheless, most didn’t consider the quickie survey worthy of response — just 3,146, or 30.7%, answered the two key questions on the survey:

1 When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2 Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

The questions posed to the Earth scientists were actually non-questions. From my discussions with literally hundreds of skeptical scientists over the past few years, I know of none who claims the planet hasn’t warmed since the 1700s, and almost none who think humans haven’t contributed in some way to the recent warming — quite apart from carbon dioxide emissions, few would doubt that the creation of cities and the clearing of forests for agricultural lands have affected the climate. When pressed for a figure, global warming skeptics might say humans are responsible for 10% or 15% of the warming; some skeptics place the upper bound of man’s contribution at 35%. The skeptics only deny that humans played a dominant role in Earth’s warming.

Surprisingly, just 90% of the Earth scientists who responded to the first question believed that temperatures had risen — I would have expected a figure closer to 100%, since Earth was in the Little Ice Age in the centuries immediately preceding 1800. But perhaps some of the responders interpreted the question to include the past 1,000 years, when Earth was in the Medieval Warm Period, generally thought to be warmer than today.

As for the second question, 82% of the Earth scientists replied that human activity had significantly contributed to the warming. Here the vagueness of the question comes into play. Since skeptics believe human activity has been a contributing factor, their answer would have turned on whether they consider an increase of 10% or 15% or 35% to be a significant contributing factor. Some would, some wouldn’t.

In any case, the two researchers must have feared that an 82% figure would fall short of a convincing consensus — almost one in five wasn’t blaming humans for global warming — so they looked for a subset that would yield a higher percentage. They found it — almost — by excluding all the Earth scientists whose recently published peer-reviewed research wasn’t mostly in the field of climate change. This subset reduced the number of remaining scientists from over 3,000 to under 300. But the percentage that now resulted still fell short of the researchers’ ideal, because the subset included such disciplines as meteorology, which Doran considers ill-informed on the subject. “Most members of the public think meteorologists know climate, but most of them actually study very short-term phenomenon,” he explained, in justifying why he decided to exclude them, among others. The researchers thus decided to tout responses by those Earth scientists who not only published mainly on climate but also identified themselves as climate scientists.

“They’re the ones who study and publish on climate science,” Doran explained. “So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you’re likely to believe in global warming and humankind’s contribution to it.”

Once all these cuts were made, 75 out of 77 scientists of unknown qualifications were left endorsing the global warming orthodoxy. The two researchers, the master’s student and her prof, were then satisfied with the findings of her master’s thesis. Are you?

Closure

Anyone who continues to defend this study should also be prepared to embrace and circulate the findings of Heartland or Heritage if they stoop to using a bunch of political activists to subjectively rate scientific abstracts. If ERL doesn't retract, for some unimaginable reason, they should cheerfully publish subjective rater studies conducted by conservative political activists on climate science, Mormons on the science of gay marriage, and Scientologists on the harms of psychiatry (well, if ERL weren't just an environmental journal...) This ultimately isn't about this study – it's about the method, about the implications of allowing studies based on subjective ratings of abstracts by people who have an obvious conflict of interest as to the outcome. Science is critically depends on valid methods, and is generally supposed to progress over time, not step back to a pre-modern ignorance of human bias.

I think some of you who've defended this study got on the wrong train. I don't think you meant to end up here. I think it was an accident. You thought you were getting on the Science Train. You thought these people -- Cook, Nuccitelli, Lewandowsky -- were the science crowd, and that the opposition was anti-science, "deniers" and so forth. I hope it's clear at this point that this was not the Science Train. This is a different train. These people care much less about science than they do about politics. They're willing to do absolutely stunning, unbelievable things to score political points. What they did still stuns me, that they did this on purpose, that it was published, that we live in a world where people can publish these sorts of obvious scams in normally scientific journals. If you got on this train, you're now at a place where you have to defend political activists rating scientific abstracts regarding the issue on which their activism is focused, able to generate the results they want. You have to defend people counting psychology studies and surveys of the general public as scientific evidence of endorsement of AGW. You have to defend false statements about the methods used in the study. Their falsity won't be a matter of opinion -- they were clear and simple claims, and they were false. You have to defend the use of raters who wanted to count a bad psychology study of white males as evidence of scientific endorsement of AGW. You have to defend vile behavior, dishonesty, and stunning hatred and malice as a standard way to deal with dissent.

I think many of you have too few categories. You might have science and anti-science categories, for example, or pro-science and denier. The world isn't going to be that simple. It's never been that simple. Reality is a complicated place, including the reality of human psychology and knowledge. Science is enormously complicated. We can't even understand the proper role of science, or how to evaluate what scientists say, without a good epistemological framework. No serious epistemological framework is going to lump the future projections of a young and dynamic scientific field with the truth of evolution, or the age of the earth. Those claims are very different in terms of their bodies of evidence, the levels of confidence a rational person should have in them, and how accessible the evidence is to inquiring laypeople.

Cognition is in large part categorization, and we need more than two categories to understand and sort people's views and frameworks when it comes to fresh scientific issues like AGW. If our science category or camp includes people like Cook and Nuccitelli, it's no longer a science category. We won't have credibility as pro-science people if those people are the standard bearers. Those people are in a different category, a different camp, and it won't be called "science". Those climate scientists who have touted, endorsed, and defended the Cook et al. study – I suggest you reconsider. I also suggest that you run some basic correction for the known bias and cognitive dissonance humans have against changing their position, admitting they were wrong, etc. Do you really want to be on the historical record as a defender of this absurd malpractice? It won't age well, and as a scientist, certain values and principles should matter more to you than politics.

If you're always on the side of people who share your political views, if you're always on the side of people who report a high AGW consensus figure, no matter what they do, something is wrong. It's unlikely that all the people who share our political perspectives, or all the studies conducted by them, are right or valid -- we know this in advance. We need more honesty on this issue, less political malice, better epistemology. I don't think science has been so distrusted in the modern era than it is today. When the public thinks of science, it should not trigger thoughts of liars and people trying to deceive them and take advantage of them. Journals need to take responsibility for what they do, and stop publishing politically motivated junk. Sadly, this paper is self-refuting. A paper-counting study assumes that the papers they're counting are valid and rigorous works, which assumes that peer-review screens out invalid, sloppy, or fraudulent work. Yet the Cook paper was published in a peer-reviewed climate journal. That it was sruvived peer-review undermines the critical assumption the study rests on, and will be important inductive evidence to outside observers.

So you want to know what the 97% is? You really want to know? It's a bunch of abstracts/grant applications that say: "We all know about global warming. Let me tell you about my atomic layer deposition project." "You all know the earth is melting. Let me tell you about my design for a grapeseed oil powered diesel engine." "We've all heard about global warming. Here we report a survey of the public." "...Denial of improved cooking stoves." Let's call that phenomenon A.

Now let's factor in a bunch of militant political activists rating abstracts on the issue of their activism, and who desire a certain outcome. Call that B.

Let's also factor in the fact these militant political activists are for the most part unqualified laypeople who will not be able to understand many science abstracts, who have no idea how to do a proper literature search or how to conduct a proper subjective rating study, have never heard of interrater reliability or meta-analysis, violate every critical methodological feature their study requires, and lie about it. Call that C.

Then add a politically biased journal editor who has a profound conflict of interest with respect to the findings, as he works for the politician whose aims such findings would serve, and which were widely touted and misrepresented by said politician. Call that D.

A + B + C + D = 97%

"97%" has become a bit of a meme over the past year. I predict that it will in the coming years become a meme of a different sort. "97%" will be the meme for scientific fraud and deception, for the assertion of overwhelming consensus where the reality is not nearly so simple or untextured. It may become the hashtag for every report of fraud, a compact version of "9 out of 10 dentists agree" (well, I'm abusing the definition of meme, but so does everyone else...) Because of this kind of fraud, bias, and incompetence, science is in danger of being associated with people who lie and deceive the public. Excellent. Just fantastic. Politics is eroding our scientific norms, and possibly our brains.

The laypeople who first identified the fraud in these cases and contacted the relevant authorities were roundly ignored. In the two cases I've covered, the evidence is surprisingly accessible, not rocket science, and the Australian universities who hosted the researchers have been inexcusably unwilling to investigate, at least not when asked by others. AAAS, who leaned on this fraud, has an Enron culture of denial and buck-passing. These institutions have become part of the story in a way they shouldn't have. The system is broken, at least as far as these politically motivated junk studies are concerned, and most of the responsible gatekeepers have been unwilling to discharge their ethical and scientific responsibilities, and should probably be discharged of those responsibilities. If this is science, then science is less rigorous than any plausible contrast objects we'd set it against – it would be the least rigorous thing we do. Some scientific fields are better than this. They retract papers all the time, often the authors themselves, for non-fraud reasons. Fraud is taken dead seriously, and a fraud report will be investigated thoroughly.

We've bumped into some corruption here. I'm disappointed in the extremely low quality of the arguments from the fraud-defenders and wagon-circlers (calling me a "right-wing extremist" or asking whether other people agree with me won't do it, and the latter scares the hell out of me, as it might signal that an absurdly primitive and simplistic epistemology of consensus actually enjoys a non-zero rate of popularity in academic circles). I'm also disappointed in the more common silence from the ertswhile defenders of this junk. In both cases, no one is refuting anything, presenting any sort of substantive argument. We're taking lots of risks here, potentially rupturing the classic association between science and fact, or between science and the rational mind. We can't allow science to become a recurrent source of deception and falsity, or risk the very concept science devolving into a label for an alternative lifestyle, a subculture of job security and unreliable claims. That outcome seems distant, but if we don't address behavior like the conduct and publication of this study, we'll probably see more of it.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
You stated that none of the reasonable predictions thus far have panned out. Do you intend to say that only predictions made by the IPCC are reasonable? In that case, I request that you provide the reasoning for why predictions from any other source are unreasonable. If you do not mean to say that, then the IPCC making incorrect predictions does not mean that other reasonable predictions were also incorrect. You will also need to provide evidence as to why predictions that have proven correct are unreasonable or actually incorrect.

 Peregrine wrote:
And I mean significant, not merely nitpicking and trying to claim that the actual number is 95%, not 97%.

This is what I am referring to in regards to the 97% argument. Please provide evidence to support that there is not a very strong consensus among scientists, in support of the idea that it is at least below 90%. Note this will need to stand against the large body of evidence that does suggest there is such a consensus. For reference, here are a few sources in support of the scientific consensus:

Spoiler:

1. Oreskes, Naomi (2007). "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change: How Do We Know We’re Not Wrong?". In DiMento, Joseph F. C.; Doughman, Pamela M. Climate Change: What It Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren. MIT Press. pp. 65–66. ISBN 978-0-262-54193-0.
2. "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level." IPCC, Synthesis Report, Section 1.1: Observations of climate change, in IPCC AR4 SYR 2007.
3. IPCC, "Summary for Policymakers", Detection and Attribution of Climate Change, «It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century» (page 15) and «In this Summary for Policymakers, the following terms have been used to indicate the assessed likelihood of an outcome or a result: (...) extremely likely: 95–100%» (page 2)., in IPCC AR5 WG1 2013.
4. IPCC, Synthesis Report, Section 2.4: Attribution of climate change, in IPCC AR4 SYR 2007."It is likely that increases in GHG concentrations alone would have caused more warming than observed because volcanic and anthropogenic aerosols have offset some warming that would otherwise have taken place."
5. [Notes-SciPanel] America's Climate Choices: Panel on Advancing the Science of Climate Change; National Research Council (2010). Advancing the Science of Climate Change. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. ISBN 0-309-14588-0. (p1) ... there is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations. * * * (p21-22) Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.
6. "Summary for Policymakers", 1. Observed changes in climate and their effects, inIPCC AR4 SYR 2007
7. "Summary for Policymakers", 2. Causes of change, in IPCC AR4 SYR 2007
8. ^ Jump up to:a b c Parry, M.L.; et al., "Technical summary", Industry, settlement and society, in: Box TS.5. The main projected impacts for systems and sectors, in IPCC AR4 WG2 2007
9. IPCC, "Summary for Policymakers", Magnitudes of impact, in IPCC AR4 WG2 2007
10. "Synthesis report", Ecosystems, in: Sec 3.3.1 Impacts on systems and sectors, inIPCC AR4 SYR 2007
11. ^ Jump up to:a b c "Question 1", 1.1, in IPCC TAR SYR 2001, p. 38
12. ^ Jump up to:a b Summary, in US NRC 2001, p. 4
13. ^ Jump up to:a b c Julie Brigham-Grette; et al. (September 2006). "Petroleum Geologists' Award to Novelist Crichton Is Inappropriate" (PDF). Eos 87 (36): 364.Bibcode:2006EOSTr..87..364B. doi:10.1029/2006EO360008. Retrieved 2007-01-23.The AAPG stands alone among scientific societies in its denial of human-induced effects on global warming.
14. ^ Jump up to:a b AAPG Climate Change June 2007
15. ^ Jump up to:a b Oreskes 2007, p. 68
16. Ogden, Aynslie and Cohen, Stewart (2002). "Integration and Synthesis: Assessing Climate Change Impacts in Northern Canada" (PDF). Retrieved 2009-04-12.
17. ^ Jump up to:a b "Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers" (PDF). IPCC. Retrieved 1 August 2015.
18. Nuccitelli, Dana (31 March 2014). "IPCC report warns of future climate change risks, but is spun by contrarians". The Guardian. Retrieved 1 August 2015.
19. ^ Jump up to:a b "U.N. Climate Panel Endorses Ceiling on Global Emissions". The New York Times. 27 September 2013. Retrieved 1 August 2015.
20. "Warming 'very likely' human-made". BBC News (BBC). 2007-02-01. Retrieved2007-02-01.
21. Rosenthal, Elisabeth; Revkin, Andrew C. (2007-02-03). "Science Panel Calls Global Warming ‘Unequivocal’". New York Times. Retrieved 2010-08-28. 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
22. Stevens, William K. (2007-02-06). "On the Climate Change Beat, Doubt Gives Way to Certainty". New York Times. Retrieved 2010-08-28. 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.
23. "U.N. Report: Global Warming Man-Made, Basically Unstoppable". Fox News. Retrieved 2012-07-30.
24. Downloads.globalchange.gov
25. "Impacts of a Warming Arctic: Arctic Climate Impact Assessment New Scientific Consensus: Arctic Is Warming Rapidly". UNEP/GRID-Arendal. 2004-11-08. Retrieved2010-01-20.
26. "ACIA Display". Amap.no. Retrieved 2012-07-30.
27. ^ Jump up to:a b c The literature has been assessed by the IPCC, e.g., see:
• Adger, W.N.; et al., Ch 17: Assessment of Adaptation Practices, Options, Constraints and Capacity, in IPCC AR4 WG2 2007
• Barker, T.; et al., Technical summary, in IPCC AR4 WG3 2007
28. ^ Jump up to:a b 2009 Joint Science Academies’ Statement
29. Doha Declaration on Climate, Health and Wellbeing. This statement has been signed by numerous medical organizations, including the World Medical Association.
30. Arnold, D.G., ed. (March 2011), The Ethics of Global Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 9781107000698
31. "Editorial: The Science of Climate Change". Science 292 (5520): 1261. May 18, 2001.doi:10.1126/science.292.5520.1261.
32. ^ Jump up to:a b The Science of Climate Change, The Royal Society
33. Joint science academies’ statement: Global response to climate change, 2005
34. 2007 Joint Science Academies' Statement
35. ^ Jump up to:a b "Joint statement by the Network of African Science Academies (NASAC) to the G8 on sustainability, energy efficiency and climate change" (PDF). Network of African Science Academies. 2007. Retrieved 2012-08-28.
36. 2008 Joint Science Academies’ Statement
37. "Stanowisko Zgromadzenia Ogólnego PAN z dnia 13 grudnia 2007 r" (PDF) (in Polish). Polish Academy of Sciences. Retrieved 2009-06-16. Note: As of 16 June 2009, PAS has not issued this statement in English, all citations have been translated from Polish.
38. ^ Jump up to:a b AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change www.aaas.org December 2006
39. FASTS Statement on Climate Change (PDF), 2008 "Global climate change is real and measurable. Since the start of the 20th century, the global mean surface temperature of the Earth has increased by more than 0.7°C and the rate of warming has been largest in the last 30 years. Key vulnerabilities arising from climate change include water resources, food supply, health, coastal settlements, biodiversity and some key ecosystems such as coral reefs and alpine regions. As the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases increases, impacts become more severe and widespread. 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."
40. ^ Jump up to:a b Committee on the Science of Climate Change, Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council (2001). Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions. Washington DC: National Academy Press. ISBN 0-309-07574-2.
41. Wratt, David; Renwick, James (2008-07-10). "Climate change statement from the Royal Society of New Zealand". The Royal Society of New Zealand. Retrieved 2010-01-20.
42. Gray, Louise (May 29, 2010). "Royal Society to publish guide on climate change to counter claims of 'exaggeration'". The Daily Telegraph (London).
43. ^ Jump up to:a b "New guide to science of climate change". The Royal Society. Retrieved 9 June2010.
44. Harrabin, Roger (27 May 2010). "Society to review climate message". BBC News. Retrieved 9 June 2010.
45. Gardner, Dan (8 June 2010). "Some excitable climate-change deniers just don't understand what science is". Montreal Gazette. Archived from the original on 11 June 2010. Retrieved 9 June 2010.
46. "Joint statement by the Network of African Science Academies (NASAC) to the G8 on sustainability, energy efficiency and climate change". 2007. Retrieved 22 May 2015. 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... Although we recognize that this nexus poses daunting challenges for the developed world, we firmly believe that these challenges are even more daunting for the most impoverished, science-poor regions of the developing world, especially in Africa.
47. European Academy of Sciences and Arts Let's Be Honest
48. European Science Foundation Position Paper Impacts of Climate Change on the European Marine and Coastal Environment — Ecosystems Approach, 2007, pp. 7–10"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. These greenhouse gases affect the global climate by retaining heat in the troposphere, thus raising the average temperature of the planet and altering global atmospheric circulation and precipitation patterns. While on-going national and international actions to curtail and reduce greenhouse gas emissions are essential, the levels of greenhouse gases currently in the atmosphere, and their impact, are likely to persist for several decades. On-going and increased efforts to mitigate climate change through reduction in greenhouse gases are therefore crucial."
49. Panel Urges Global Shift on Sources of Energy
50. "InterAcademy Council". InterAcademy Council. Retrieved 2012-07-30.
51. "InterAcademy Council". InterAcademy Council. Retrieved 2012-07-30.
52. "InterAcademy Council". InterAcademy Council. Retrieved 2012-07-30.
53. http://www.caets.org/nae/naecaets.nsf/(weblinks)/WSAN-78QL9A?OpenDocument
54. American Chemical Society Global Climte Change "Careful and comprehensive scientific assessments have clearly demonstrated that the Earth’s climate system is changing rapidly in response to growing atmospheric burdens of greenhouse gases and absorbing aerosol particles (IPCC, 2007). There is very little room for doubt that observed climate trends are due to human activities. The threats are serious and action is urgently needed to mitigate the risks of climate change. The reality of global warming, its current serious and potentially disastrous impacts on Earth system properties, and the key role emissions from human activities play in driving these phenomena have been recognized by earlier versions of this ACS policy statement (ACS, 2004), by other major scientific societies, including the American Geophysical Union (AGU, 2003), the American Meteorological Society (AMS, 2007) and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS, 2007), and by the U. S. National Academies and ten other leading national academies of science (NA, 2005)."
55. American Institute of Physics Statement supporting AGU statement on human-induced climate change, 2003 "The Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics has endorsed a position statement on climate change adopted by the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Council in December 2003."
56. American Physical Society Climate Change Policy Statement, November 2007"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes. The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now. Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.
57. AIP science policy document. (PDF), 2005 "Policy: The AIP supports a reduction of the green house gas emissions that are leading to increased global temperatures, and encourages research that works towards this goal. Reason: Research in Australia and overseas shows that an increase in global temperature will adversely affect the Earth’s climate patterns. The melting of the polar ice caps, combined with thermal expansion, will lead to rises in sea levels that may impact adversely on our coastal cities. The impact of these changes on biodiversity will fundamentally change the ecology of Earth."
58. EPS Position Paper Energy for the future: The Nuclear Option (PDF), 2007 "The emission of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, among which carbon dioxide is the main contributor, has amplified the natural greenhouse effect and led to global warming. The main contribution stems from burning fossil fuels. A further increase will have decisive effects on life on earth. An energy cycle with the lowest possible CO2 emission is called for wherever possible to combat climate change."
59. "AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate". Agu.org. Retrieved2012-07-30.
60. "Human-induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action". Position Statement. American Geophysical Union. Retrieved 14 August 2013.
61. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA Position Statement on Climate Change
62. "EFG Website | Home". Eurogeologists.de. 2011-08-10. Retrieved 2012-07-30.
63. EFG Carbon Capture and geological Storage
64. http://www.egu.eu/statements/position-statement-of-the-divisions-of-atmospheric-and-climate-sciences-7-july-2005.html
65. http://www.egu.eu/statements/egu-position-statement-on-ocean-acidification.html
66. "The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Global Climate Change". Geosociety.org. Retrieved 2012-07-30.
67. "Geological Society - Climate change: evidence from the geological record". Geolsoc.org.uk. Retrieved 2012-07-30.
68. IUGG Resolution 6
69. http://www.nagt.org/index.html
70. http://nagt.org/nagt/organization/ps-climate.html
71. "AMS Information Statement on Climate Change". Ametsoc.org. 2012-08-20. Retrieved2012-08-27.
72. "Statement". AMOS. Retrieved 2012-07-30.
73. CFCAS Letter to PM, November 25, 2005
74. Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Letter to Stephen Harper(Updated, 2007)
75. http://www.rmets.org/news/detail.php?ID=332
76. WMO’s Statement at the Twelfth Session of the Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.
77. AMQUA "Petroleum Geologists’ Award to Novelist Crichton Is Inappropriate"
78. ^ Jump up to:a b INQUA Statement On Climate Change.
79. AAWV Position Statement on Climate Change, Wildlife Diseases, and Wildlife Health"There is widespread scientific agreement that the world’s climate is changing and that the weight of evidence demonstrates that anthropogenic factors have and will continue to contribute significantly to global warming and climate change. It is anticipated that continuing changes to the climate will have serious negative impacts on public, animal and ecosystem health due to extreme weather events, changing disease transmissiondynamics, emerging and re-emerging diseases, and alterations to habitat and ecological systems that are essential to wildlife conservation. Furthermore, there is increasing recognition of the inter-relationships of human, domestic animal, wildlife, and ecosystem health as illustrated by the fact the majority of recent emerging diseases have a wildlife origin."
80. AIBS Position Statements "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."
81. Scientific societies warn Senate: climate change is real, Ars Technica, October 22, 2009
82. Letter to US Senators (PDF), October 2009
83. Global Environmental Change — Microbial Contributions, Microbial Solutions (PDF),American Society For Microbiology, May 2006 They recommended "reducing net anthropogenic CO2 emissions to the atmosphere” and “minimizing anthropogenic disturbances of” atmospheric gases. Carbon dioxide concentrations were relatively stable for the past 10,000 years but then began to increase rapidly about 150 years ago…as a result of fossil fuel consumption and land use change. Of course, changes in atmospheric composition are but one component of global change, which also includes disturbances in the physical and chemical conditions of the oceans and land surface. Although global change has been a natural process throughout Earth’s history, humans are responsible for substantially accelerating present-day changes. These changes may adversely affect human health and the biosphere on which we depend. Outbreaks of a number of diseases, including Lyme disease, hantavirus infections, dengue fever, bubonic plague, and cholera, have been linked to climate change."
84. Australian Coral Reef Society official letter (PDF), 2006, archived from the original(PDF) on 22 March 2006 Official communique regarding the Great Barrier Reef and the "world-wide decline in coral reefs through processes such as overfishing, runoff of nutrients from the land, coral bleaching, global climate change, ocean acidification, pollution", etc.: There is almost total consensus among experts that the earth’s climate is changing as a result of the build-up of greenhouse gases. The IPCC (involving over 3,000 of the world’s experts) has come out with clear conclusions as to the reality of this phenomenon. One does not have to look further than the collective academy of scientists worldwide to see the string (of) statements on this worrying change to the earth’s atmosphere. 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....It is highly likely that coral bleaching has been exacerbated by global warming."
85. Institute of Biology policy page ‘Climate Change’ "there is scientific agreement that the rapid global warming that has occurred in recent years is mostly anthropogenic, ie due to human activity.” As a consequence of global warming, they warn that a “rise in sea levels due to melting of ice caps is expected to occur. Rises in temperature will have complex and frequently localised effects on weather, but an overall increase in extreme weather conditions and changes in precipitation patterns are probable, resulting in flooding and drought. The spread of tropical diseases is also expected.” Subsequently, the Institute of Biology advocates policies to reduce “greenhouse gas emissions, as we feel that the consequences of climate change are likely to be severe."
86. SAF Forest Management and Climate Change (PDF), 2008 "Forests are shaped by climate....Changes in temperature and precipitation regimes therefore have the potential to dramatically affect forests nationwide. There is growing evidence that our climate is changing. The changes in temperature have been associated with increasing concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and other GHGs in the atmosphere."
87. SAF Forest Offset Projects in a Carbon Trading System (PDF), 2008 "Forests play a significant role in offsetting CO2 emissions, the primary anthropogenic GHG."
88. Wildlife Society Global Climate Change and Wildlife (PDF) "Scientists throughout the world have concluded that climate research conducted in the past two decades definitively shows that rapid worldwide climate change occurred in the 20th century, and will likely continue to occur for decades to come. Although climates have varied dramatically since the Earth was formed, few scientists question the role of humans in exacerbating recent climate change through the emission of greenhouse gases. The critical issue is no longer “if” climate change is occurring, but rather how to address its effects on wildlife and wildlife habitats." The statement goes on to assert that “evidence is accumulating that wildlife and wildlife habitats have been and will continue to be significantly affected by ongoing large-scale rapid climate change.” The statement concludes with a call for “reduction in anthropogenic (human-caused) sources of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions contributing to global climate change and the conservation of CO2- consumingphotosynthesizers (i.e., plants).”
89. AAP Global Climate Change and Children's Health, 2007 "There is broad scientific consensus that Earth's climate is warming rapidly and at an accelerating rate. Human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels, are very likely (>90% probability) to be the main cause of this warming. Climate-sensitive changes in ecosystems are already being observed, and fundamental, potentially irreversible, ecological changes may occur in the coming decades. Conservative environmental estimates of the impact of climate changes that are already in process indicate that they will result in numerous health effects to children. Anticipated direct health consequences of climate change include injury and death from extreme weather events and natural disasters, increases in climate-sensitiveinfectious diseases, increases in air pollution–related illness, and more heat-related, potentially fatal, illness. Within all of these categories, children have increased vulnerability compared with other groups."
90. ACPM Policy Statement Abrupt Climate Change and Public Health Implications, 2006"The American College of Preventive Medicine (ACPM) accept the position that global warming and climate change is occurring, that there is potential for abrupt climate change, and that human practices that increase greenhouse gases exacerbate the problem, and that the public health consequences may be severe."
91. American Medical Association Policy Statement, 2008 "Support the findings of the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, which states that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that these changes will negatively affect public health. Support educating the medical community on the potential adverse public health effects of global climate change, including topics such as population displacement, flooding, infectious and vector-borne diseases, and healthy water supplies."
92. American Public Health Association Policy Statement ‘’Addressing the Urgent Threat of Global Climate Change to Public Health and the Environment’’, 2007 "The long-term threat of global climate change to global health is extremely serious and the fourth IPCC report and other scientific literature demonstrate convincingly that anthropogenic GHG emissions are primarily responsible for this threat….US policy makers should immediately take necessary steps to reduce US emissions of GHGs, including carbon dioxide, to avert dangerous climate change."
93. AMA Climate Change and Human Health — 2004, 2004 They recommend policies "to mitigate the possible consequential health effects of climate change through improved energy efficiency, clean energy production and other emission reduction steps."
94. AMA Climate Change and Human Health — 2004. Revised 2008., 2008 "The world’s climate – our life-support system – is being altered in ways that are likely to pose significant direct and indirect challenges to health. While ‘climate change’ can be due to natural forces or human activity, there is now substantial evidence to indicate that human activity – and specifically increased greenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions – is a key factor in the pace and extent of global temperature increases. Health impacts of climate change include the direct impacts of extreme events such as storms, floods, heatwaves and fires and the indirect effects of longer-term changes, such as drought, changes to the food andwater supply, resource conflicts and population shifts. Increases in average temperatures mean that alterations in the geographic range and seasonality of certain infections and diseases (including vector-borne diseases such as malaria, dengue fever, Ross River virusand food-borne infections such as Salmonellosis) may be among the first detectable impacts of climate change on human health. Human health is ultimately dependent on the health of the planet and its ecosystem. The AMA believes that measures which mitigate climate change will also benefit public health. Reducing GHGs should therefore be seen as a public health priority."
95. World Federation of Public Health Associations resolution "Global Climate Change"(PDF), 2001 "Noting the conclusions of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other climatologists that anthropogenic greenhouse gases, which contribute to global climate change, have substantially increased in atmospheric concentration beyond natural processes and have increased by 28 percent since the industrial revolution….Realizing that subsequent health effects from such perturbations in the climate system would likely include an increase in: heat-related mortality and morbidity; vector-borne infectious diseases,… water-borne diseases…(and) malnutrition from threatened agriculture….the World Federation of Public Health Associations…recommends precautionary primary preventive measures to avert climate change, including reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and preservation of greenhouse gas sinks through appropriate energy and land use policies, in view of the scale of potential health impacts...."
96. WHO Protecting health from climate change (PDF), 2008, p. 2, retrieved 2009-04-18
97. Statement supporting AGU statement on human-induced climate change, American Astronomical Society, 2004 "In endorsing the "Human Impacts on Climate" statement [issued by the American Geophysical Union], the AAS recognizes the collective expertise of the AGU in scientific subfields central to assessing and understanding global change, and acknowledges the strength of agreement among our AGU colleagues that the global climate is changing and human activities are contributing to that change."
98. ASA Statement on Climate Change, November 30, 2007 "The ASA endorses the IPCC conclusions.... Over the course of four assessment reports, a small number of statisticians have served as authors or reviewers. Although this involvement is encouraging, it does not represent the full range of statistical expertise available. ASA recommends that more statisticians should become part of the IPCC process. Such participation would be mutually beneficial to the assessment of climate change and its impacts and also to the statistical community."
99. Lapp, David. "What Is Climate Change". Canadian Council of Professional Engineers. Retrieved 18 August 2015.
100. Policy Statement, Climate Change and Energy, February 2007 "Engineers Australia believes that Australia must act swiftly and proactively in line with global expectations to address climate change as an economic, social and environmental risk... We believe that addressing the costs of atmospheric emissions will lead to increasing our competitive advantage by minimising risks and creating new economic opportunities. Engineers Australia believes the Australian Government should ratify the Kyoto Protocol."
101. IAGLR Fact Sheet The Great Lakes at a Crossroads: Preparing for a Changing Climate (PDF), February 2009 "While the Earth’s climate has changed many times during the planet’s history because of natural factors, including volcanic eruptions and changes in the Earth’s orbit, never before have we observed the present rapid rise in temperature and carbon dioxide (CO2). Human activities resulting from the industrial revolution have changed the chemical composition of the atmosphere....Deforestation is now the second largest contributor to global warming, after the burning of fossil fuels. These human activities have significantly increased the concentration of “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere. As the Earth’s climate warms, we are seeing many changes: stronger, more destructive hurricanes; heavier rainfall; more disastrous flooding; more areas of the world experiencing severe drought; and more heat waves."
102. IPENZ Informatory Note, Climate Change and the greenhouse effect (PDF), October 2001 "Human activities have increased the concentration of these atmospheric greenhouse gases, and although the changes are relatively small, the equilibrium maintained by the atmosphere is delicate, and so the effect of these changes is significant. The world’s most important greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide, a by-product of the burning of fossil fuels. Since the time of the Industrial Revolution about 200 years ago, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased from about 280 parts per million to 370 parts per million, an increase of around 30%. On the basis of available data, climate scientists are now projecting an average global temperature rise over this century of 2.0 to 4.5°C. This compared with 0.6°C over the previous century – about a 500% increase... This could lead to changing, and for all emissions scenarios more unpredictable, weather patterns around the world, less frost days, more extreme events (droughts and storm or flood disasters), and warmer sea temperatures and melting glaciers causing sea levels to rise. ... Professional engineers commonly deal with risk, and frequently have to make judgments based on incomplete data. The available evidence suggests very strongly that human activities have already begun to make significant changes to the earth’s climate, and that the long-term risk of delaying action is greater than the cost of avoiding/minimising the risk."
103. AAPG Position Statement: Climate Change from dpa.aapg.org
104. "Climate :03:2007 EXPLORER". Aapg.org. Retrieved 2012-07-30.
105. Sunsetting the Global Climate Change Committee, The Professional Geologist, March/April 2010, p. 28
106. "American Geological Institute Climate Statement". 12 Feb 1999. Archived from the original on July 2012. Retrieved July 2012.
107. AIPG Climate Change Letters sent to U.S. Government Officials
108. "AIPG Climate Change and Domestic Energy Statement", The Professional Geologist, January/February 2010, p. 42
109. "The Professional Geologist publications". Archived from the original on July 2012. Retrieved July 2012.
110. "Climate Change and Society Governance", The Professional Geologist, March/April 2010, p. 33
111. billobrien.coml. "Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences (CFES)". Geoscience.ca. Retrieved 2012-07-30.
112. Graham Lloyd (June 4, 2014). "Earth scientists split on climate change statement". The Australian. Retrieved June 4, 2014.(subscription required)
113. Anderegg, William R L; Prall, James W.; Harold, Jacob; Schneider, Stephen H. (2010)."Expert credibility in climate change". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 107 (27): 12107–9.Bibcode:2010PNAS..10712107A. doi:10.1073/pnas.1003187107. PMC 2901439.PMID 20566872. Retrieved 22 August 2011.
114. Doran consensus article 2009
115. John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli, Sarah A Green, Mark Richardson, Bärbel Winkler, Rob Painting, Robert Way, Peter Jacobs. Andrew Skuce (15 May 2013). "Expert credibility in climate change". Environ. Res. Lett. 8 (2): 024024. Bibcode:2013ERL.....8b4024C.doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024.
116. Naomi Oreskes (December 3, 2004). "Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" (PDF). Science 306 (5702): 1686. doi:10.1126/science.1103618.PMID 15576594. (see also for an exchange of letters to Science)
117. Lavelle, Marianne (2008-04-23). "Survey Tracks Scientists' Growing Climate Concern". U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved 2010-01-20.
118. Lichter, S. Robert (2008-04-24). "Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don't Trust the Media's Coverage of Climate Change". Statistical Assessment Service, George Mason University. Retrieved 2010-01-20.
119. ""Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change" at Journalist's Resource.org".
120. Stephen J. Farnsworth, S. Robert Lichter (October 27, 2011). "The Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change". International Journal of Public Opinion Research. Retrieved December 2, 2011.
121. Bray, Dennis; von Storch, Hans (2009). "A Survey of the Perspectives of Climate Scientists Concerning Climate Science and Climate Change" (PDF).
122. Bray, D.; von Storch H. (2009). "Prediction' or 'Projection; The nomenclature of climate science". Science Communication 30 (4): 534–543. doi:10.1177/1075547009333698.
123. Doran, Peter T.; Maggie Kendall Zimmerman (January 20, 2009). "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" (PDF). EOS 90 (3): 22–23.Bibcode:2009EOSTr..90...22D. doi:10.1029/2009EO030002.
124. Anderegg, William R L; Prall, James W.; Harold, Jacob; Schneider, Stephen H. (2010)."Expert credibility in climate change" (PDF). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 107 (27): 12107–9. Bibcode:2010PNAS..10712107A. doi:10.1073/pnas.1003187107.PMC 2901439. PMID 20566872.
125. Cook, J.; Nuccitelli, D.; Green, S.A.; Richardson, M.; Winkler, B.; Painting, R.; Way, R.; Jacobs, P.; Skuc, A. (2013). "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature". Environ. Res. Lett. 8 (2): 024024.Bibcode:2013ERL.....8b4024C. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024.
126. Plait, P. (11 December 2012). "Why Climate Change Denial Is Just Hot Air". Slate. Retrieved 14 February 2014.
127. Plait, P. (14 January 2014). "The Very, Very Thin Wedge of Denial". Slate. Retrieved14 February 2014.
128. US NRC (2008). Understanding and Responding to Climate Change. A brochure prepared by the US National Research Council (US NRC) (PDF). Washington DC, USA: US National Academy of Sciences.
129. Joint Science Academies' Statement
130. "Climate Change Research: Issues for the Atmospheric and Related Sciences Adopted by the AMS Council 9 February 2003". Ametsoc.org. 2003-02-09. Retrieved 2012-07-30.
131. "Australian Coral Reef Society". Australian Coral Reef Society. Retrieved 2012-07-30.
132. Australian Coral Reef Society official letter, June 16, 2006

 whembly wrote:

You do realize that it's an $80k + rig... yes?