Lists

[Old Rocks]

The following groups say the danger of human-caused climate change is a … FACT:

U.S. Agency for International Development
United States Department of Agriculture
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
United States Department of Defense
United States Department of Energy
National Institutes of Health
United States Department of State
United States Department of Transportation
U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Aeronautics & Space Administration
National Science Foundation
Smithsonian Institution
International Arctic Science Committee
Arctic Council
African Academy of Sciences
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Academia Brasileira de Ciéncias
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Royal Society of Canada
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Académie des Sciences, France
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina of Germany
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Accademia nazionale delle scienze of Italy
Indian National Science Academy
Science Council of Japan
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Madagascar’s National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society of New Zealand
Polish Academy of Sciences
Russian Academy of Sciences
l’Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Academy of Science of South Africa
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
Turkish Academy of Sciences
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
The Royal Society of the United Kingdom
National Academy of Sciences, United States
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Science
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Medical Association
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
American Public Health Association
American Quaternary Association
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Society of Agronomy
American Society for Microbiology
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Botanical Society of America
Crop Science Society of America
Ecological Society of America
Federation of American Scientists
Geological Society of America
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Society of American Foresters
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Medical Association
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Engineers Australia
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
Geological Society of Australia
British Antarctic Survey
Institute of Biology, UK
Royal Meteorological Society, UK
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
European Science Foundation
International Association for Great Lakes Research
International Union for Quaternary Research
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Health Organization
World Meteorological Organization
The Democratic Party of America.

Climate Change – Have a look at the following lists. Which side are you on?

 

[Old Rocks]

The following groups say the danger of human-caused climate change is a … FRAUD:

American Petroleum Institute
US Chamber of Commerce
National Association of Manufacturers
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Industrial Minerals Association
National Cattlemen’s Beef Association
Great Northern Project Development
Rosebud Mining
Massey Energy
Alpha Natural Resources
Southeastern Legal Foundation
Georgia Agribusiness Council
Georgia Motor Trucking Association
Corn Refiners Association
National Association of Home Builders
National Oilseed Processors Association
National Petrochemical and Refiners Association
Western States Petroleum Association
The Republican Party of America

Climate Change – Have a look at the following lists. Which side are you on?

 

[Old Rocks]

Now there is no denying the symetry of the lists. Note the number of scientific organizations that are on the list of denial. Nada. Zip. That should be a bit indictive of the validity of the denial.

 

[Douger]

Looks to me like the owners of the Nazi Corporatocracy have been busy upgrading the propaganda machine.
Not surprising at all.
GBA_stan........................

 

[ScienceRocks]

Can someone post a list of scientific organizations that say that the warming is a fraud? Thank you.

 

[ScienceRocks]

[edit] Position: Accuracy of IPCC climate projections is questionable

Individuals in this section conclude that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They do not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

* Richard Lindzen,Pubs Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences: "We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 °C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But – and I cannot stress this enough – we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future."[4] "[T]here has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas – albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed."[5][6]
* Garth Paltridge,Pubs Visiting Fellow ANU and retired Chief Research Scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired Director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre."There are good and straightforward scientific reasons to believe that the burning of fossil fuel and consequent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide will lead to an increase in the average temperature of the world above that which would otherwise be the case. Whether the increase will be large enough to be noticeable is still an unanswered question."[7]
* Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute: "The blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate 'realistic' simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic. From my background in turbulence I look forward with grim anticipation to the day that climate models will run with a horizontal resolution of less than a kilometer. The horrible predictability problems of turbulent flows then will descend on climate science with a vengeance."[8]
reduced to down to comply with copywrite rules.
List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Old Rocks]

Many of these scientists are sincere, with points of view that are to be checked for evidence.

A couple, Lindzen and Singer, because of past association with tobacco and energy companies, and paid testimony for those industries, are outcasts.

The arguement for the influence of cosmic rays has not been accepted by most scientists, and there is evidence that the affect is negligable.

The solar influence, if it were now the primary driver, should be leading to a cooling, considering that we are in a solar minimum. That is certainly not the case.

As for models, you will find one of the best of the modelers, Dr. James Hansen, dismissing the models as an accurate indicator of what the future holds, at the level that our present models are at. In fact, he states quite bluntly in his book, 'Storms of my Grandchildren' that the best indictor that we have for what lies ahead, is what we can read from the geological record.

 

[skookerasbil]

The following groups say the danger of human-caused climate change is a … FRAUD:

American Petroleum Institute
US Chamber of Commerce
National Association of Manufacturers
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Industrial Minerals Association
National Cattlemen’s Beef Association
Great Northern Project Development
Rosebud Mining
Massey Energy
Alpha Natural Resources
Southeastern Legal Foundation
Georgia Agribusiness Council
Georgia Motor Trucking Association
Corn Refiners Association
National Association of Home Builders
National Oilseed Processors Association
National Petrochemical and Refiners Association
Western States Petroleum Association
The Republican Party of America

Climate Change – Have a look at the following lists. Which side are you on?

and tens of thousands of scientists as well s0n.............

 

[skookerasbil]

The following groups say the danger of human-caused climate change is a … FACT:

U.S. Agency for International Development
United States Department of Agriculture
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
United States Department of Defense
United States Department of Energy
National Institutes of Health
United States Department of State
United States Department of Transportation
U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Aeronautics & Space Administration
National Science Foundation
Smithsonian Institution
International Arctic Science Committee
Arctic Council
African Academy of Sciences
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Academia Brasileira de Ciéncias
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Royal Society of Canada
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Académie des Sciences, France
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina of Germany
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Accademia nazionale delle scienze of Italy
Indian National Science Academy
Science Council of Japan
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Madagascar’s National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society of New Zealand
Polish Academy of Sciences
Russian Academy of Sciences
l’Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Academy of Science of South Africa
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
Turkish Academy of Sciences
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
The Royal Society of the United Kingdom
National Academy of Sciences, United States
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Science
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Medical Association
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
American Public Health Association
American Quaternary Association
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Society of Agronomy
American Society for Microbiology
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Botanical Society of America
Crop Science Society of America
Ecological Society of America
Federation of American Scientists
Geological Society of America
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Society of American Foresters
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Medical Association
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Engineers Australia
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
Geological Society of Australia
British Antarctic Survey
Institute of Biology, UK
Royal Meteorological Society, UK
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
European Science Foundation
International Association for Great Lakes Research
International Union for Quaternary Research
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Health Organization
World Meteorological Organization
The Democratic Party of America.

Climate Change – Have a look at the following lists. Which side are you on?

Indeed.............

And were all sure it has only to do with the "science".

 

[Mad Scientist]

Can I has money for "studies" if I worship at the altar of "Global Warming? I don't wanna' be left out.

 

[konradv]

Can someone post a list of scientific organizations that say that the warming is a fraud? Thank you.

What's the matter? Trouble finding any? It's funny how the deniers come up with all sorts of "data", but when confronted by something like this, they're at a loss!!!

 

[IanC]

its all a matter of how you posit the question. most of those science associations don't poll their members, they have a leadership committee that makes the political decisions like whether or not to make a statement about the possible danger of CO2 emmissions. warming or cooling could be a danger in some form or other to humans; CO2 could be the reason for some or all warming or cooling; therefor it is easy to hedge your bets and publicly state your concern.

I think it would have been much more difficult to get those statements in the 70's when there was cooling or now after a decade of no warming but the paradigm was set in the 90's and will take time to change.

 

[IanC]

Can someone post a list of scientific organizations that say that the warming is a fraud? Thank you.

What's the matter? Trouble finding any? It's funny how the deniers come up with all sorts of "data", but when confronted by something like this, they're at a loss!!!

no scientific organizations declare fraud. otherwise Mann and Jones would be ex-scientists

 

[Old Rocks]

Putting on the tinfoil cap, Ian? It's all a grand conspiracy. All these scientists worldwide just don't know science. LOL

 

[Old Rocks]

Can I has money for "studies" if I worship at the altar of "Global Warming? I don't wanna' be left out.

And that is all you have, isn't it? Innuendo concerning the honesty of the scientists. Indictutive of your own honesty.

 

[westwall]

Can I has money for "studies" if I worship at the altar of "Global Warming? I don't wanna' be left out.

And that is all you have, isn't it? Innuendo concerning the honesty of the scientists. Indictutive of your own honesty.

Oh we have far more than that olfraud. Far more. I post to the WUWT page because he has the best abbreviated review of the soon to be published rebuttal of Steig et al that purported to show extensive Antarctic wide warming. The new paper shows quite powerfully that Steig et al got it COMPLETELY wrong and were guilty of using incorrect methodology to support their cause (Mann was a co writer-go figure).

That the rebuttal will be published in the Journal of Climate is a minor miracle considering that Steig was one of the reviewers of the paper (unethical in the extreme, but once again par for the course) and the writers were forced to work on their paper for 10 months before the editor finally allowed it through (and interestingly enough that was accomplished by ADDING a 4th reviewer), the upshot is simply this, the "warming" that Steig et al claimed was occuring isn't.

Skeptic paper on Antarctica accepted – rebuts Steig et al | Watts Up With That?

 

[IanC]

Putting on the tinfoil cap, Ian? It's all a grand conspiracy. All these scientists worldwide just don't know science. LOL

what did I say that made you jump to conspiracy theories? do they poll their members before making policy statements? do those policy statements explicitly state that catastophe is going to happen? or do they say IF the warming trend continues, IF the rise in CO2 leads to amplification of the known small effect of CO2 to the large effect projected by climate models, THEN climatic disturbances could be either be deletorious or beneficial to mankind. anything else wouldnt be very scientific would it?

not that I expect any semblance of scientific thought from you. you think weather is proof of global warming. you seem to be able to hold two or more mutually exclusive ideas in your head at the same time while ferverently believing all of them to be true.

 

[Old Rocks]

My, my. So what we have here is an arguement concerning the statistical interpretation of the data. And by the authors interpretation the warming is less than that of the interpretations of Stieg and Mann. Less, but still warming.

In other words, you are now reduced to stating 'Oh, well it's really not that bad'. I suppose someone will make a third study with differant statistical methods that show that Stieg and Mann underestimated the warming.

Skeptic paper on Antarctica accepted – rebuts Steig et al | Watts Up With That?

Abstract

A detailed analysis is presented of a recently published Antarctic temperature reconstruction that combines satellite and ground information using a regularized expectation-maximization algorithm. Though the general reconstruction concept has merit, it is susceptible to spurious results for both temperature trends and patterns. The deficiencies include: (a) improper calibration of satellite data; (b) improper determination of spatial structure during infilling; and (c) suboptimal determination of regularization parameters, particularly with respect to satellite principal component retention. We propose two methods to resolve these issues. One utilizes temporal relationships between the satellite and ground data; the other combines ground data with only the spatial component of the satellite data. Both improved methods yield similar results that disagree with the previous method in several aspects. Rather than finding warming concentrated in West Antarctica, we find warming over the period of 1957-2006 to be concentrated in the Peninsula (≈0.35oC decade-1). We also show average trends for the continent, East Antarctica, and West Antarctica that are half or less than that found using the unimproved method. Notably, though we find warming in West Antarctica to be smaller in magnitude, we find that statistically significant warming extends at least as far as Marie Byrd Land. We also find differences in the seasonal patterns of temperature change, with winter and fall showing the largest differences and spring and summer showing negligible differences outside of the Peninsula.

Region RLS C/Dec E-W C/Dec S09 C/Dec Continent 0.06 ± 0.08 0.04 ± 0.06 0.12 ± 0.09
East Antarctica 0.03 ± 0.09 0.02 ± 0.07 0.10 ± 0.10
West Antarctica 0.10 ± 0.09 0.06 ± 0.07 0.20 ± 0.09
Peninsula 0.35 ± 0.11 0.32 ± 0.09 0.13 ± 0.05

Copyright © 2010 American Meteorological Association

(early online release to be available on or around Dec. 7th)

 

[Old Rocks]

Putting on the tinfoil cap, Ian? It's all a grand conspiracy. All these scientists worldwide just don't know science. LOL

what did I say that made you jump to conspiracy theories? do they poll their members before making policy statements? do those policy statements explicitly state that catastophe is going to happen? or do they say IF the warming trend continues, IF the rise in CO2 leads to amplification of the known small effect of CO2 to the large effect projected by climate models, THEN climatic disturbances could be either be deletorious or beneficial to mankind. anything else wouldnt be very scientific would it?

not that I expect any semblance of scientific thought from you. you think weather is proof of global warming. you seem to be able to hold two or more mutually exclusive ideas in your head at the same time while ferverently believing all of them to be true.

Actually the one scientific society of which I am a member does indeed poll it's members on subjects like this.

 

[IanC]

Can I has money for "studies" if I worship at the altar of "Global Warming? I don't wanna' be left out.

And that is all you have, isn't it? Innuendo concerning the honesty of the scientists. Indictutive of your own honesty.

Oh we have far more than that olfraud. Far more. I post to the WUWT page because he has the best abbreviated review of the soon to be published rebuttal of Steig et al that purported to show extensive Antarctic wide warming. The new paper shows quite powerfully that Steig et al got it COMPLETELY wrong and were guilty of using incorrect methodology to support their cause (Mann was a co writer-go figure).

That the rebuttal will be published in the Journal of Climate is a minor miracle considering that Steig was one of the reviewers of the paper (unethical in the extreme, but once again par for the course) and the writers were forced to work on their paper for 10 months before the editor finally allowed it through (and interestingly enough that was accomplished by ADDING a 4th reviewer), the upshot is simply this, the "warming" that Steig et al claimed was occuring isn't.

Skeptic paper on Antarctica accepted – rebuts Steig et al | Watts Up With That?

there is so much to that whole scandal. it actually started 2 years ago when a researcher found errors in the data Stieg and the hockey team used for the antarctica paper. he emailed Stieg and posted a comment at Climate Audit. Amazingly enough Gavin Schmidt found the same error himself only hours after being informed of it. the Hockey team at Real Climate must be getting really pissed off that amateurs prove them wrong on a regular basis.