EPA Silences its own Scientists on Climate Change (extremist, conspiracy, Canada)

[OrganicSmallHome]

It's amazing how many people with absolutely no training in climate science have an "opinion" that anthropogenic climate change isn't real. It's also amazing how myopic their understanding of the world is. Newsflash: 1) the world is much bigger than the U.S.; 2) The planet's climate scientists don't really spend much time thinking about American politics; even less do they base their conclusions about climate change on what "grants" American scientists do or don't receive; 3) the scientific consensus is in: anthropogenic climate change is real; the fact that there are a few outliers does not disprove the consensus of the vast majority of the world's climate scientists (there are outliers who also believe that the earth is flat, and that the scientific consensus that it is round is a political "conspiracy"; if these are your kind of folks, here you go: https://theflatearthsociety.org/home...ut-the-society and in case you're thinking this must be a joke or a parody or some such: sadly, it is not); and 4) the fact that the GOP and its henchmen at FOX (Hannity, et.al.), none of whom know squat about climate science, deny anthropogenic climate change, and that some Americans actually believe them, is an embarrassment to this nation, since only crackpots in other advanced nations deny anthropogenic climate change.

"Global Warming is a Hoax": ‘Global warming is a hoax’–I wish James Inhofe were just a hoax … | Grist

Objection: Global warming is a hoax perpetrated by environmental extremists and liberals who want an excuse for more big government (and/or world government via the U.N.).

This is a common line, regardless of how ridiculous it is, so it should not go unanswered.

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

NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS): http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): Publications | GRID-Arendal
National Academy of Sciences (NAS): http://books.nap.edu/collections/glo...ing/index.html
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) – http://www.socc.ca/permafrost/permafrost_future_e.cfm
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): http://epa.gov/climatechange/index.html
The Royal Society of the UK (RS) – http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3135
American Geophysical Union (AGU): AGU - American Geophysical Union
American Meteorological Society (AMS): Untitled Document
American Institute of Physics (AIP): http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR): How Does Climate Change?
American Meteorological Society (AMS): Untitled Document
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS): Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society - 404 - Not Found
Every major scientific institution dealing with climate, ocean, and/or atmosphere agrees that the climate is warming rapidly and the primary cause is human CO2 emissions. In addition to that list, see also this joint statement (PDF) that specifically and unequivocally endorses the work and conclusions of the IPCC Third Assessment report. The statement was issued by:

Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academie des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
You can also read this statement [PDF], which includes all the above signatories plus the following:

Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
But if scientists are too liberal and politicians too unreliable, perhaps you find the opinion of key industry representatives more convincing:

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

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

Eighteen CEOs of Canada’s largest corporations had this to say in an open letter to the Prime Minister of Canada:
Our organizations accept that a strong response is required to the strengthening evidence in the scientific assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). We accept the IPCC consensus that climate change raises the risk of severe consequences for human health and security and the environment. We note that Canada is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.

Have the environazis seized the reigns of industrial power, in addition to infiltrating the U.N., the science academies of every developed nation, and the top research institutes of North America? That just doesn’t seem very likely.

"There is No Consensus": ‘There is no consensus’–If this is not consensus, what would consensus look like? | Grist

Objection: Climate is complicated and there are lots of competing theories and unsolved mysteries. Until this is all worked out, one can’t claim there is consensus on global warming theory. Until there is, we should not take any action.

This is similar to the “global warming is a hoax” article, but at least here we can narrow down just what the consensus is about.

Answer: Sure there are plenty of unsolved problems and active debates in climate science. But if you look at the research papers coming out these days, the debates are about things like why model predictions of outgoing longwave radiation at the top of the atmosphere in tropical latitudes differ from satellite readings, or how the size of ice crystals in cirrus clouds affect the amount of incoming shortwave reflected back into space, or precisely how much stratospheric cooling can be attributed to ozone depletion rather than an enhanced greenhouse effect.

No one in the climate science community is debating whether or not changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations alter the greenhouse effect, or if the current warming trend is outside of the range of natural variability, or if sea levels have risen over the last century.

This is where there is a consensus.

Specifically, the “consensus” about anthropogenic climate change entails the following:

the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;
the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;
the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels;
if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and
a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.
While theories and viewpoints in conflict with the above do exist, their proponents constitute a very small minority. If we require unanimity before being confident, well, we can’t be sure the earth isn’t hollow either.

This consensus is represented in the IPCC Third Assessment Report, Working Group 1 (TAR WG1), the most comprehensive compilation and summary of current climate research ever attempted, and arguably the most thoroughly peer reviewed scientific document in history. While this review was sponsored by the UN, the research it compiled and reviewed was not, and the scientists involved were independent and came from all over the world.

The conclusions reached in this document have been explicitly endorsed by …

Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
… in either one or both of these documents: PDF, PDF.

In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed or published the same conclusions as presented in the TAR report:

NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
If this is not scientific consensus, what in the world would a consensus look like?

(Addendum: One could legitimately argue that such policy statements by necessity hide possibly legitimate internal debate while trying to present unity of position. Science is ultimately determined in peer reviewed journals. Fortunately, there is a bit of research that looked specifically at this very question — the subject of another guide entry.)

**************

The truth is that Jesus Christ himself could descend from the skies and tell the climate change deniers that anthropogenic climate change is real and a real danger, and the deniers would tar and feather him. Because, you know, only the GOP, that tiny little enclave of bought-off lying corporate shills, located in a place called the United States, have the real truth. Everybody else in the world is simply wrong. What we're dealing with here is mass denial, born out of mindless mass allegiance to a political party, the members of which seem profoundly intellectually incapable of critical thinking, and don't seem to be aware in the slightest that they are being used as tools for the political machinations of their so-called "representatives," whose only real allegiance is to their corporate owners. These same folks also don't seem to be aware that their dear leaders think they are idiots (that is why Trump said he could shoot someone in the street and wouldn't lose support: he was actually mocking his supporters, but apparently this went over their heads, but whatever). This isn't new, of course. Mob mentality has been around forever. Galileo, who had the audacity to insist that the earth revolved around the sun, and not the other way around, was accused of heresy, put on trial by the Catholic Church, and confined to his home for the rest of his life. Climate scientists and their supporters are now being subjected to the same mockery and denial. Such idiocy. Meanwhile, the rest of the educated world looks on in disbelief.

[okcthunder1945]

Originally Posted by rbohm

man puts out a tiny fraction of the CO2 introduced to the atmosphere, and CO2 is a tiny fraction of the total make up of our atmosphere. also note that we are only 15,000 years out of the last period of glaciation, and as the science of geology has noted, we have periods of glaciation, and inter glaciation and during periods of inter glaciation the planet has warming, makes sense if you were to look at all the science WITHOUT the politics, and WITHOUT the conclusions of scientists with an agenda.

Then ingest a corresponding percentage of your body weight in arsenic....

[okcthunder1945]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

Greg I would suggest the most intelligent scientists or those that would have been scientists are already in the private sector. e.g. mathematicians can go to Wall St. and start out making ridiculous amounts of money. There is exceptions like the super intelligent who would have difficulties getting funding from the private sector because it's such a giant gamble or there is no way to make a profit on it e.g. theoretical physicist.

And they indicate the same thing as well. O&G companies don't discount climate change and neither does the military.

[MMS02760]

No one should be surprised by the actions of some federal agencies given who Trump appointed to lead them. Many of these people have philosophies directly opposite to the mission of the agencies. Pruitt, DeVos, and Sessions lead the way.

[OrganicSmallHome]

For the thinking few who actually wish to learn more about climate change--because, you know, they care more about the future of their children than they do about a political party and so aren't afraid to face facts, even if it proves their preconceptions wrong--here is a site run by prominent climate scientists from the U.S. and other nations, the purpose of which is to educate those who seek to learn more, and to debunk ludicrous anti-climate change claims made by people who haven't even the most basic education in climate science:

Start here « RealClimate

[TreeBeard]

Here is the global warming dispute in a nutshell:

Deniers only care about the here and now and how much money they have in their pocket today. Future generations are only so much flotsam and jetsam to be jettisoned so long as they can save 5 cents on a gallon of gas. They will change their arguments from, "Global warming is a hoax" to "It's too late to do anything about it now" on a dime. They are defeatist grown fat on the gluttony of greenhouse gas consumption.

Those that acknowledge the settled science are the realists. We acknowledge that the priority is to resolve greenhouse gas emissions and that we have to do the responsible and adult action for the sake of future generations. We don't want to saddle our children with this ecological debt.

In other words, we do not think we have to live like pigs because we can. But before I debase pigs, at least pigs won't leave their offspring a barren environment.

[MMS02760]

Sessions would have the US retry the Scopes trial if he could.

[LoveToRow]

When I was in grade school, the lie that was pushed was "the rain forests will be gone in 30 years." That was a lie, just like global warming. The left never learns.

[OrganicSmallHome]

Originally Posted by LoveToRow

When I was in grade school, the lie that was pushed was "the rain forests will be gone in 30 years." That was a lie, just like global warming. The left never learns.

Not a lie. They are disappearing. Deforestation is rampant. Educate yourself.

But hey, thanks for proving my point about unthinking mob rule.

[LoveToRow]

Originally Posted by OrganicSmallHome

Not a lie. They are disappearing. Deforestation is rampant. Educate yourself.

But hey, thanks for proving my point about unthinking mob rule.

No, it was a lie. The rain forests are still in fact here. So I don't buy the horse manure lib extremists are selling. They aren't interested in science, they are interested in politics.

By the way, my "carbon footprint" is less than every liberal I know. No kids and I walk or bike to work. I generate one bag of small bag of biodegradable trash every two weeks. You leftists need to start living your propaganda.