The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Cookslav]

s long as the possibility is there, why not err on the side of caution?

I'd agree but I'd caution ourselves on that same note....

There is reason to beleive the warming of the earth is a cycle, but if its not...

There is still reason to beleive it may not caused by our C02 emmisions.

 

I think in order to better protect ourselves, and ensure a better cleaner future its worth questioning the supposed Sound Science, and.

Be open to examine other possible causes and contributors.

 

Lets not put all our eggs in one basket I s'pose.

Cheers,

Edited March 25, 2007 by Cookslav

[Puckhead]

^ that's the best way to put it I think. Do everything possible, err on the side of caution, but keep everything on the table with a healthy "grain of salt". If guys want to keep their lights on all night, it isn't communism so the best option is educate, but in the same vein, gorebal warming needs proper checks and balances in place so we don't all jump off the cliff during the hysteria.

[Gary George]

"For me it's really simple: I find it extemely arrogant of mankind to think they could put a dent into a planet that has been around for millions of years and been through far more pressure from solar extremes than we could imagine."

 

Duh! Our common homes are just temporary, our real home is the earth, much more permanent with respect to our existance. To suggest we haven't dented her is pretty arrogant in itself. Oceans full of human synthetic debris yet more and more devoid of fish. Frogs and birds, fish and livestock mutated, invasive species, undrinkable water. Looks like a pretty big dent to me. It'll start looking like a write off when my grandchildren are fighting a war over a gulp of water.

 

Naw we're not messing up the house, it's all good. Asthma constantly rising, toxicity of nearly everything we eat or drink is suspect.

 

Oh ya the old earth will recover and I take some comfort in that but it would be nice if she didn't forsake us sooner rather than later. I mean our current appraoch is akin to the way and alchoholic or drug addict approaches life. Redline your car for a bit and see how long it lasts. Why do people seem to take better care of cars than the enviroment (our home) we live in?

[fishindevil]

That was a very interesting documentary,thats for sure,hey its like they say there is always 2 sides to a story,and they sure do have some valid sources and credibility,well its just another view on global warming,and the question still remains is the planet warming is it true or not????????cheers

[bigfish1965]

I think if you watch the video you will see that many of the reported 2000 scientists that activists claim support the CO2 global warming theory, have since withdrawn their support. One scientist who demanded his name be removed from the list of 2000 had to threaten a lawsuit before they would remove his name.

Please quantify 'many'. And how many have since added their name to the list? Does your 'many' change the relevant ratio? Even GWB admits humans are the primary cause of global warming. He is the most corporate sympathetic person on the continent likely and even he admits we have to cut back on our emissions.

 

 

None of the scientists in the video claim that global warming is a myth. Scientists on both sides of the debate agree that the earth's temp is rising. Gore/Suzuki/Activists claim overloading the atmosphere with CO2 is the cause of global warming. The video's scientists point out that CO2 only makes up .54% of greenhouse gases. And man's contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere is almost insignificant compared to the amount of CO2 produced by the oceans and volcanoes and animals. Restrictive regulations, while maybe erring on the side of caution, could mean thousands of lost jobs as businesses try to cope with the high cost of restructuring. But that seems to fit in with corporate North America who is looking to move manufacturing jobs to less restrictive countries (where the labour is dirt cheap). Pretty convenient for them to explain away lost jobs when they can blame it on the restrictions levied to battle global warming. There is no doubt higher temps will cause many things to happen, for example polar bear movements are already being observed. Once again, if you watch the video it explains that the earth went through a period of much higher temps in the past, and amazingly polar bears survived that period in time. I was amazed at a presentation given by Michael Butler at an MCI meeting a while back where he explained that throughout the history of the muskellunge the earth has spent more time under ice than with green fields and blue water. How did those muskies every survive such a catastrophic event as the last ice age.

Yes the earth has gone through climactic changes before. But these previous changes occured over millenia, not over decades. The idea that an argument against pollution abatement would be that we may lose jobs is obscene. Should we fire up those old lead-based paint plants again? Should we re-enable the coal fired generating stations again and lose another few thousand lakes to acid rain? Remember when all the naysayers said acid rain was a myth? Funny how all those lakes came back after we stopped dumping those pollutants responsible. It is precisely the problem that companies are using over-seas sources for supplies that is making things worse. Just look at the current pet deaths in Ontario and North America...all caused by cheap import wheat treated with a poison that is illegal everywhere in North America.

Rick, who in this thread or in the video is claiming that air pollution is a myth?

You did by claiming the human involvement in global warming is not true. Did you know that the 'animals' referred to are in fact the millions of cattle we rear for human consumption? I love my steak but I also recognise my part in the problem.

[fliptheslop]

Now you have gone and done it Rick blaming it on the farmers and their cattle, maybe you should check the numbers of wild animals that used to roam North America,ie: Bison, Deer, horses,Moose, the claims in history was that at one time there were millions of such animals, but we as humans have wipe most of them out. So feel free to change history to fit this argument if you wish, but I believe more in what has happened in the past, than what could happen in the future.AND UNLESS YOU WANT TO BLAME THIS ON HUMANITY AS WELL, IM PRETTY SURE BUFFALO FART.

[stasbrute]

I know I fart .....alot......

[fliptheslop]

Now theres a good idea, I will run my air conditioner when it gets hot, and cut my farts in half

[Puckhead]

"For me it's really simple: I find it extemely arrogant of mankind to think they could put a dent into a planet that has been around for millions of years and been through far more pressure from solar extremes than we could imagine."

 

Duh! Our common homes are just temporary, our real home is the earth, much more permanent with respect to our existance. To suggest we haven't dented her is pretty arrogant in itself. Oceans full of human synthetic debris yet more and more devoid of fish. Frogs and birds, fish and livestock mutated, invasive species, undrinkable water. Looks like a pretty big dent to me. It'll start looking like a write off when my grandchildren are fighting a war over a gulp of water.

 

Naw we're not messing up the house, it's all good. Asthma constantly rising, toxicity of nearly everything we eat or drink is suspect.

 

Oh ya the old earth will recover and I take some comfort in that but it would be nice if she didn't forsake us sooner rather than later. I mean our current appraoch is akin to the way and alchoholic or drug addict approaches life. Redline your car for a bit and see how long it lasts. Why do people seem to take better care of cars than the enviroment (our home) we live in?

 

I was actually commenting on global warming, not pollution in general. My comments are specifically geared towards climate change and my personal opinion that there are more factors at play than simply carbon. Taking it in the light of overall pollution, what I said doesn't make a whole lot of sense and although the topics are related, they are different.

 

Off topic, and in response to your post, I would argue that oceans being devoid of fish may have a bit more to do with poor commercial fishing practices than pollution. You are correct in that us human's are certainly impacting the earth in general, my overall concern for the earth isn't as great as it is for us being on it.

 

I'm not against best environmental practises and do my best to control energy waste/usage, but I'm not an idiot either and am not interested in being taken for a ride. Suzuki just finished his tour of Canada pushing the issue. The man has the audacity to be touring with a full coach bus. His own people admit that he will/has dumped about 20 or so tons of carbon due to the trip. Problem is he could have rented a van, or maybe even a fuel cell bus to make a point, as he only had 3 or 4 people at the most in this thing. It was more than excessive. He felt it was OK as he was going to donate some money as a "carbon tax" to a green fund for the amount used. No doubt one of his own green causes I'm sure. That's the message folks - go ahead and pollute, just make it carbon neutral by handing some money over to a green company. But I digress, this has nothing to do with profiteering. This is only about saving the planet... right? I know I'm not in the politically correct arena here, but I'm more than a little skeptical of the people pushing this and their actual agenda's.

[danc]

Once again Rick, well said.

[snag]

Once again Rick, well said.

 

Agreed,

 

Rick,

 

Sorry to see that those who disagree with you have not done the research.

More fact-less propaganda.

I was hoping for a fact-based discussion.

 

I ran into the same issues when I was organic farming.

Pesticides are harmless.

 

Of course they are.

 

I still laugh when some student told me 20 years ago that transfats should be banned.

I remember thinking "What are transfats??...surely the government, society and Health Canada wouldn't let me eat bad stuff like that!"

 

Some people just don't get it,

and some people just don't want to get it.

 

Thats the difference between ignorance and denial

 

 

Well done.

[bigfish1965]

Now you have gone and done it Rick blaming it on the farmers and their cattle, maybe you should check the numbers of wild animals that used to roam North America,ie: Bison, Deer, horses,Moose, the claims in history was that at one time there were millions of such animals, but we as humans have wipe most of them out. So feel free to change history to fit this argument if you wish, but I believe more in what has happened in the past, than what could happen in the future.AND UNLESS YOU WANT TO BLAME THIS ON HUMANITY AS WELL, IM PRETTY SURE BUFFALO FART.

Of course they did...millions of them living on plains and in FORESTS. Again, we harken back to the natural air scrubbers which have been systematically reduced to a fraction of their original size. Evolution created a natural balance between carbon creators and carbon users. We have unmistakably altered that balance.

 

I noticed however, there is no retort, just a change of subject.

There are indisputable facts..

 

The earth is warming at a rate not seen before in history.

The ozone layer was being destroyed by CFC's( since the ban of CFC's there has been excellent remediation)

Rain forests are disappearing.

The oceans and lakes are warming.

Storms are more severe

Weather is more extreme.

Lake Superior is at an all time low.

Several reservoirs in the US are far below needed levels.

Everything we do has consequences. Everything we emit, discharge or expel goes SOMEWHERE.

Many of us are old enough to remember that everyone scoffed at the idea that sewer was destroying Lake Erie. We are also old enough to remember Lake Erie as being a cesspool. After greatly reducing the effluent into Lake Erie, it has become a clean and useful lake again.

We all see and understand the effects of water pollution...effluents, foreign invaders, littering, toxic dumps, viruses.....why is this such a big stretch?

[snag]

Yah Rick,

 

What about those "millions" of animals way back when?

 

Huh?

 

There's only billions of humans now, with our number growing to the multi-billions.

 

Earth has never had a human population so high. Ever.

 

and everone wants to have the same material wealth as a North American?

 

The numbers just can't add up to a sustainable conclusion.

[Abberz]

I really wish we could keep this to a fishing forum. Clearly when 60-something people reply to a thread like this with mixed reviews someone is going to stir the pot either side they are on.

 

Either way you lean, I think alot of it is political and no offense to anyone (I'm a politics student at Queen's) threads like this serve no purpose in bringing the forum together as we usually do.

[Puckhead]

It's a devisive issue, no question - but this place is OFC - emphasis on the C for this debate. I don't think anyone can possibly believe, some of the posts on this one not with standing, that humans are not playing a role in climate change. Having said that, the key question is how much and what are we willing to do about it. Snag raises a good point in saying everyone wants to have what we have in the west and it isn't sustainable. Kyoto asks us to put our development and economies on hold (or even on the line) while places like India and China get a free pass until they are at western standards. And even then we can only hope they agree to participate at that stage. Quite a gamble to play roulette with your economy on a hope. Yes we know that the earth's climate has not changed in such a short time frame during recorded weather history. However, we don't know if anything similar has happened prior to global weather records - key thing being record keeping here. How do you temper the India's of the world into limiting development? Or better yet, have the west fundamentally change their way of life? It's a huge undertaking and we will really never know in our lifetimes if any effort made a difference, green profiteering being irregardless to that. Funny story, was just reading an editorial in a TO newspaper: Toronto Hydro is raising electricity prices for an ironic reason - Residents of Toronto have been so good at conservation, T-Hydro is under it's revenue forecast and needs to raise more. Nothing to do with profit. How's that for a reward 416ers? you conserved too well... Nice incentive.

 

One other thing - this isn't a pesticide debate or anything else of that nature. Some people just won't believe facts, no matter what you say. There is one fundamental issue with this and that is simply that global warming is still a theory. We can't forget that, irregardless of what your position(s) is/are - and if your like me, your sitting in the middle with an eye on the vultures circling above.

[Chris]

Even GWB admits humans are the primary cause of global warming. He is the most corporate sympathetic person on the continent likely and even he admits we have to cut back on our emissions.

 

Well if George W. Bush says it's humans then it must be true right Rick. Same as Harper. Leaning that way ONLY because it's the flavour of the day and they want votes. I can garantee that neither of these men would give a hoot about global warming if people were not caught up in the hype.

 

The idea that an argument against pollution abatement would be that we may lose jobs is obscene.

 

I have never said that. Rick, you are confusing global warming with pollution abatement. Pollution comes in many forms. Air pollution is only one. I have not said anything in any of my posts about pollution abatement. Kyoto is mainly about CO2 emmisions, not garbage at a boat launch. If you do not think jobs would be lost if Kyoto was implemented then you are living in a dreamworld. Please re-read my posts and watch the video. If you can dispute the theories in the video, we're all ears.

 

You did by claiming the human involvement in global warming is not true.

 

Uh Rick, I think you are confusing pollution with global warming again. They are two different things. Yes, humans contribute to CO2 in the atmosphere, but to what extent, if any, has this contributed to global warming. Can you answer that Rick? The video offers the .54% number. I'm not saying that number is true, I'm not a scientist. Please dispute that number if you have other information.

 

Dan C, I notice you have also jumped on the "human global warming" bandwagon. Yet I see in the lawn mower post you are advising the guy to go with a larger engine. As a matter of fact, ask anyone on this message board what size outboard you should get for your boat and almost everyone will tell you to max out the HP. Why, because outboard manufacturers have had their reps (fishing pros) convince people that anything less than maxing out your HP will be catostrophic.

 

So, I have got a question for those who think the world is ending next year. How many of you are willing to give up your outboard motors and trucks to stop the world from melting. I mean really, fishing is only a pastime not an essential requirement for sustaining life. It's you guys that have said that even a slight reduction in greenhouse gases helps us all.

Edited March 27, 2007 by ChrisS

[pikehunter]

No doubt we have changed the face of the earth forever. We have to realize that humans are contributing to the destruction of our home. To not think we are not doing so is simply ignorant.

 

The earth goes through changes, we are contributing due to our numbers and the way we want to live. The world is over populated and we keep on expanding. Does anyone remember one of the ideals from the 60's and early 70's? "Zero" population growth. Perhaps we will all do Mother Earth a big favour and go over the cliff like lemmings. Oh wait! We are heading there now but fail to realize it.

 

Oh yeah, I remember the fear of the approaching ice age too. Sometimes scientists can be wrong. If we are lucky the ones that feel we are the cause of global warming might be wrong too. Better off to look at all we can do to reverse the damage done. Even if I or we don't like it.

Edited March 26, 2007 by pikehunter

[Andy]

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml?

 

Rick,

I don't question your passion about the environment. There are a number of areas where humans can make immediate improvements to proven problems with our environment with proven information and technology. The danger lies in lumping all problems under one major label. The claim that the weather is becoming more severe? Check out the link above. I know it is just one graph, but it certainly doesn't show an increase in violent hurricanes in recent years....If anything, the number of severe storms has been below average, yet the media would have you believe that every hurricane in the Atlantic is worse than it would have been if it wasn't fed by global warming.

The Star article is typical of current media hype, stating that global warming will lead to an increase in stabbings and shootings in T.O. Say what??? Where does that come from???

Stufff to think about. Andy

Edited March 26, 2007 by Andy

[OhioFisherman]

"For me it's really simple: I find it extemely arrogant of mankind to think they could put a dent into a planet that has been around for millions of years and been through far more pressure from solar extremes than we could imagine." ???

 

Arrogant? isn`t denying the effect mankind has had on this planet a bit arrogant? The waters in Europe were polluted long before we came to North America, beer and wine were safer to drink, did we learn? It took a few hundred years.

 

It took us a couple of centuries to cut down half or more of the forests here? No impact? We breed even when conditions aren`t really suitable for it, we use wars to thin the herd. 50 years or so to wipe out millions of Buffalo? Passenger pigeon? Lake Erie was a cess pool?

 

The resources of the planet are vanishing, we have to look in new and difficult areas to extract them. Better to plan ahead? or wait until they are gone? More people more pressure on the planet, we can adapt, dumb animals die off.

 

There was and still is an attempt by business to shift the burden of correct pollution control on the citizens, the e-check here in Ohio, convienently the county that the state capitol is in wasn`t included in the required e-checks

[fliptheslop]

The biggest problem I have with this whole issue, is exactly what so many have touched on, and if I sound bitter with this statement, I am, I will not give up my right to have the things in life that make my happy and comfortable, and he is my reason. CANADA'S IMPACT ON GLOBAL WARMING(even if it is true)IS SO LITTLE THAT IF WE ALL LIVED IN TENTS,AND RODE BIKES WOULD NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENTS AT ALL.

And Rick all of the above statements,the temp is rising at temps never seen before,storms are more severe, lake Superior is lowwer than it has ever been,weather is more extreme,and pretty much all the rest,these statements are all just since man started keeping records, lets say 100 years, has this ever happened before, geologists believe it has.

 

The beauty of a debate like this is,( AND CHECK THE POSTS ON HERE)that because we dont believe the theory behind global warming, we dont do our homework, are ignorant,Have our heads up our ..., Well we have history on our side. And none of us are out there are blatently harming the earth. So if, ifs,maybes,possiblities,could happens, and theorys, are what you want to believe, you have that right, but for me, thats not good enough. I will not take the blame for what I can not control, world population,countries polluting,countries not able to feed themselves.

[tonyb]

Thank you Rick, Dan C, Riverat...You have all basically said or re-iterated what I was thinking and would have posted. I'll leave it at that.

 

Tony

[Golfisher]

Hmm.... let's see, 2,500 scientists at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the US National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Society of London, and the Royal Society of Canada, all saying that global climate change is real and something has to be done. And these scientists, all with impeccable academic credentials, are being called "pseudo-scientists" by a handful of people funded by Exxon and the American Petroleum Institute, who can hardly get a publication in any serious scientific journals--but they'll be more than happy to give a small chat at the Fraser Institute, for a handsome fee, of course. Am I the only one to see something wrong here?

 

The journal Science, one of the most respected and prestigious scientific journals in the world, analyzed nearly a thousand peer-reviewed climate studies published between 1993 and 2003 and found not a SINGLE study that disagreed with the consensus. You be the judge: 928 studies saying climate change is real and human beings are constributing to it, 0 study saying it's not real. Yet some people will still choose to side with the guys who get as much respect as the flat-earth society in the scientific community, and take a step further to say that climate change is nothing more than a swindle--indeed, go as far as to cast doubt on the credentials of the scientists who have been eating and breathing this stuff for as long as they remember, and call their work "crap."

 

One thing clear is that the petroleum industry's propaganda machine has been extremely effective, given how so many people seem to be convinced that 928 studies are wrong while zero study is all the evidence they need.

[Puckhead]

"For me it's really simple: I find it extemely arrogant of mankind to think they could put a dent into a planet that has been around for millions of years and been through far more pressure from solar extremes than we could imagine." ???

 

Arrogant? isn`t denying the effect mankind has had on this planet a bit arrogant? The waters in Europe were polluted long before we came to North America, beer and wine were safer to drink, did we learn? It took a few hundred years.

 

It took us a couple of centuries to cut down half or more of the forests here? No impact? We breed even when conditions aren`t really suitable for it, we use wars to thin the herd. 50 years or so to wipe out millions of Buffalo? Passenger pigeon? Lake Erie was a cess pool?

 

The resources of the planet are vanishing, we have to look in new and difficult areas to extract them. Better to plan ahead? or wait until they are gone? More people more pressure on the planet, we can adapt, dumb animals die off.

 

There was and still is an attempt by business to shift the burden of correct pollution control on the citizens, the e-check here in Ohio, convienently the county that the state capitol is in wasn`t included in the required e-checks

 

Your missing my point. I'm talking specifically about the global warming debate. As in the theory that we the sole reason why the globe is currently in a warming trend. I am not talking about the irresponsible practices that all of us are involved in - in one form or another. I am not talking about eradicating species, polluting water, fish stocks, etc. I am specifically talking about global warming and it's causes. You can't argue position B in order to discredit position A. You either address position A or don't. There simply is no actual knowledge that global warming trends currently are not cyclical or entirely normal. That doesn't mean we are not contributing nor does it mean it gives a free pass to some of these yahoo's that feel it's OK to just burn energy at will with no consequence. I almost feel like I need to take a shower here as I'm in a way giving food to these twits, but the fact remains that it isn't actually factual yet.

 

Let me put it this way: One of the consequences of this "debate" may be the outlawing or heavy carbon taxing of marine based combustion engines for example. Would you be willing to give up your boat based on the information that we have available to us today? Simply put, would you be satisfied if the government came to you to impound your boat or slapped a big annual tax on it based on the actual facts we have before us now?

[fliptheslop]

You seem to read alot so why not read the posts, not one of us said that the climate was not changing, what we are disputing is how much of it is due to mankind,and how much is natural, and of course all of the studies show a climate change, thats not what the debate is, the debate is, are humans the reason for it. And as always the other side are a bunch of morons and money hungery capitolists, The facts are that the earth has gone through these kinds of paterns before, long before the industrial age.

 

NOW GIVE A CHEER IM DONE HERE, BELIEVE WHAT YOU BELIEVE WITH CONVICTION, IF YOU WANT TO DO WITHOUT GREAT, IF YOU DONT WANT TO DO WITHOUT GREAT. BOTTOM LINE IS TAKE CARE OF FAMILIES AND MAKE THEM HAPPY.

Edited March 26, 2007 by fliptheslop

[Golfisher]

The consensus view IS precisely what I said, that climate change is not only real but also anthropogenic. Read the Science article yourself, and then tell me that there is no scientific consensus on the role of human activities on climate change:

 

"The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change"

 

Naomi Oreskes*

 

Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

 

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

 

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

 

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

 

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

 

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

 

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

 

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

 

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

 

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.

 

References and Notes

 

 

A. C. Revkin, K. Q. Seelye, New York Times, 19 June 2003, A1.

S. van den Hove, M. Le Menestrel, H.-C. de Bettignies, Climate Policy 2 (1), 3 (2003).

See www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm.

J. J. McCarthy et al., Eds., Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001).

National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Science of Climate Change, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2001).

American Meteorological Society, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 84, 508 (2003).

American Geophysical Union, Eos 84 (51), 574 (2003).

See www.ourplanet.com/aaas/pages/atmos02.html.

The first year for which the database consistently published abstracts was 1993. Some abstracts were deleted from our analysis because, although the authors had put "climate change" in their key words, the paper was not about climate change.

This essay is excerpted from the 2004 George Sarton Memorial Lecture, "Consensus in science: How do we know we're not wrong," presented at the AAAS meeting on 13 February 2004. I am grateful to AAAS and the History of Science Society for their support of this lectureship; to my research assistants S. Luis and G. Law; and to D. C. Agnew, K. Belitz, J. R. Fleming, M. T. Greene, H. Leifert, and R. C. J. Somerville for helpful discussions.

10.1126/science.1103618

 

 

So there you have it: not a single blip among the nearly 1,000 peer-reviewed studies explicitly rejecting the consensus view on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. But I suppose you know better than all these scientists.