Climate change researchers make dire warning

[System Message]

Global warming scientists know well that in order to maintain research grants that they must make every announcement more shrill than the last one. They may have finally played their trump card.

It may not rank as the most compelling reason to curb greenhouse gases, but reducing our emissions might just save humanity from a pre-emptive alien attack, scientists claim.

Watching from afar, extraterrestrial beings might view changes in Earth's atmosphere as symptomatic of a civilisation growing out of control – and take drastic action to keep us from becoming a more serious threat, the researchers explain.

This highly speculative scenario is one of several described by scientists at Nasa and Pennsylvania State University that, while considered unlikely, they say could play out were humans and alien life to make contact at some point in the future.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/ ... ilisations

[grimey]

Except that they don't. Here's a list of papers co-authored by the authors of the article:

1. arXiv:1104.4462 [pdf]
Would contact with extraterrestrials benefit or harm humanity? A scenario analysis
Seth D. Baum, Jacob D. Haqq-Misra, Shawn D. Domagal-Goldman
Comments: 33 Pages, 1 Figure, PDF File
Journal-ref: Acta Astronautica (2011) 68:2114-2129
Subjects: Popular Physics (physics.pop-ph)

While humanity has not yet observed any extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI), contact with ETI remains possible. Contact could occur through a broad range of scenarios that have varying consequences for humanity. However, many discussions of this question assume that contact will follow a particular scenario that derives from the hopes and fears of the author. In this paper, we analyze a broad range of contact scenarios in terms of whether contact with ETI would benefit or harm humanity. This type of broad analysis can help us prepare for actual contact with ETI even if the details of contact do not fully resemble any specific scenario.

2. arXiv:1101.4968 [pdf]
A Protocol for Messaging to Extraterrestrial Intelligence
Dimitra Atri (U Kansas), Julia DeMarines (International Space U), Jacob Haqq-Misra (Penn State U)
Comments: Accepted for publication in Space Policy
Subjects: Popular Physics (physics.pop-ph); Instrumentation and Methods for Astrophysics (astro-ph.IM); Physics Education (physics.ed-ph)

Messaging to extraterrestrial intelligence (METI) is a branch of study concerned with constructing and broadcasting a message toward habitable planets. Since the Arecibo message of 1974, the handful of METI broadcasts have increased in content and complexity, but the lack of an established protocol has produced unorganized or cryptic messages that could be difficult to interpret. Here we outline the development of a self-consistent protocol for messaging to extraterrestrial intelligence that provides constraints and guidelines for the construction of a message in order to maximize the probability that the message effectively communicates. A METI protocol considers several factors including signal encoding, message length, information content, anthropocentrism, transmission method, and transmission periodicity. Once developed, the protocol will be released for testing on different human groups worldwide and across cultural boundaries. An effective message to extraterrestrials should at least be understandable by humans, and releasing the protocol for testing will allow us to improve the protocol and develop potential messages. Through an interactive website, users across the world will be able to create and exchange messages that follow the protocol in order to discover the types of messages better suited for cross-cultural communication. The development of a METI protocol will serve to improve the quality of messages to extraterrestrials, foster international collaboration, and extend astrobiology outreach to the public.

3. arXiv:0906.0568 [pdf]
The Sustainability Solution to the Fermi Paradox
Jacob D. Haqq-Misra, Seth D. Baum
Comments: 14 pages, PDF file
Journal-ref: J.Br.Interplanet.Soc.62:47-51, 2009
Subjects: Popular Physics (physics.pop-ph); Earth and Planetary Astrophysics (astro-ph.EP)

No present observations suggest a technologically advanced extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI) has spread through the galaxy. However, under commonplace assumptions about galactic civilization formation and expansion, this absence of observation is highly unlikely. This improbability is the heart of the Fermi Paradox. The Fermi Paradox leads some to conclude that humans have the only advanced civilization in this galaxy, either because civilization formation is very rare or because intelligent civilizations inevitably destroy themselves. In this paper, we argue that this conclusion is premature by introducing the "Sustainability Solution" to the Fermi Paradox, which questions the Paradox's assumption of faster (e.g. exponential) civilization growth. Drawing on insights from the sustainability of human civilization on Earth, we propose that faster-growth may not be sustainable on the galactic scale. If this is the case, then there may exist ETI that have not expanded throughout the galaxy or have done so but collapsed. These possibilities have implications for both searches for ETI and for human civilization management.

These guys aren't climate scientists. The fact that one of their papers mentions climate change as a possible mechanism for alien contact has nothing to do with sensationalism over climate change. The reporter who authored the "news" article should be shot.

[grimey]

Global warming deniers know well that in order to maintain their audience that they must make every announcement more shrill than the last one. They may have finally played their trump card:

[System Message]

These guys aren't climate scientists.

I agree. Neither are AlGore's fiends.

[Rockie]

Honest question. Who are Al Gore's fiends?

[grimey]

Rockie, they're the smaller, sunken eyed scientists. The ones who look like Gollum, and eat babies for breakfast.

[Siddley Hawker]

Who are Al Gore's fiends?

After the Florida recount he would probably call them the US Supreme Court.

[Rockie]

Well, you must be mistaking me for a fan of Gore's which I assure you I'm not, so without making further wrong assumptions who is he referring to?

Honest question.

[niss]

Global warming deniers know well that in order to maintain their audience that they must make every announcement more shrill than the last one. They may have finally played their trump card:

Bill O'Reilly former High school teacher doesn't know moon causes tides. 1:40.

[The Old Fogducker]

Enjoy these videos from Sun TV interviews in the last week.

The "We've only got two weeks to save the planet" radicals seem to be losing ground in the popularity contest as they star in their roles on the TV series "Fear-mongering For Dollars."

The Old (Doubting Thomas) Fogducker

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/1117 ... 7086575001

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/1117 ... 7086573001

[Rockie]

Ha. Even without the stultifying effects of religious righteousness nobody could ever accuse that blowhard O'Reilly of being smart.

Science? What's that?

[JakeYYZ]

Those pesky Swiss just cut the legs out from under the global warming fascists:

The first results from the lab’s CLOUD (“Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets”) experiment published in Nature today confirm that cosmic rays spur the formation of clouds through ion-induced nucleation. Current thinking posits that half of the Earth’s clouds are formed through nucleation. The paper is entitled Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays in atmospheric aerosol nucleation.

This has significant implications for climate science because water vapour and clouds play a large role in determining global temperatures. Tiny changes in overall cloud cover can result in relatively large temperature changes.

Unsurprisingly, it’s a politically sensitive topic, as it provides support for a “heliocentric” rather than “anthropogenic” approach to climate change: the sun plays a large role in modulating the quantity of cosmic rays reaching the upper atmosphere of the Earth....

Climate models will have to be revised, confirms CERN in supporting literature: "t is clear that the treatment of aerosol formation in climate models will need to be substantially revised, since all models assume that nucleation is caused by these vapours [sulphuric acid and ammonia] and water alone."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/25 ... t_results/

So the globalists will be expected to provide substantially revised versions of models that already didn't work in the first place.

[Rockie]

Those pesky Swiss just cut the legs out from under the global warming fascists:

How so?

[grimey]

Those pesky Swiss just cut the legs out from under the global warming fascists:

The first results from the lab’s CLOUD (“Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets”) experiment published in Nature today confirm that cosmic rays spur the formation of clouds through ion-induced nucleation. Current thinking posits that half of the Earth’s clouds are formed through nucleation. The paper is entitled Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays in atmospheric aerosol nucleation.

This has significant implications for climate science because water vapour and clouds play a large role in determining global temperatures. Tiny changes in overall cloud cover can result in relatively large temperature changes.

Unsurprisingly, it’s a politically sensitive topic, as it provides support for a “heliocentric” rather than “anthropogenic” approach to climate change: the sun plays a large role in modulating the quantity of cosmic rays reaching the upper atmosphere of the Earth....

Climate models will have to be revised, confirms CERN in supporting literature: "t is clear that the treatment of aerosol formation in climate models will need to be substantially revised, since all models assume that nucleation is caused by these vapours [sulphuric acid and ammonia] and water alone."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/25 ... t_results/

So the globalists will be expected to provide substantially revised versions of models that already didn't work in the first place.

[The paper] actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it’s a very important first step.-- Lead author Jasper Kirkby

Sucks when your source can't read a scientific paper they're basing an article on.

[JakeYYZ]

Please indicate where I have declared the first results of the CLOUD experiment to be proof positive of anything. You see, unlike you AGW/CC morons, we skeptics don't take models and theories as proof positive of anything, much less justification for massive government intervention in the global economy. They unequivocally stated "Climate models will have to be revised."

Left-wing reading comprehension issues strike again.

[Rockie]

Please indicate where I have declared the first results of the CLOUD experiment to be proof positive of anything.

Well, what do you call this statement if not a declaration of proof positive?

Those pesky Swiss just cut the legs out from under the global warming fascists:

I don't see anything being cut out from under anybody. All I see is a bunch of unjustified insults and further railing against your arch enemy the left wingers.

[grimey]

Jake, there's a difference between being skeptical, requiring evidence prior to accepting a point of view, and being in denial. You're not being skeptical, you accepted that the article eviscerated climate change theories without actually checking in to whether the paper actually said as much. ALL new evidence and observations will require revising climate models: THAT'S HOW THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD WORKS. The paper says (according to the lead author) absolutely nothing about the effect of cosmic rays on climate change. Just as Einstein's theory of relativity adjusted our understanding of gravity away from Newton's laws, so to this evidence will adjust current models. That does not mean at all that Newton's laws were useless, or that the current models are useless.

[scm]

Perhaps they make increasingly dire warnings because the situation becomes increasingly dire.

Then again, some paid shills (Singer, Lindzen, Spencer, Christy) working for Koch, Exxon, and Peabody say that perhaps it's the sun wot did it.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Requiem_for_a_Species

Requiem for a Species: Why We Resist the Truth about Climate Change is a 2010 book by Australian academic Clive Hamilton which explores climate change denial and its implications. It argues that climate change will bring about large-scale, harmful consequences for habitability for life on Earth including humans, which it is too late to prevent. Hamilton explores why politicians, corporations and the public deny or refuse to act on this reality. He invokes a variety of explanations, including wishful thinking, ideology, consumer culture and active lobbying by the fossil fuel industry. The book builds on the author's fifteen-year prior history of writing about these subjects, with previous books including Growth Fetish and Scorcher: The Dirty Politics of Climate Change.

Hamilton points out that there have been many reports and books over the years explaining the climate change problem and just how ominous the future looks for humanity. He says Requiem for a Species is primarily about why those warnings have been ignored.

Hamilton considers that sometimes an inconvenient truth may be too difficult to bear:

Sometimes facing up to the truth is just too hard. When the facts are distressing it is easier to reframe or ignore them. Around the world only a few have truly faced up to the facts about global warming... It's the same with our own deaths; we all "accept" that we will die, but it is only when our death is imminent that we confront the true meaning of our mortality.

The most immediate reason for the failure to act on global warming is seen to be the "sustained and often ruthless exercise of political power by the corporations who stand to lose from a shift to low- and zero-carbon energy systems". Hamilton cites numerous journalists and authors who have documented the influence of large companies such as ExxonMobil, Rio Tinto Group and General Motors.

Hamilton makes his argument in three stages. Firstly, he reviews the evidence about how serious the situation is already and how much worse it will get. Secondly, he examines the roots of denial, both in terms of resistance to the evidence and in relation to the actors and agencies motivated to deny climate change. Lastly, he looks at some future scenarios and explains what people should do.

Hamilton suggests that the roots of climate change denial lie in the reaction of American conservatism to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. He argues that as the "red menace" receded, conservatives who had put energy into opposing communism sought other outlets. Hamilton contends that the conservative backlash against climate science was led by three prominent physicists -- Frederick Seitz, Robert Jastrow, and William Nierenberg. In 1984 Seitz, Jastrow and Nierenberg founded the George C. Marshall Institute, and in the 1990's the Marshall Institute's main activity was attacking climate science.

When describing climate science, Hamilton says that official numbers published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are highly cautious, and so the real effects of climate change will likely be even more severe. His conclusion is that it will not be possible to stabilise emissions:

... even with the most optimistic set of assumptions -- the ending of deforestation, a halving of emissions associated with food production, global emissions peaking in 2020 and then falling by 3 per cent a year for a few decades -- we have no chance of preventing emissions rising well above a number of critical tipping points that will spark uncontrollable climate change. The Earth's climate would enter a chaotic era lasting thousands of years before natural processes eventually establish some sort of equilibrium. Whether human beings would still be a force on the planet, or even survive, is a moot point. One thing seems certain: there will be far fewer of us.

In terms of Australia, Hamilton says that "Australians in 2050 will be living in a nation transformed by a changing climate, with widespread doubt over whether we will make it to the end of the century in a land that is recognisably Australian"

Paleoclimate data tells us that climate change is normal. Abrupt climate change is normal and has occurred many times.



Paleontology tells us that mass extinction is normal. Mass extinction due to global warming has occurred many times. Hydrogen Sulfide mass extinctions caused by stagnating the oceans due to global warming has occurred at least 12 times (Ward).



The PETM mass extinction probably began by orbital tilt causing slow global warming, which ended up releasing methane clathrates from the ocean floor. Today, the ocean is acidifying 10 times faster than the PETM. The rate of warming is about 30 times faster.



Today we are initiating that warming with an injection of CO2, which will cause positive feedbacks that will amplify warming up to 7 times. For example, by changing arctic albedo due to sea ice melt, by release of methane clathrates, by slowdown of the oceanic carbon pump, and by burning of forests.

So when skeptics say, don't worry, climate change is normal - I say yes - I agree. Abrupt climate change and mass extinction is normal. But don't worry, technology will save us. We can just pump more sulfur dioxide into the air to block the sun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoengineering

[scm]

Global Warming is the biggest conspiracy since the moon landing, some people say.

The worlds national academies are trying to create a One World Order, some say. If they succeed, hopefully no one notices that the climate didn't change, the seas didn't rise and the continents didn't desertify and it was all a hoax.

Below is a list of joint statements calling for action on mitigating climate change. The National Academies representing the 21 following countries and districts have signed joint statements:

Australia
Belgium
Brazil
Caribbean
Canada
China
France
Germany
India
Indonesia
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Malaysia
Mexico
New Zealand
Russia
South Africa
Switzerland
United Kingdom
United States

G8 Statement

National Academy of Sciences: 2007 Joint science academies’ statement on growth and responsibility: sustainability, energy efficiency and climate protection:

The problem is not yet insoluble, but becomes more difficult with each passing day. A goal of confining global warming to an average of 2 centigrade degrees above pre-industrial levels would be very challenging, and even this amount of warming would be likely to have some severe impacts. . . .

We call on world leaders, especially those meeting at the G8 Summit in June 2007, to:
• Set standards and promote economic instruments for efficiency, and commit to promoting energy efficiency for buildings, devices, motors, transportation systems
and in the energy sector itself.
• Promote understanding of climate and energy issues and encourage necessary behavioural changes within our societies.
• Define and implement measures to reduce global deforestation.
• Strengthen economic and technological exchange with developing countries, in order to leapfrog to cleaner and more efficient modern technologies.
• Invest strongly in science and technology related to energy efficiency, zero-carbon energy resources and carbon-removing technologies.

Academia Brasileira de Ciéncias,Brazil
Académie des Sciences, France
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia
National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
Royal Society of Canada, Canada
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina, Germany
Science Council of Japan, Japan
Academy of Science of South Africa, South Africa
Chinese Academy of Sciences, China
Indian National Science Academy, India
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias, Mexico
Royal Society, United Kingdom

Joint Statement I

Here is a press release from the National Academy of Sciences (USA) which opens with the words “Climate Change is real”. It’s conclusion begins with “We urge all nations, in the line with the UNFCCC principles, to take prompt action to reduce the causes of climate change, adapt to its impacts and ensure that the issue is included in all relevant national and international strategies.” It recognizes the international consensus of the IPCC (2001), IEA (2004), and UNFCCC. It is signed by:

National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
Chinese Academy of Sciences, China
Royal Society, United Kingdom
Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências, Brazil
Royal Society of Canada, Canada
Academié des Sciences, France
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher, Germany
Indian National Science Academy, India
Accademia dei Lincei, Italy
Science Council of Japan, Japan

Joint Statement II

Here is another press release from the Royal Society (UK) which says “The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise* IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes”. It is signed by:

Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Brazilian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society of Canada
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Chinese Academy of Sciences
French Academy of Sciences
German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
Indian National Science Academy
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy)
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (UK)

Individual Societies and Organizations Not Listed Above

Union of Concerned Scientists
Global warming is one of the most serious challenges facing us today. To protect the health and economic well-being of current and future generations, we must reduce our emissions of heat-trapping gases by using the technology, know-how, and practical solutions already at our disposal."

Woods Hole Research Center
"We may recall the extensive and incredibly successful campaign of the American tobacco companies to conceal the link between cancer and the use of tobacco products. For decades, they knew the reality of the addictive nature of nicotine and the carcinogenic effects of tobacco use. For decades, they successfully kept that reality hidden from the American public. The oil, coal, gas, and mining industries stand to lose tremendously if the truth about global warming becomes accepted by American society. As the tobacco industry invested millions in keeping its deadly secret, so also have the oil, coal, gas, and mining industries attempted to hide and discredit the link between CO2 emissions and a warming earth."1

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
Third Assessment Report (2001)
Fourth Assessment Report ( 2007)
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

Even the minimum predicted shifts in climate for the 21st century are likely to be significant and disruptive.”

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society [snip]The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (http://www.ipcc.ch/), and the Joint National Academies’ statement
(http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf)..- AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change

Approved by the AAAS Board of Directors 9 December 2006
"AAAS President John P. Holdren and CEO Alan I. Leshner Sunday called for the U.S. public and their leaders to “muster the political will for serious evasive action” to address climate change. Writing in the San Francisco Chronicle, the two AAAS leaders said that there can be no doubt about the reality of climate change."

American Meteorological Society (AMS)
The American Meteorological Society endorses the "Joint Academies' Statement: Global Response to Climate Change" released by the national academies of science of 11 countries, including the U.S., on 7 June 2005.”

"Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases and other trace constituents ... [that] interact strongly with the Earth's energy balance, resulting in the prospect of significant global warming. ... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems. It is a long-term problem that requires a long-term perspective. Important decisions confront current and future national and world leaders." - Bull. Amer. Met. Soc., 84, 508—515

National Research Council
The following assessment was produced by the NRC, a branch of the National Academies of Sciences, at the request of the White House in 2001:

"Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century. ... The impacts of [climate change] will be critically dependent on the magnitude of the warming and the rate with which it occurs." - Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questiosn, 2001
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

"CMOS endorses the process of periodic climate science assessment carried out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and supports the conclusion, in its Third Assessment Report, which states that the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate."

Federal Climate Change Science Program
Discrepancies between the data sets and the models have been reduced and our understanding of observed climate changes and their causes has increased. Given this, there is no longer sufficient evidence to conclude that there exists any notable discrepancy between our understanding of recent global average temperature changes and model simulations of these changes. This represents a change from conclusions of earlier reports (see above) and should constitute a valuable source of information to policymakers.”

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
While Milankovitch cycles have tremendous value as a theory to explain ice-ages and long-term changes in the climate, they are unlikely to have very much impact on the decade-century timescale. Over several centuries, it may be possible to observe the effect of these orbital parameters, however for the prediction of climate change in the 21st century, these changes will be far less important than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases.”

American Geophysical Union
Because human activities are contributing to and accelerating climate change, we have a collective responsibility to develop and undertake carefully considered response actions.”
"Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century. ... A particular concern is that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide may be rising faster than at any time in Earth's history, except possibly following rare events like impacts from large extraterrestrial objects. ... Moreover, research indicates that increased levels of carbon dioxide will remain in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years. It is virtually certain that increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will cause global surface climate to be warmer. ... The unprecedented increases in greenhouse gas concentrations, together with other human influences on climate over the past century and those anticipated for the future, constitute a real basis for concern." -

Human Impacts on Climate, 2003
Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries. Furthermore, the potential implications of global climate change and the time scale over which such changes will likely occur require active, effective, long-term planning. ... GSA strongly encourages that the following efforts be undertaken internationally: (1) adequately research climate change at all time scales, (2) develop thoughtful, science-based policy appropriate for the multifaceted issues of global climate change, (3) organize global planning to recognize, prepare for, and adapt to the causes and consequences of global climate change, and (4) organize and develop comprehensive, long-term strategies for sustainable energy, particularly focused on minimizing impacts on global climate."- Position Statement, Global Climate Change, 2006
American Chemical Society - (world's largest scientific organization with over 155,000 members)
"Accumulating evidence clearly shows that our environment and the global climate system are changing. Global average temperatures, atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, sea levels, and extreme weather events are on the rise. ... There is now general agreement among scientific experts that the recent warming trend is real (and particularly strong within the past 20 years), that most of the observed warming is likely due to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and that climate change could have serious adverse effects by the end of this century. ... In addition to climate research, scientists, industry, and government should implement measures to cost-effectively protect the climate and intensify efforts to develop technologies that—in addition to meeting other societal goals—could help us mitigate and adapt to the potential effects of climate change." -

Global Climate Change, 2004
Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006 - commissioned by the Bush administration.
Studies ... show clear evidence of human influences on the climate system (due to changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols, and stratospheric ozone). ... The observed patterns of change over the past 50 years cannot be explained by natural processes alone, nor by the effects of short-lived atmospheric constituents (such as aerosols and tropospheric ozone) alone. -Source

Stratigraphy Commission - Geological Society of London - The world's oldest and the United Kingdom's largest geoscience organization
"Global climate change is increasingly recognised as the key threat to the continued development – and even survival - of humanity. ... We find that the evidence for human-induced climate change is now persuasive, and the need for direct action compelling." -

Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
"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."

American Association of State Climatologists
"The AASC recognizes that human activities have an influence on the climate system. Such activities, however, are not limited to greenhouse gas forcing and include changing land use and sulfate emissions, which further complicates the issue of climate prediction. Furthermore, climate predictions have not demonstrated skill in projecting future variability and changes in such important climate conditions as growing season, drought, flood-producing rainfall, heat waves, tropical cyclones and winter storms. These are the type of events that have a more significant impact on society than annual average global temperature trends. ... The difficulty of prediction and the impossibility of verification of predictions decades into the future are important factors that allow for competing views of the long-term climate future. Therefore, the AASC recommends that policies related to long-term climate not be based on particular predictions, but instead should focus on policy alternatives that make sense for a wide range of plausible climatic conditions regardless of future climate. ... [O]ngoing political debate about global energy policy should not stand in the way of common sense action to reduce societal and environmental vulnerabilities to climate variability and change." - Policy Statement on Climate Variability and
Change by the American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)

US Geological Survey (USGS)
The most authoritative report on this issue is Climate Change 1995: IPCC Second Assessment Report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is part of the United Nations Environmental Programme. The IPCC has a large amount of information on their web site dealing with this topic.Geochange FAQ

National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
To slow the rate of climate change, we can decrease the amount of carbon dioxide that we release into the atmosphere.”

NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
From my perspective, strong evidence is already accumulating that weighs heavily against the skeptics contentions that there is no significant global warming and that climate sensitivity is low.”1 –Dr. James Hansen, lead climate scientist and director of Goddard

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute – Ocean and Climate Change Institute
Global warming is pretty well accepted by the scientific community. Because greenhouse gas concentrations are projected to continue rising throughout the next century, our expectations over the next 100 or 200 years are that we will continue to see an upward trend in temperatures.”1

World Meteorological Organization
WMO Stresses Importance of Adaptation Strategies to Complement Climate Change Mitigation Efforts”

United Nations Environment Program
The potential consequences of climate change are profound, particularly on people in the less developed countries. The question is therefore not whether climate change is happening, but what to do about it.”

Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospherice Sciences
90 Canadian climate science leaders from the academic, public and private sectors sent the Prime Minister of Canada an open letter. It says "We concur with the climate science assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001,.....We urge you and your government to develop an effective national strategy to deal with the many important aspects of climate that will affect both Canada and the rest of the world in the near future."1
International Council on Science

"The Earth’s environment is changing due to human activities, and is undermining sustainable development"
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
http://www.socc.ca/permafrost/permafrost_future_e.cfm

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarmi ... index.html

American Astronomical Society
In endorsing the "Human Impacts on Climate" statement, 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. -American Astronomical Society, 2004

The Australian Meteorological And Oceanographic Society
The greenhouse effect is a natural and well-understood phenomenon [snip]
Most of the observed warming is highly likely due to human activity
It is highly likely that those human activities that have increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have been largely responsible for the observed warming since 1950. The warming associated with increases in greenhouse gases originating from human activity is called the enhanced greenhouse effect. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased by more than 30% since the start of the industrial age and is higher now than at any time in at least the past 650,000 years. This increase is a direct result of burning fossil fuels, broad-scale deforestation and other human activity. Concentrations of a range of other potent greenhouse gases, such as CFCs[4], methane and nitrous oxide, have increased also as a result of human activity, and have contributed to the observed warming. Conversely, some other by-products of human activity, most notably industrial aerosols, have had a cooling effect on the atmosphere, and have offset some of the warming from the enhanced greenhouse effect.

- The Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Statement on Climate Change
American Institute of Physics
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.- American Institute of Physics, 2003

Pew Center on Climate Change
The scientific community has reached a strong consensus regarding the science of global climate change. The world is undoubtedly warming. This warming is largely the result of emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from human activities... - Global Warming Basics

World Wildlife Fund
Climate change is among the most pervasive threats to the web of life, yet we have the power to address its root causes and limit its impact on the planet. Smart energy choices made by individuals and businesses can dramatically reduce CO2 emissions and slow global warming. Without action, climate change will cause the extinction of countless species and destroy some of the world's most precious ecosystems. - http://worldwildlife.org/climate/

Peer Review Scientific Journals
Science / AAAS
In addition, a paper published in the premier scientific journal Science describes a survey of peer review journals from 1993-2003 containing the words “global climate change”. Of the 928 papers surveyed not a single paper disagreed with the scientific consensus. Naomi Oreskes describes her paper via an op-ed in the Washington Post.

We read 928 abstracts published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and listed in the database with the keywords "global climate change." Seventy-five percent of the papers either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view. The remaining 25 percent dealt with other facets of the subject, taking no position on whether current climate change is caused by human activity. None of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.”

Individual Scientists
The Petition - 11,885+ individual scientists listed by name
A petition signed by 52 Nobel Laureates, 63 National Medal of Science recipients, 195 members of the National Academies, and over 11,885+ other scientists criticizing the misuse and politicization of science in Washington. The list is continually growing so these are minimum numbers. Here is an excerpt from that petition:
“For example, in support of the president’s decision to avoid regulating emissions that cause climate change, the administration has consistently misrepresented the findings of the National Academy of Sciences, government scientists, and the expert community at large. Thus in June 2003, the White House demanded extensive changes in the treatment of climate change in a major report by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). To avoid issuing a scientifically indefensible report, EPA officials eviscerated the discussion of climate change and its consequences.”

Texas A&M - Department of Atmospheric Sciences Unanimous Endorsement of the IPCC
We, the tenured and tenure-track faculty of the Dept. of Atmospheric Sciences of Texas A&M, agree with the recent reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that:
1. It is virtually certain that the climate is warming, and that it has warmed by about 0.7 deg. C over the last 100 years.
2. It is very likely that humans are responsible for most of the recent warming.
3. If we do nothing to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases, future warming will likely be at least two degrees Celsius over the next century.
4. Such a climate change brings with it a risk of serious adverse impacts on our environment and society.

Kenneth Bowman
Sarah D. Brooks
Larry Carey
Ping Chang
Don Collins
Andrew Dessler
Robert Duce
Craig Epifanio
Rob Korty
Mark Lemmon
Don Lucas
Shaima L. Nasiri
John Nielsen-Gammon
Gerald North
Richard Orville
Lee Panetta
R. Saravanan
Gunnar W. Schade
Courtney Schumacher
Thomas Wilheit
Ping Yang
Fuqing Zhang
Renyi Zhang
Dept Texas A&M statement
Scientific Consensus Statement on the Likely Impacts of Climate Change on the Pacific Northwest

Realclimate.org articles
“One could debate whether overwhelming consensus is adequate grounds for action on climate change, but there are no grounds for debating whether such consensus actually exists.”

Just what is this Consensus anyway?
NASA's Gavin Schmidt
"Regardless of these spats, the fact that the community overwhelmingly supports the consensus is evidenced by picking up any copy of Journal of Climate or similar, any scientific program at the AGU or EGU meetings, or simply going to talk to scientists (not the famous ones, the ones at your local university or federal lab). I challenge you, if you think there is some un-reported division, show me the hundreds of abstracts at the Fall meeting (the biggest confernce in the US on this topic) that support your view - you won't be able to. You can argue whether the consensus is correct, or what it really implies, but you can't credibly argue it doesn't exist."

Stephen H. Schneider Ph.D. - Professor at Stanford University
A handful of "contrarian" scientists and public figures who are not scientists have challenged mainstream climatologists' conclusions that the warming of the last few decades has been extraordinary and that at least part of this warming has been anthropogenically induced. What must be emphasized here is that, despite the length of this section, there are truly only a handful of climatologist contrarians relative to the number of mainstream climatologists out there. - Contrarians

Dr. James Baker - NOAA
"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know - except maybe Newton's second law of dynamics". -Deltoid, ECOS Letter
Michael Tobis Ph.D. - University of Texas Institute for Geophysics
It's easy to refute all the contrarian arguments but that seems to have very little effect on how commonly they are believed. Refuted arguments seem to live on in the public imagination. To bring the public on board to a rational discussion of climate policy needs more than logical argument. So what should we actually do? -Only In it For The Gold

Steven Sherwood Ph.D. - Yale
"Things being debated now are details about the models," ... "Nobody is debating any more that significant climate changes are coming." - NYT's, Errors Cited in Assessing Climate Data, ANDREW C. REVKIN, Aug, 12, 2005

Steven Hawking
"very worried about global warming." -Steven Hawking, China Daily, ABC

Jerry Mahlman, NOAA
"Global warming is almost a no-brainer at this point," said Mahlman, who lives now on a mountain in Colorado. "You really can't find intelligent, quantitative arguments to make it go away." - The Star Ledger, Tempest brews in weather think tank


Shell Oil Co.
"It's a waste of time to debate it," he said. "Policymakers have a responsibility to address it. The nation needs a public policy. We'll adjust." - President John Hofmeister : MSNBC: Shell Oil chief: U.S. needs global warming plan

Munich Re: Insurance
"We need to stop this dangerous experiment humankind is conducting on the Earth's atmosphere." - Thomas Loster

14 Corporate leaders urging the Prime Minister to take bold action on climate change
"In May 2005 the Corporate Leaders Group on Climate Change wrote to you about the need to take urgent action on climate change. We welcomed the leadership that the Government had shown internationally and offered to work in partnership with you." ... "Bold leadership on domestic climate change policy has the potential to deliver significant economic benefits to the UK. "

Which is signed by:
Bart Becht, Chief Executive Officer, Reckitt Benckiser
Neil Carson, Chief Executive, Johnson Matthey
Ian Cheshire, Chief Executive, B&Q
Mike Clasper, Chief Executive, BAA
Jonson Cox, Chief Executive, Anglian Water Group
Mervyn Davies, Group Chief Executive, Standard Chartered Bank
Alain Grisay, Chief Executive, F&C Asset Management
Sir Stuart Hampson, Executive Chairman, John Lewis Partnership
Sir Julian Horn-Smith, Deputy Chief Executive, Vodafone Group
Gavin Neath, National Manager, Unilever U.K.
Lucy Neville-Rolfe, Company Secretary and Group Corporate and Legal Affairs Director, Tesco
Trudy Norris-Grey, Managing Director UK & Ireland, Sun Microsystems
Hugh Scott-Barrett, Chief Financial Officer, ABN Amro
James Smith, Chairman, Shell U.K. Limited

18 Major Canadian Industries
The following is from a letter given at the Montreal Conference:
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.” -[PDF] which is signed by:

Travis Engen, President & CEO, Alcan Inc.
Bob Elton, President & CEO, BC Hydro
Laurent Beaudoin, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, Bombardier Inc.
Russell Horner, President & CEO, Catalyst Paper Corporation
John Murray, President, CH2MHILL Canada Ltd.
Alban D’Amours, President & CEO, Desjardins Group
George Cooke, President & CEO, The Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company
Doug Muzyka, President & CEO, DuPont Canada
Derek Pannell, President & CEO, Falconbridge Limited
Annette Verschuren, President, The Home Depot Canada
David Wilmot, Chair, Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction
John R. Wells, President & CEO, Interface Americas
Brian Foody, President & CEO, Iogen Corporation
Jack Cogen, President & CEO, Natsource Asset Management
André Desmarais, President & Co-CEO, Power Corporation
Clive Mather, President & CEO, Shell Canada
Frank Dottori, President & CEO, Tembec Inc.
Gregg Hanson, President & CEO, The Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company
Virgin Trains and Virgin Atlantic

Sir Richard Branson is to invest $3bn (£1.6bn) to fight global warming. The Virgin boss said he would commit all profits from his travel firms, such as airline Virgin Atlantic and Virgin Trains, over the next 10 years. "We must rapidly wean ourselves off our dependence on coal and fossil fuels," Sir Richard said. - BBC: Branson makes $3bn climate pledge

British Petroleum
"Companies composed of highly skilled and trained people can't live in denial of mounting evidence gathered by hundreds of the most reputable scientists in the world."1,2 - Lord Browne.

CEO
Wal-Mart
"Global warming is real, now, and it must be addressed." 1, 2, 3 - Lee Scott., CEO

Cinergy
If we stonewall this thing [carbon limitations] to five years out, all of a sudden the cost to us and ultimately to our consumers can be gigantic,"1 – James E. Rogers, manager of 20 coal fire plants

DuPont
"we came to the conclusion that the science was compelling and that action should be taken," 1 - Charles O. "Chad" Holliday Jr., CEO

Swiss Re. – (The world's second largest reinsurance company1,2)
"Risk of climate change is real. It's here. It's affecting our business today," 1 - John Coomber, CEO

"Property. Life. Health. Crops. D&O -- you name it. It's the perfect storm for insurers." 1 - Chris Walker, managing director, Swiss Re's Greenhouse Gas Risk Solutions

"Climate change is a phenomenon that is starting to have a major impact on Swiss Re, its partners and clients. The question is no longer whether global warming is happening, but how it will affect our business, as well as our personal lives." -CEO John Coomber, sponser of the documentary The Great Warming.

Fitch Ratings Ltd.
"Global warming is on the radar screen of a lot of financial institutions," 1 - Denise Furey, senior director, Fitch Ratings Ltd.

Turner Construction
Even the chance that [global warming] is a real issue should motivate each and every one of us to action,"1 - Thomas Leppert, CEO

;Goldman Sachs
"We support the need for a national policy to limit greenhouse gas emissions" -Environmental Policy Framework

JPMorgan Chase
"JPMorgan Chase advocates the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions." -Environmental Policy

"[JPMorgan advocates] that the US government adopt a market-based national policy on greenhouse gas emissions, which includes all sources of emissions and is fair. Options include either a cap-and-trade or tax policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the lowest possible cost. " - Climate change policy

General Electric
Ecomagination
Duke Energy

"I have become personally engaged in one such issue—global climate change. In the past, Duke Energy has supported voluntary efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In 2005, we decided it was time to take a more proactive leadership role and promote a federal, economy wide U.S. policy. We believe the best approach is a carbon tax, which would address greenhouse gas emissions from all sectors of the economy. A carbon tax would provide conservation incentives for everyone. It would promote higher utilization of power plants that are low emitters of carbon, and encourage low-carbon fuel choices for the future." -Paul Anderson, Chairman and CEO
NRG Energy

"companies and industries which deny the issue will be marginalized." - physorg,Power execs foresee carbon emission caps

Statoil has been working with BP on climate change mitigation since 1998.

Citigroup
Since 2002, Citigroup has collected data on the energy used in the 13,000 buildings that we own or lease globally in order to track and manage our greenhouse gas emissions as well as other elements of our environmental footprint. Earlier this year, Citigroup announced a goal to reduce our global emissions by 10%, from our 2005 level, by the year 2011. To further this effort, we have joined the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Climate Leaders Program, an industry-government partnership of leaders that are adopting aggressive goals to reduce emissions at facilities. -Climate Policy

Pfizer
To contribute to the world's efforts to reduce GHG emissions, we joined the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Climate Leaders program in 2002. - Climate Policy
AstraZeneca

"We are committed to minimising our impact on climate change" - Climate policyAn increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is widely thought by climate scientists to be causing a rise in the earth’s temperature, leading to climate change.

GlaxoSmithKline
"In 2004 we developed a draft position statement on our future use of energy, which will be finalised in 2005. This was in response to feedback showing that energy use is a key area of concern among our stakeholders. The draft position sets out a strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions through energy efficiency, renewable energy and emissions trading. It also acknowledges that climate change may affect disease patterns and proposes that GSK should support research to help society plan for the consequences of climate change." - Responsibility Report 2004

Business for Social Responsibility
"The global consequences of climate change - some of which we are seeing already - threaten to both disrupt natural ecosystem functions and jeopardize the natural capital that provides the economy's resource base." - Climate Change

6 Business leaders including Westpac's CEO David Morgan
Their message is that Australia, and the world, needs to deeply cut greenhouse emissions, not just slow their growth. We cannot get there on the soft path the Government has taken. We need to switch paths, get tough, introduce a carbon charge, set targets and meet them. - The Age, Time to make tough choices on climate change

Military & Military Think Tanks
The Pentagon
The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents. Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life. - Guardian, Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us, Mark Townshend & Paul Harris, Sunday Feb, 22, 2004

There is substantial evidence to indicate that significant global warming will occur during the 21st century. ...With inadequate preparation, the result could be a significant drop in the human carrying capacity of the Earth’s environment. - Report, Grist,

Six Retired Admirals & Five Retired Generals
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Global warming poses a "serious threat to America's national security" and the U.S. likely will be dragged into fights over water and other shortages, top retired military leaders warn in a new report. The report says that in the next 30 to 40 years there will be wars over water, increased hunger instability from worsening disease and rising sea levels and global warming-induced refugees. "The chaos that results can be an incubator of civil strife, genocide and the growth of terrorism," the 35-page report predicts. -CNN, Report (PDF)

Royal United Services Institute - British military think tank founded in 1831
Just a slight rise in sea level would plunge roughly half of that country underwater, forcing perhaps 17 million people to seek refuge in neighboring India But India is constructing a 3,000-kilometer fence along its border with Bangladesh, and could hardly feed or shelter such a huge influx of people. . - Conference Focuses On Terror Potential Of Abrupt Climate Change
Administrative Officials


Presidents from 319+ Universities and Colleges
We, the undersigned presidents and chancellors of colleges and universities, are deeply concerned about the unprecedented scale and speed of global warming and its potential for large-scale, adverse health, social, economic and ecological effects. We recognize the scientific consensus that global warming is real and is largely being caused by humans. We further recognize the need to reduce the global emission of greenhouse gases by 80% by mid-century at the latest, in order to avert the worst impacts of global warming and to reestablish the more stable climatic conditions that have made human progress over the last 10,000 years possible.

-American College & University Presidents Climate Commitment

Politicians
Arnold Schwarzenegger

"I say the [global warming] debate is over. We know the science," "We see the threat, and we know the time for action is now." - California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, United Nations summit.

Tony Blair
"the risks of climate change may well be greater than we thought." - Tony Blair 1,

"[Climate change is] Probably long term the single most important issue that we face as a global community". -Tony Blair

"Our effect on the environment, and in particular on climate change, is large and growing; he said." -Tony Blair

President Clinton
"The Earth is warming at an alarming rate, we are running out of fossil fuels, and it is long past time for us to take action to correct these problems," Clinton said. "This is also a tremendous opportunity and there are countless good new jobs to be created in the field of green energy." - Associated Press: Clinton conference raises $7B

British Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks
"The people in denial now are the equivalent of the Flat Earth Society,"-Get ready for freak weather, world's polluters told, Reuters, Catherine Bermer

Seattle Mayor Gregory Nickels
“The reality of global climate change is urgent. The stakes are high – locally and globally – and we need to act.”

Bill White, Mayor of Houston
Flannery allows the reader to understand and explain why humans ought to alter the atmosphere with humility. We and other species already have experienced climate change, and humans have tipped the 10,000-year balance between carbon dioxide emissions and absorption. Through a combination of personal responsibility and international law, we must slow the pace of change to give the global community a chance to reflect and plan.” —Bill White, Mayor of Houston

John McCain
"I'm concerned about climate change. I'm going to do something about it." -Meet Captain Climate

Oh right, apparently they only agree because of "consensus", not because of objective science.

So what if we make the world uninhabitable on a moderate emission scenario that doesn't even account for tipping points and feedbacks, such as methane from the East Siberian Shelf and Russian Permafrost?

[System Message]

The full scale of some of those charts is smaller than the accuracy/tolerance/resolution of the instruments used to collect the data in the graphs.