Nat. Acd of Science Letter on Denialist Anti-Science Assault

Arts & Sciences Science & Nature
1

Text of letter published in May 7 issue of Science. All the world’s major scientific bodies affirm that humans are driving the rise in C02 and the great harm it is doing to the biosphere. It is sheer lunacy, on par with hollow earth or young-earth Creationism, to argue that this isn’t happening. 225 members of America’s most prestigious scientific body, including 11 Nobel laureates, signed the letter.

+++++++++++++++++

Climate Change and the Integrity of Science

We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular. All citizens should understand some basic scientific facts. There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything. When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action. For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet.

Scientific conclusions derive from an understanding of basic laws supported by laboratory experiments, observations of nature, and mathematical and computer modeling. Like all human beings, scientists make mistakes, but the scientific process is designed to find and correct them. This process is inherently adversarial—scientists build reputations and gain recognition not only for supporting conventional wisdom, but even more so for demonstrating that the scientific consensus is wrong and that there is a better explanation. That’s what Galileo, Pasteur, Darwin, and Einstein did. But when some conclusions have been thoroughly and deeply tested, questioned, and examined, they gain the status of “well-established theories” and are often spoken of as “facts.”

For instance, there is compelling scientific evidence that our planet is about 4.5 billion years old (the theory of the origin of Earth), that our universe was born from a single event about 14 billion years ago (the Big Bang theory), and that today’s organisms evolved from ones living in the past (the theory of evolution). Even as these are overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, fame still awaits anyone who could show these theories to be wrong. Climate change now falls into this category: There is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend.

Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers are typically driven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other scientific assessments of climate change, which involve thousands of scientists producing massive and comprehensive reports, have, quite expectedly and normally, made some mistakes. When errors are pointed out, they are corrected. But there is nothing remotely identified in the recent events that changes the fundamental conclusions about climate change:

(i) The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere. A snowy winter in Washington does not alter this fact.

(ii) Most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the last century is due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

(iii) Natural causes always play a role in changing Earth’s climate, but are now being overwhelmed by human-induced changes.

(iv) Warming the planet will cause many other climatic patterns to change at speeds unprecedented in modern times, including increasing rates of sea-level rise and alterations in the hydrologic cycle. Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are making the oceans more acidic.

(v) The combination of these complex climate changes threatens coastal communities and cities, our food and water supplies, marine and freshwater ecosystems, forests, high mountain environments, and far more.

Much more can be, and has been, said by the world’s scientific societies, national academies, and individuals, but these conclusions should be enough to indicate why scientists are concerned about what future generations will face from business-as-usual practices. We urge our policy-makers and the public to move forward immediately to address the causes of climate change, including the un restrained burning of fossil fuels.

We also call for an end to McCarthy-like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by association, the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking distractions to avoid taking action, and the outright lies being spread about them. Society has two choices: We can ignore the science and hide our heads in the sand and hope we are lucky, or we can act in the public interest to reduce the threat of global climate change quickly and substantively. The good news is that smart and effective actions are possible. But delay must not be an option.

P. H. Gleick,* R. M. Adams, R. M. Amasino, E. Anders, D. J. Anderson, W. W. Anderson, L. E. Anselin, M. K. Arroyo, B. Asfaw, F. J. Ayala, A. Bax, A. J. Bebbington, G. Bell, M. V. L. Bennett, J. L. Bennetzen, M. R. Berenbaum, O. B. Berlin, P. J. Bjorkman, E. Blackburn, J. E. Blamont, M. R. Botchan, J. S. Boyer, E. A. Boyle, D. Branton, S. P. Briggs, W. R. Briggs, W. J. Brill, R. J. Britten, W. S. Broecker, J. H. Brown, P. O. Brown, A. T. Brunger, J. Cairns, Jr., D. E. Canfield, S. R. Carpenter, J. C. Carrington, A. R. Cashmore, J. C. Castilla, A. Cazenave, F. S. Chapin, III, A. J. Ciechanover, D. E. Clapham, W. C. Clark, R. N. Clayton, M. D. Coe, E. M. Conwell, E. B. Cowling, R. M Cowling, C. S. Cox, R. B. Croteau, D. M. Crothers, P. J. Crutzen, G. C. Daily, G. B. Dalrymple, J. L. Dangl, S. A. Darst, D. R. Davies, M. B. Davis, P. V. de Camilli, C. Dean, R. S. Defries, J. Deisenhofer, D. P. Delmer, E. F. Delong, D. J. Derosier, T. O. Diener, R. Dirzo, J. E. Dixon, M. J. Donoghue, R. F. Doolittle, T. Dunne, P. R. Ehrlich, S. N. Eisenstadt, T. Eisner, K. A. Emanuel, S. W. Englander, W. G. Ernst, P. G. Falkowski, G. Feher, J. A. Ferejohn, A. Fersht, E. H. Fischer, R. Fischer, K. V. Flannery, J. Frank, P. A. Frey, I. Fridovich, C. Frieden, D. J. Futuyma, W. R. Gardner, C. J. R. Garrett, W. Gilbert, R. B. Goldberg, W. H. Goodenough, C. S. Goodman, M. Goodman, P. Greengard, S. Hake, G. Hammel, S. Hanson, S. C. Harrison, S. R. Hart, D. L. Hartl, R. Haselkorn, K. Hawkes, J. M. Hayes, B. Hille, T. Hökfelt, J. S. House, M. Hout, D. M. Hunten, I. A. Izquierdo, A. T. Jagendorf, D. H. Janzen, R. Jeanloz, C. S. Jencks, W. A. Jury, H. R. Kaback, T. Kailath, P. Kay, S. A. Kay, D. Kennedy, A. Kerr, R. C. Kessler, G. S. Khush, S. W. Kieffer, P. V. Kirch, K. Kirk, M. G. Kivelson, J. P. Klinman, A. Klug, L. Knopoff, H. Kornberg, J. E. Kutzbach, J. C. Lagarias, K. Lambeck, A. Landy, C. H. Langmuir, B. A. Larkins, X. T. Le Pichon, R. E. Lenski, E. B. Leopold, S. A. Levin, M. Levitt, G. E. Likens, J. Lippincott-Schwartz, L. Lorand, C. O. Lovejoy, M. Lynch, A. L. Mabogunje, T. F. Malone, S. Manabe, J. Marcus, D. S. Massey, J. C. McWilliams, E. Medina, H. J. Melosh, D. J. Meltzer, C. D. Michener, E. L. Miles, H. A. Mooney, P. B. Moore, F. M. M. Morel, E. S. Mosley-Thompson, B. Moss, W. H. Munk, N. Myers, G. B. Nair, J. Nathans, E. W. Nester, R. A. Nicoll, R. P. Novick, J. F. O’Connell, P. E. Olsen, N. D. Opdyke, G. F. Oster, E. Ostrom, N. R. Pace, R. T. Paine, R. D. Palmiter, J. Pedlosky, G. A. Petsko, G. H. Pettengill, S. G. Philander, D. R. Piperno, T. D. Pollard, P. B. Price, Jr., P. A. Reichard, B. F. Reskin, R. E. Ricklefs, R. L. Rivest, J. D. Roberts, A. K. Romney, M. G. Rossmann, D. W. Russell, W. J. Rutter, J. A. Sabloff, R. Z. Sagdeev, M. D. Sahlins, A. Salmond, J. R. Sanes, R. Schekman, J. Schellnhuber, D. W. Schindler, J. Schmitt, S. H. Schneider, V. L. Schramm, R. R. Sederoff, C. J. Shatz, F. Sherman, R. L. Sidman, K. Sieh, E. L. Simons, B. H. Singer, M. F. Singer, B. Skyrms, N. H. Sleep, B. D. Smith, S. H. Snyder, R. R. Sokal, C. S. Spencer, T. A. Steitz, K. B. Strier, T. C. Südhof, S. S. Taylor, J. Terborgh, D. H. Thomas, L. G. Thompson, R. T. TJian, M. G. Turner, S. Uyeda, J. W. Valentine, J. S. Valentine, J. L. van Etten, K. E. van Holde, M. Vaughan, S. Verba, P. H. von Hippel, D. B. Wake, A. Walker, J. E. Walker, E. B. Watson, P. J. Watson, D. Weigel, S. R. Wessler, M. J. West-Eberhard, T. D. White, W. J. Wilson, R. V. Wolfenden, J. A. Wood, G. M. Woodwell, H. E. Wright, Jr., C. Wu, C. Wunsch, M. L. Zoback

2

Thanks for the post!

3

Science is liberal, hippy, leftist, pinko, socialist, Obamabot, BS.

this is all you need to know:

youtube.com/watch?v=_-agl0pOQfs

4

Groupthink

5

:laughing: That’s hilarious. A blowhard right wing dweeb accusing the world’s top scientists of groupthink!

HG

6

Gosh… 225 scientists from the National Academy of Scientists…

No one doubts that some scientists share these views, the fact is that others do not. The issue is and always has been as to whether there is a consensus or settled position on the global warming debate. I would refute the suggestion that there is. We have proven time and time again that there is no consensus. Showing that some scientists support the view that humans are primarily responsible for global warming is a view and a majority one at that. The question then becomes, what should be done. And here the consensus goes out the window. That is my point.

7

there is a settled position. However, the very minor minority who deny it have by far the loudest voices, and the deepest pockets, and try their damnedest to make it look like there is a credible opposition

8

[quote=“urodacus”]there is a settled position. However, the very minor minority who deny it have by far the loudest voices, and the deepest pockets, and try their damnedest to make it look like there is a credible opposition[/quote]If you can’t determine the weather out past 7 days correctly, I’m suppose to believe that a load of fallible humans with great education can do predict the weather out many years from now. That’s before the fraud that has enveloped the AGW growd as of late.

9

[quote=“Huang Guang Chen”]:lol: That’s hilarious. A blowhard right wing dweeb accusing the world’s top scientists of groupthink!
HG[/quote]
Well, HGC is on your side.
That should count for…well…something…he has …oodles (an accepted scientific unit of measure) of cred…right?…:unamused:… :roflmao:

Oh, and by the way, this is not a “settled position” or even an “accepted scientific conclusion”…but keep throwing it on the wall…something is bound to stick.

10

Thanks for the post. The above are really useful concepts to explain the academic and peer-reviewed world of science to non-scientists. It’s part of what sets science apart from religion, politics, and the way we wish the world to be, but the latter group is what most people (including journalists) understand best. Sure, there’s overlap in all human pursuits, but we need education in areas where we lack experience.

In the meantime, it’s generally best to trust the people who already have that education and have devoted their lives to improving it. They’re skeptics, too, just educated in what they’re talking about.

11

No, fred, we are pretty sure that most informed intellects would agree that reducing carbon emmisions would have something to do with it.

Most seem to agree that fossil fuels are too cheap at present because people are allowed to consume them without paying for the negative externalities asscociated with their consumption: oil slicks, acid rain, habitat destruction, global warming, coral bleaching etc.

Put those two things together and what you get is a very good argument for a carbon tax.

What you don’t get is enough people willing to put the two words together publically, likely because they are being intimidated by the higher ups.

Tax carbon. Use the revenue to subsidize alternatives. That’s the answer. The fact that it has become boring to repeat is only a measure of how long the simple answer has been ignored.

12

[quote=“bob”]Tax carbon. Use the revenue to subsidize alternatives. That’s the answer. The fact that it has become boring to repeat is only a measure of how long the simple answer has been ignored.[/quote]The problem with that is govts have a bad tendency to take a tax for something and spend it on something else totally different. We see this in the US where lottery revenues don’t make education spending increase, it just sends the money that wasn’t dedicated to education spending to other areas. We also see this where NGOs and foreign govts give healthcare and iad to African countries who then lower their own govt expenditures in healthcare.

With the subsidies you create a rent-seeking parasitic govt/corporate element in society that decreases growth and investment in healthy economic activity and turns your country into any country south of the US border short of Chile. You can see real life examples in bus companies in Peru and Venezuela. You also see it in fuel subsidies in such countries as China and Indonesia.

The science is still up to debate but the economic ramifications from doing something that wouldn’t even stop AGW are not.

13

What’s your solution? More research?

We’ve had research up the ying yang. There are obvious problems. There are obvious solutions. The other “problem” is that there is no way to work in the cost of externalities except by taxation.

Sure there would be government waste. Nobody said there were “perfect” solutions.

You would think though that if govenments were required to remain transparent, to publically state how much monet was raised and how much was spent and on what, then waste would not be too excessive. People would be more inclined to watch where their money went if they were entitled to some of it.

Subsidies for double glazed windows and improved insulation could be made available for example. If the size of the subsidy you got depended on how well the carbon tax revenue was managed then you’d be inclined to watch what your politicians were doing.

14

Okami, you’re arguing from the position of the primacy of economics again. Modern economics is fukt, and using it as a basis for formulating the best way forward is wrong. We (myself and many others whose opinion on these matters is much more credible than mine) know the things that need to be done to mitigate the eventual effects of the unfolding climate change seen in many ways around us all, but are stymied by the economic stakeholders who refuse to make the hard changes that undoubtedly will screw up the current economic order of the world. Unfortunately, and it would be a matter of incredible irony were it not so serious, it is precisely because of the failure of the economic argument that we are in this position.

15

I appreciated this part…

It seems the scientists are finally calling for concrete action.

Another thing worth pointing out, something the economic doom and gloomers seem loathe to mention is that there are tremendous economic “benefits” to be derived from a switch to alternatives. All that technology has to be manufactured, installed and maintained. There are a lot of JOBS in it. Also, as this seems to be mentioned repeatedly, the fossil fuel industries are making A LOT of money. A small tax on carbon could be derived by simply taxing thier profits, with NO cost to the consumer but with substantial benefit.

16

[quote=“bob”]What’s your solution? More research?[/quote]At the current rate of fraud involved, I’d say doing nothing or following the more concrete actions of Bjorn Lomberg would be a better idea.

[quote=“bob”]We’ve had research up the ying yang. There are obvious problems. There are obvious solutions. The other “problem” is that there is no way to work in the cost of externalities except by taxation. [/quote]I disagree. I don’t think there are any obvious solutions. I would like to know what you think they are.

[quote=“bob”]Sure there would be government waste. Nobody said there were “perfect” solutions.[/quote]The problem isn’t with govt waste but with govt. very few if any groups do, have to or will give up a financial incentive past its point of expiration.

[quote=“bob”]You would think though that if govenments were required to remain transparent, to publically state how much monet was raised and how much was spent and on what, then waste would not be too excessive. People would be more inclined to watch where their money went if they were entitled to some of it.[/quote]Most of the transparent govts are already trying to do something and have an effective govt enviromental agency already. How do you deal with India, China, Brazil and Russia. They are not going to give up oil nor coal for any reason. The EU also has this nasty habit of silencing or denying access to journalists and bloggers who raise objections or report unfavorable things.

[quote=“bob”]Subsidies for double glazed windows and improved insulation could be made available for example. If the size of the subsidy you got depended on how well the carbon tax revenue was managed then you’d be inclined to watch what your politicians were doing.[/quote]These things already make sense though for building a home or are first world commodities. I’d kill for double glazed windows in my home, but where am I going to find them in Changhua? As far as watching politicians, how well are EU citizens doing watching 25% of the EU budget going to French farmers? With the EU, it’s a matter of money and never one of principle.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_window_fallacy
Spain tried something similar with subsidies on solar power and found that they were generating solar power all night long and may have to cut the subsidy to not follow Greece into the financial abyss they are quickly going to go into. They found that the solar power generators were using oil burning generators to generate power at night. You also cant tax a company, you are just taxing consumers indirectly because they are the ones who have to bear the costs of any additional cost born by the company who makes the product they want. It’s how despite raising taxes on cigarettes they generate less than expected revenue because people stop smoking, which then causes them to raise some other tax to make up the shortfall.

17

There it is!

By golly I really think you are beginning to catch on. :wink:

Sorry, I have to beg out of this one for a bit.

(I hope you aren’t anywhere near right on the spain thing.)

18

Well you would if you had any evidence to support it. But you don’t. There is a consensus on global warming. There is no debate. This has been conceded even among those who have argued strongly against the facts:

The ‘Global Climate Coalition’ is an industry funded group supposed to be generating ‘controversy’. In public they maintained the predictable industry line:

However, privately its own scientists were producing reports admitting the painful truth:

As with the tobacco industry, when we follow the money we find out who is really responsible for distortion of the truth. As with the tobacco industry, the very scientists hired to do their utmost to defend the industry’s preferred position ended up coming inexorably to completely the opposite conclusion. However we may doubt the evidence produced by ‘environmentalists’, or anyone else we think is too unpleasant different to be correct, when the very industry which has literally the most to lose from a particular scientific conclusion ends up contributing to the evidence supporting it, there can be no talk of collusion, prejudice, or bias towards any preferred results.

Most importantly of all, we must learn to recognize the agenda typically lying behind any apparently forthright and reasonable appeal to consider ‘the controversy’. As soon as we hear ‘teach the controversy’, alarm bells should sound.

19

[quote=“bob”][quote]It’s how despite raising taxes on cigarettes they generate less than expected revenue because people stop smoking… [/quote]There it is!
By golly I really think you are beginning to catch on. :wink:
Sorry, I have to beg out of this one for a bit.
(I hope you aren’t anywhere near right on the spain thing.)[/quote]The thing is they aren’t raising cigarette taxes to stop people from smoking, but as a politically painless was to generate x number of dollars that always causes x-y to be generated then they raise taxes on something else to make up the shortfall. Maryland’s millionaire tax is another good example where the end result was that people in that bracket left the state and revenues generated were far less than expected.

Spain is a complete screw up right now. Only Greece’s near term default overshadows it. They were paying foreigners to leave and not come back in 5 years along with having 20% unemployment.

I’d be more inclined to deal with AGW if it weren’t such a hypocritical apocalyptic revelationist death cult. We’ve had rebranding of what it’s called, along with every natural disaster being blamed on it, and heaping amounts of fraud. AGW is the scientology of science.

20

Imagine, droves of smokers leaving your home state! Oh, the tragedy of cleaner air, a nicer smelling city, and less cancer from second-hand smoke! :wink: