Groser on Kyoto
December 4th, 2012 at 3:00 pm by David FarrarStuff reports:
Highlighting a rift between the rich countries and emerging economies like China, New Zealand’s climate change minister has staunchly defended his government’s decision to drop out of the emissions pact for developed nations, saying it’s an outdated and insufficient response to global warming.
First of all, we are not dropping out. The commitment period was for 2008 to 2012. That ends in 27 days. Our commitment was to have net greenhouse gas emissions during those five years less than our emissions in 1990. We will achieve that target (due to foresty offsets).
Some (not all) Kyoto signatories are voluntarily making a binding post 2012 commitment. These countries represent 15% of greenhouse gas emissions. The NZ position is we will agree to a further binding commitment – but it needs to include the major emitters.
Any deal which does not include China, US and India is near worthless in an environmental sense.
Now there is an argument that those countries responsible for 15% of the emissions should show moral leadership and agree to further binding commitments, as this will cause the rest of the emitting countries to be shamed or encouraged or forced into making their own reduction commitments.
That is a reasonable argument. Except for one thing. It has been tried and failed. That is what the first commitment period was about. The arguments for Kyoto were not that it would make an impact on global emissions and temperatures (the impact is minor and almost non-existent) but that it would lead to more comprehensive deal with all countries.
It didn’t. China and India and others refused any sort of binding commitment. So I just do not accept that a Kyoto 2 will lead to China and India (and the US) agreeing to GGE reductions. In fact I think it will achieve the opposite.
Countries should hold out for a comprehensive all (bar the most minor) countries agreement. Anything less will be ineffectual.
December 4th, 2012 at 3:12 pm
Now there is an argument that those countries responsible for 15% of the emissions should show moral leadership and agree to further binding commitments, as this will cause the rest of the emitting countries to be shamed or encouraged or forced into making their own reduction commitments.
————————–
Bhwaaaaaaaaaaa.
that’s like saying that the 85% of us who are law abiding will be influenced by the 15% who are not and will become criminals.
Failed logic.
Vote:December 4th, 2012 at 3:16 pm
Interestingly, the US has reduced carbon emissions by more than Europe, despite not joining Kyoto. And their path to emissions reductions is a more sensible one (although admittedly not really deliberate). So why join a second commitment period, rather than just doing what we’re already doing?
Vote:December 4th, 2012 at 3:19 pm
Good to see common sense prevail. New Zealand cannot afford to destroy our economy on a principle.
The rise in temperatures will not affect our maritime climate to such a degree as that faced by continental climates. As such we should be following the mitigation strategies of our main trading partners not leading them.
PS paul its the total per capita that counts not the reduction. The state’s emissions are three times ours and the average of Europes
Vote:December 4th, 2012 at 3:20 pm
AGW is a huge con.
“Rich countries….” no country that’s broke and borrowing can be called “rich”.
Vote:December 4th, 2012 at 3:22 pm
China and India point out that the rest of the West got their fabulous wealth by not caring about the environment, and now that they’re mature and productive, they want India and China to forgo their growth for the betterment of the West. Reminds me of race relations really.
Vote:December 4th, 2012 at 3:27 pm
@Griff, to me it’s actually total carbon “consumed” per capita that counts. US manufactures a lot and digs a lot out of the ground. Europe imports their carbon embodied in stuff made elsewhere, and then claim to be clean and green. They’re ignoring the emissions and pollution of the factories in China making the stuff they’re importing, and that are part of the consumption habits of Europeans.
In terms of avoiding “climate change” (good luck with that), what supposedly counts is the total carbon emissions of the globe. On that logic, we all need to reduce, and so far the US has been more successful than Europe. Off a higher base yes. But that is also how Kyoto was set up, so by the chosen measure, US has been more successful.
As you might tell, I think it’s all a con anyway. As Bjorn Lomberg points out, after all this expenditure, the models say the change in temperature in 2100 will be delayed by about 100 days. It’s a very large industry of people to support and companies to subsidies in order to get a pretty pathetic outcome. We’d be much better focusing on getting clean drinking water and bed nets to people dying in third world countries.
Vote:December 4th, 2012 at 3:37 pm
Kyoto and Kyoto 2 are systems designed to be completely exploitative of the developing world. They were written by the EU, for the benefit of the EU. Well done for us.
Vote:December 4th, 2012 at 3:38 pm
Well if NZ has met its commitments. Which countries failed to meet theirs? and who do they pay their penalties to.
Vote:December 4th, 2012 at 3:51 pm
Bjorn Lomberg
Vote:Copenhagen Consensus on Climate
December 4th, 2012 at 4:13 pm
The whole ‘carbon’ religion is a load of codswallop. The Chinese are right. We should get on with drilling, digging, burning and selling.
Vote:December 4th, 2012 at 4:16 pm
If so, why are we paying the ETS tax passed by this spineless government? Key and Smith have a lot to answer.
Vote:December 4th, 2012 at 4:22 pm
Shit only two nutters in denial.
Please expand on your global conspiracy theories. I miss the laughter that you nutters generate
Vote:December 4th, 2012 at 4:42 pm
David says we are meeting our Kyoto commitments due to forestry offsets but that is only the case because we cheat. We had forestry in 1990 but that is ignored, In fact we had more forestry offsets in 1990 than we do now. Our net emissions have increased 59.5% but we meet Kyoto because the 1990 emission level is set using gross emissions (emissions without forestry removals) and we measure our emissions today as net emissions (including forestry)
So the target and the emissions we meet it with today are diffreent figures, We meet a target set by gross emissions with net emissions.
That allows us to increase emissions by over 60% before we exceed Kyoto.
What a joke. It is also fairly fraudulent because it means we have surplus carbon credits we could sell which have been created out of nothing more than using two different figures. .
Vote:December 4th, 2012 at 5:17 pm
Any deal
Vote:which does not include China, US and Indiaisnearworthlessin an environmental sense.December 4th, 2012 at 5:19 pm
Political babble designed to give politicians and their cronies justification to steal more from the productive elements in society, nothing more nothing less.
Vote:December 4th, 2012 at 5:21 pm
Why not? Why does this government continue the farce?
Vote:It can only be the ETS money it extracts from its citizens. National, the party of low taxes….yeah right.
December 4th, 2012 at 5:37 pm
Its time the warmists stumped up with evidence for their claims…so far….zip.
Vote:December 4th, 2012 at 5:42 pm
Because if we pulled out of all carbon mitigation schemes we would lose more trade and taxes then it costs.
The cost per person of the carbon tax in New Zealand is around twenty dollars a year
http://www.carbonnews.co.nz/page.asp?id=7728816652783ETI $2.55
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita 7.9 tonnes
Far less than the consequences of pulling out would be on our total GDP
And Andrei god done it is always the excuse you can tell your grandkids…. EH…..For why you ignored the science of climate change
Vote:December 4th, 2012 at 5:51 pm
The Scorned
As your statement goes against every major scientific body and government in the world best you stump up with some facts to prove your opinion.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Or are you another nutter who confuses a global conspiracy with reality?
Vote:December 4th, 2012 at 5:52 pm
If we want to deal with global warming we must change the model either to one that is easy to digest for the powerful big emission countries at least in the short term. that means the USA, India and China.
One method would be to allow countries to tax imports based on some carbon content calculation (although that would create huge distortions) but to make it workable it needs to be without any exceptions (doesnt matter if that country has a price on carbon).
Another option is to tax countries based on the extraction of carbon – or export of carbon fuel. (to simplify the process)
Another option of course is to decide that the costs outweigh the benefits if such a rational debate could be had.
Vote:December 4th, 2012 at 5:57 pm
Rational debate Is what we need scott1
Vote:Not head in the sand denial or fabricated bullshit and confusion from the carbon industry funded antiscience echo chamber.
December 4th, 2012 at 5:58 pm
Griff , as I pointed out to Luc the other day ( and he seemed happy to see it all heading this way ) the big boys & girls aren’t talking about science any more. They are using the situation to push for UN centralised control — back to Mao and Stalin. I am not joking –read this interview by UN Climate Chief
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/un_climate_chief_christiana_figueres_talks_making_progress_on_eve_of_doha/2593/#.UK05kQ6CU1g.twitter
Vote:December 4th, 2012 at 6:03 pm
Pretty easy to see who the real ‘nutters’ are here.
Vote:December 4th, 2012 at 6:10 pm
Oh Griff,
Where to begin with the lies and rubbish you post here.
But I notice you completely fail to mention the 16 years of no temperature increase, and you completely fail to mention that fact that the fingerprints of AGW – enhanced warming at the poles and in the troposphere – are entirely absent.
The theory has been completely falsified.
You are flogging a dead conspiracy theory to explain natural climate variation.
Vote:December 4th, 2012 at 6:12 pm
I do not support the un or crippling our own future to mitigate the effect of global warming I am not a lefty as luc is
Vote:However the problem is only going to grow worse My actual personal standpoint is put your head between your knees and kiss your kids’ future goodbye. We will not stop global warming until the results become so obvious that it will be to late any way
December 4th, 2012 at 6:17 pm
At least I’ll probably have grand kids, being as it is that I don’t squirt my seed up another mans um er um which for some bizarre reason progressive types think is the same thing as having a wife.
But then again progressives are not really that good at science it seems which is why they fall for climate change bullshit as well as being confused about gender and the role it plays in reproduction.
Can you solve the Navier Stokes equations Griff? To predict the future climate you would have to be able to do that
Vote:December 4th, 2012 at 6:34 pm
Oh dear wat wat still coming out with the same old pathetic bullshit I see.
Don’t you mean that the temperature has remained higher this century than all of the last century except for 1998 even though we have been in a solar minimum for the last ten years and have not yet experienced a strong el nino this century
The Record global temperatures are 2005 followed by 2010
Troposphere temperatures note the rise http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate/2009-time-series/troposphere
high lattatude both hemispheres http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.B.gif
In short you are talking shit you get from the nuttwebs
Vote:December 4th, 2012 at 6:45 pm
Why fluid dynamics have nothing to do with co2 and radiation absorption in an atmosphere
keep praying andrie one day your invisible friend may talk back.
Vote:December 4th, 2012 at 7:00 pm
In just five years, China has surpassed the United States as a trading partner for much of the world, including US allies such as South Korea and Australia, according to an Associated Press analysis of trade data. As recently as 2006, the US was the larger trading partner for 127 countries, versus just 70 for China. By last year the two had clearly traded places: 124 countries for China, 76 for the U.S.
In the most abrupt global shift of its kind since World War II, the trend is changing the way people live and do business from Africa to Arizona, as farmers plant more soybeans to sell to China and students sign up to learn Mandarin.
——————————————–
Its estimated that the Chinese econmy will overtake America as the biggest in the world in 2018. Yep in just 4.5 years time.
So why should we bother with the Yanks. The are a sunset country following the EU into decay. Sad but true and what’s more all of them are seriously in debt both internally and externally, so much that they are never going to recover without world depression. The Arabs are a close runner up in those stakes, especially as the demand for their one product, oil, slows and is replaced by countries own energy supplies. That will cause the fall of the EU via France in the next couple of years.
Nz and Aussie have but one choice and that’s Asia, from the Phillipines, Indonesia to Vietnam and China and all those between. That’s where the money will be flowing.
At some point parts of Africa and South America will will join the growth so some oppourtunites there. Nigeria again one day.
What has this to do with the subject. Follow the money.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10851800
Vote:December 4th, 2012 at 7:08 pm
I can be convinced that CO2 is only slightly warming the planet, or that it isnt very dangerous and that a meter rise in sea level is not somthing worth spending trillions to prevent..
…but to argue that there is no global warming at all is just crazy talk. that is like saying you can spray water on yourself and you keep getting more dry.
Vote:December 4th, 2012 at 8:13 pm
Griff,
For all your bluster, you are now at least agreeing that there has been no warming for 16 years, in direct contradiction of everything the alarmists promised.
So, some progress there.
We’ll just forget all your previous lies about this matter shall we?
And you don’t even try to deny that the fingerprints of AGW – the signatures which would demonstrate it is CO2-forced warming rather than natural climate variation – are entirely absent.
This myth is busted.
“…even though we have been in a solar minimum for the last ten years…”
Oh this is precious.
You are now directly contradicting the IPCC which maintains (entirely erroneously) that the forcing effects of CO2 are an order of magnitude greater than that of solar variation. The whole point of those manufactured hockeysticks that you lied through your teeth to defend was to present the false impression that there is negligible natural climate variation.
Yet now, simply because the facts contradict your busted conspiracy theory, you try to invoke powerful natural climate variation to explain away the evidence.
Oh what a tangled web we weave…
Vote:December 4th, 2012 at 8:13 pm
scott1 and anyone else who is actually interested in reality may find this instructive
Vote:http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/07/478984/hug-the-monster-why-so-many-climate-scientists-have-stopped-downplaying-the-climate-threat/
December 4th, 2012 at 8:50 pm
wat
Fuck you talk shit
There is warming over the last sixteen years as I just pointed out.
This warming has happened even with the natural variation in both the eleven solar cycle and the southern oscillation suppressing temperatures. If this happens when the temperature rise is suppressed what will happen when there is a strong el Nino and sun activity again increases?
The hockey stick graphs are still being refined with more data and still show that the present global temperatures are unprecedented in the last 2000 years.
They are not the only indicators that prove global warming as I linked above from Nassa. In fact the short-term temperature record or the past climate reconstructions are not needed to prove global warming. There is more than enough physical evidence that supports the theory without either of these data sets.
The nut web tells lies that do not stand under informed scrutiny.
Vote:That you believe the oil industrys propaganda over that of the scientific community just makes you look stupid.
December 4th, 2012 at 9:03 pm
“There is warming over the last sixteen years as I just pointed out. ”
Except there isn’t, is there.
No statistically significant warming for 16 years.
And please don’t embarrass yourself again by claiming that the concept of statistical significance is meaningless.
How the mighty are fallen: from thrusting their faked hockeysticks down our throat, purporting to show temperatures rising almost vertically, they are reduced to arguing that statistical significance is a meaningless concept and that an undetectable signal must existing in the flat temperature noise.
One shouldn’t laugh.
I don’t know which is funnier, that or the fact that Griff is now desperately trying to invoke natural climate variation – a phenomenon the alarmists have spent two decades trying to dismiss as so small as to be utterly insignificant – to try to explain away this lack of warming.
You need to be a contortionist to be an alarmist. Griff is tying himself in knots here.
Vote:December 4th, 2012 at 9:15 pm
Except there isn’t, is there.
No statistically significant warming for 16 years.
prove it wat
Vote:December 4th, 2012 at 9:15 pm
Time to end the ETS.
Vote:December 4th, 2012 at 9:21 pm
True or not who cares eh Griff-Gleick?
Vote:December 4th, 2012 at 9:29 pm
Fuck EU
There are plenty of other buyers for our products
BTW Griff
This is the satellite measurement since 1979
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Oct_2012_v5.5.png
It is the only accurate measurement of global temperatures
The trend is extremely clear
Vote:Round about a tenth of a degree below the average for just over half the period (before 1997) and a bit over a tenth of a degree above the average for the other little under half.
This in no way way can be spun as run away warming
December 4th, 2012 at 9:30 pm
So what?
2000 years is nothing.
Personally I know the climate is changing. It always has. It is normal. I do not dispute that mans activities have some effect. I have seen no evidence that man will cause the sorts of dire predictions made by climate alarmists. What we are seeing are normal fluctuations and nothing more.
Vote:December 4th, 2012 at 9:51 pm
Griff, you are ignoring reality. The climate alarmist industry is where the real money is at, not in fighting it. Billions of dollars are spent sustaining the myth. The people you rely on, for your information, are being paid on the basis that AGW is real. If they question it they are expelled and attempts are made to discredit them. The alarmists stand to lose too much if the truth every gets out. All those research grants will dry up over night. Hundreds of thousands will lose their jobs. An entire global industry will collapse and the left will not be able to use AGW to destroy capitalism. The price is too high.
The so called research, you quote, is produced by people who rely on the AGW myth for their income. Take the money away and what have you got? You have an unemployed and discredited “climate scientist” joining a very long line of other climate liars.
Vote:December 4th, 2012 at 9:53 pm
:lol
Trend from your graph http://climatecrocks.com/2011/02/02/graph-of-the-day-satellite-temperature-records/
The total linear change in TLT over this 384-month period is 0.47 degrees C for UAH and 0.52 degrees C for RSS. Even the UAH TLT data show a global-scale temperature increase of nearly half a degree Celsius over the past 32 years.
Vote:Little bit different from you about .2 don’t you think
December 4th, 2012 at 9:55 pm
Kea you really think that the oil industry funded climate denial network is the real science you poor poor fuckwit
Vote:December 4th, 2012 at 10:01 pm
“The total linear change in TLT over this 384-month period is 0.47 degrees C for UAH and 0.52 degrees C for RSS. Even the UAH TLT data show a global-scale temperature increase of nearly half a degree Celsius over the past 32 years.”
Golly gee, that’s about 1.5 deg C over a century. About another 1.3 deg C by 2100. What’s the problem?
Vote:December 4th, 2012 at 10:06 pm
Oh so I prove again that you guys lie twice and you come out with another misdirection stay on the lies at hand please
Vote:Admit the lie then we may get somewhere
Still waiting for wat wat to come back and back up his first lie with actual data as well
This is the present state of the climate debate note how the actual scientist are far more worried than the position taken by the media or even the IPCC
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/07/478984/hug-the-monster-why-so-many-climate-scientists-have-stopped-downplaying-the-climate-threat/
December 4th, 2012 at 10:08 pm
Now now Griff !, do try and be civil
The oil industry works for a living. They make money from oil, not publishing papers.
The people, you hold in such high regard, are paid large amounts of money that is taken from the productive population by punitive taxes. Their only source of income is from the AGW myth.
The oil industry does not need AGW. Your alarmist friends do.
Vote:December 4th, 2012 at 10:15 pm
Griff, I’m happy (really happy) to agree that over the last 33 years there has been about half a degree of warming.
Vote:I sleep well at night knowing the planet is warming slightly, it’s good for us.
December 4th, 2012 at 10:17 pm
I’m no statistician but even I can just see that they have just drawn a straight line from the first measurement to the last measurement.
Vote:December 4th, 2012 at 10:19 pm
Maybe they are part of the:
Seriously Griff, just look at yourself and see what you have become, it is heart breaking !
Here you are saying that people who don’t buy into this bullshit are all part of a “network” and are on the payroll of the “oil industry”. Your normally a reasonably rational guy, but you have lost it on this one.
We are not paid by BP and we do not report to the Illuminati, nor are we Reptilians/Grays/Nephilim, We are just ordinary folks who can see through the hysteria and are only trying to help others see the truth.
Vote:December 4th, 2012 at 10:47 pm
Who is on my side and who is on yours?
I have 98 % of climate scientist the governments of the developed world all major science bodies and the UN on my side
You have a small group of nut jobs in the pay of the carbon industry.
Global conspiracy by the scientific world the un and the worlds governments.
or the oil industry trying to protect their short-term profit and fuck the future.
Vote:December 4th, 2012 at 10:47 pm
Griff, I reckon it’s warming. Not a whole lot, and not worrying me too much.
The questions are:
Vote:- whether the prediction of rapidly increasing warming is correct. I think it’s not
- whether we could do anything sensible about it if it were correct. I also think not really – we can fiddle around edges, but any serious action requires major technology change, and nobody’s funding the most likely technologies to sort that out.
December 4th, 2012 at 10:53 pm
Wow, you actually played the argumentum ad verecundiam griff. Who is on my side? Empirical observations.
Vote:December 4th, 2012 at 11:00 pm
Argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam), also authoritative argument and appeal to authority, is an inductive-reasoning argument that often takes the form of a statistical syllogism.[1] Although certain classes of argument from authority can constitute strong inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied fallaciously: either the authority is not a subject-matter expert, or there is no consensus among experts in the subject matter, or both
Please point out the fallacious content of my argument.Or better yet find some denial experts that do not recieve pay from the oil or coal industry
Vote:December 4th, 2012 at 11:15 pm
Who is on my side? Empirical observations.
Vote:gee
Did you travel to the arctic this year and for the last sixty to get an idea of the ice extent and go around measureing the global temperatures
busy life
that would be little details that the scientist are studying
Like the global temperature record the radiation budget for the earth etc etc etc
And you deny all of that because it doesn’t suit your political views
December 4th, 2012 at 11:18 pm
Empirical observations griff, like the graph you linked to above, showing a half degree rise over 33 years.
Vote:December 4th, 2012 at 11:24 pm
How about you find some climate alarmists who are NOT benefiting from the AGW myth ? Every single link you have provided to support your nonsense has come from someone highly paid to produce that result. No exceptions. Ever.
You keep ignoring the fact that the real money is in alarmism, not denial. Your also full of shit. If you really believed what you are saying, you would crawl off into the bush and enjoy the sort of life you primitives provided before we had an “oil industry”. Of course you will just invent another religion to follow, but at least you will be out of the way.
Vote:December 4th, 2012 at 11:31 pm
rec-ei-ve
not: recieve [sic]
I before E except after…
Pissed (AND hallucinating that the world is ending)
Vote:December 4th, 2012 at 11:38 pm
How about you find some climate alarmists who are NOT benefiting from the AGW myth ? Every single link you have provided to support your nonsense has come from someone highly paid to produce that result. No exceptions. Ever.
Abstract
The conversation on global warming started in 1896, when a physical chemist estimated that the mean global temperature would rise several degrees if the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was doubled. The topic eventually became one of the most passionate in the history of science. The author points out that climate experts were initially strongly skeptical of the theory of global warming; it took a variety of evidence to gradually convince them that warming due to human emissions was likely. The public, however, was guided away from this conclusion by a professional public relations effort, motivated by industrial and ideological concerns. Deniers of the scientific consensus avoided normal scientific discourse and resorted to ad hominem attacks that cast doubt on the entire scientific community—while disrupting the lives of some researchers. The author points out that scientists have failed to mount a concerted public relations campaign to defend their position. When trust is lost, he asserts, a determined effort is needed to restore it.
Abstract
Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.
Abstract
Despite extensive evidence of climate change and environmental destruction, polls continue to reveal widespread denial and resistance to helping the environment. It is posited here that these responses are linked to the motivational tendency to defend and justify the societal status quo in the face of the threat posed by environmental problems. The present research finds that system justification tendencies are associated with greater denial of environmental realities and less commitment to pro-environmental action. Moreover, the effects of political conservatism, national identification, and gender on denial of environmental problems are explained by variability in system justification tendencies. However, this research finds that it is possible to eliminate the negative effect of system justification on environmentalism by encouraging people to regard pro-environmental change as patriotic and consistent with protecting the status quo (i.e., as a case of “system-sanctioned change”). Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.
Abstract
How, and when, does it become possible to conceptualize a truly planetary crisis? The Cold War nuclear arms race installed one powerful concept of planetary crisis in American culture. The science enabling the US nuclear arsenal, however, also produced unintended byproducts: notably, a radical new investment in the earth sciences. Cold War nuclear science ultimately produced not only bombs, but also a new understanding of the earth as biosphere. Thus, the image of planetary crisis in the US was increasingly doubled during the Cold War — the immediacy of nuclear threat matched by concerns about rapid environmental change and the cumulative effects of industrial civilization on a fragile biosphere. This paper examines the evolution of (and competition between) two ideas of planetary crisis since 1945: nuclear war and climate change. In doing so, the paper offers an alternative history of the nuclear age and considers the US national security implications of a shift in the definition of planetary crisis from warring states to a warming biosphere.
BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Naomi Oreskes*
+ Author Affiliations
The author is in the Department of History and Science Studies Program, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA. E-mail: noreskes@ucsd.edu
Related Resources
In Science Magazine
LETTERS
Consensus About Climate Change?
Roger A. Pielke Jr., Naomi Oreskes
Science 13 May 2005: 952-954.
Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, “As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change” (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.
The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC’s purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth’s climate is being affected by human activities: “Human activities … are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents … that absorb or scatter radiant energy. … [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations” [p. 21 in (4)].
IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members’ expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise” [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: “The IPCC’s conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue” [p. 3 in (5)].
Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).
The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies’ members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords “climate change” (9).
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.
This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.
The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.
Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.
References and Notes
1.↵ A. C. Revkin, K. Q. Seelye, New York Times A1 (19 June 2003). Search Google Scholar
2.↵ S. van den Hove, M. Le Menestrel, H.-C. de Bettignies, Climate Policy 2(1), 3 (2003). Web of Science
3.↵ See http://www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm.
4.↵ J. J. McCarthy, Ed. Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001).
5.↵ National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Science of Climate Change, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2001).
6.↵ American Meteorological Society, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 84, 508 (2003).
7.↵ American Geophysical Union, Eos 84(51), 574 (2003).
8.↵ See http://www.ourplanet.com/aaas/pages/atmos02.html.
9.↵ The first year for which the database consistently published abstracts was 1993. Some abstracts were deleted from our analysis because, although the authors had put “climate change” in their key words, the paper was not about climate change.
10. This essay is excerpted from the 2004 George Sarton Memorial Lecture, “Consensus in science: How do we know we’re not wrong,” presented at the AAAS meeting on 13 February 2004. I am grateful to AAAS and the History of Science Society for their support of this lectureship; to my research assistants S. Luis and G. Law; and to D. C. Agnew, K. Belitz, J. R. Fleming, M. T. Greene, H. Leifert, and R. C. J. Somerville for helpful discussions.
The editors suggest the following Related Resources on Science sites
In Science Magazine
LETTERS
Consensus About Climate Change?
Roger A. Pielke Jr.
Response from Naomi Oreskes
Science 13 May 2005: 952-954.
Full Text Full Text (PDF)
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES:
Where Does Political Polarization Come From? Locating Polarization Within the U.S. Climate Change Debate
American Behavioral Scientist 1 January 2013: 70-92.
AbstractFull Text (PDF)
Science or Science Fiction? Professionals’ Discursive Construction of Climate Change
Organization Studies 1 November 2012: 1477-1506.
AbstractFull TextFull Text (PDF)
Scientific Assessments of Climate Change Information in News and Entertainment Media
Science Communication 1 August 2012: 435-459.
AbstractFull Text (PDF)
BIOETHICS SYMPOSIUM: The ethical food movement: What does it mean for the role of science and scientists in current debates about animal agriculture?
J ANIM SCI 1 May 2012: 1570-1582.
AbstractFull TextFull Text (PDF)
Faith and Nature: The Effect of Death-Relevant Cognitions on the Relationship Between Religious Fundamentalism and Connectedness to Nature
Social Psychological and Personality Science 1 May 2012: 333-340.
AbstractFull Text (PDF)
The Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change*
Int J Public Opin Res 1 March 2012: 93-103.
Full TextFull Text (PDF)
Science friction: Data, metadata, and collaboration
Social Studies of Science 1 October 2011: 667-690.
AbstractFull Text (PDF)
Extending the Concept of Moral Panic: Elias, Climate Change and Civilization
Sociology 1 August 2011: 634-649.
AbstractFull Text (PDF)
Climate change, flooding and the media in Britain
Public Understanding of Science 1 May 2011: 422-438.
AbstractFull Text (PDF)
“Global warming” or “climate change”?: Whether the planet is warming depends on question wording
Public Opin Q 1 March 2011: 115-124.
AbstractFull TextFull Text (PDF)
Talking Past Each Other? Cultural Framing of Skeptical and Convinced Logics in the Climate Change Debate
Organization Environment 1 March 2011: 3-33.
AbstractFull Text (PDF)
Global warming: How skepticism became denial
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 1 January 2011: 41-50.
AbstractFull TextFull Text (PDF)
The Temporal Structure of Scientific Consensus Formation.
American Sociological Review 1 December 2010: 817-840.
AbstractFull TextFull Text (PDF)
Expert credibility in climate change
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 6 July 2010: 12107-12109.
AbstractFull TextFull Text (PDF)
Testing Time for Climate Science
Science 7 May 2010: 695-696.
AbstractFull TextFull Text (PDF)
System Justification, the Denial of Global Warming, and the Possibility of “System-Sanctioned Change”
Pers Soc Psychol Bull 1 March 2010: 326-338.
AbstractFull Text (PDF)
Bad Weather: On Planetary Crisis
Social Studies of Science 1 February 2010: 7-40.
AbstractFull Text (PDF)
Improving the public understanding of science: New initiatives
Am. J. Bot. 1 October 2009: 1760-1766.
AbstractFull TextFull Text (PDF)
The Role of Science in the Global Governance of Desertification
The Journal of Environment Development 1 September 2009: 248-267.
AbstractFull Text (PDF)
Sociology and Climate Change after Kyoto: What Roles for Social Science in Understanding Climate Change?
Current Sociology 1 May 2009: 389-405.
AbstractFull Text (PDF)
Improving Communication of Uncertainty in the Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Psychological Science 1 March 2009: 299-308.
AbstractFull TextFull Text (PDF)
Climate sensitivity: implications for the response of geomorphological systems to future climate change
Geological Society, London, Special Publications 1 January 2009: 257-265.
AbstractFull TextFull Text (PDF)
The Bright- and Blind-Spots of Science: Why Objective Knowledge is not Enough to Resolve Environmental Controversies
Crit Sociol 1 September 2008: 725-740.
AbstractFull Text (PDF)
Risk, Stress, and Capacity: Explaining Metropolitan Commitment to Climate Protection
Urban Affairs Review 1 March 2008: 447-474.
AbstractFull Text (PDF)
Examining the Relationship Between Physical Vulnerability and Public Perceptions of Global Climate Change in the United States
Environment and Behavior 1 January 2008: 72-95.
AbstractFull Text (PDF)
CLIMATE CHANGE: The Limits of Consensus
Science 14 September 2007: 1505-1506.
AbstractFull TextFull Text (PDF)
Science, Religion, and Climate Change
Science 27 April 2007: 540c-542c.
Full TextFull Text (PDF)
Emerging health issues: the widening challenge for population health promotion
HEALTH PROMOT INT 1 December 2006: 15-24.
AbstractFull TextFull Text (PDF)
Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics: Discussion
AAPG Bulletin 1 March 2006: 405-407.
Full TextFull Text (PDF)
Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics: Reply
AAPG Bulletin 1 March 2006: 409-412.
Full TextFull Text (PDF)
TAKE ACTION JOIN SUBSCRIBEDONATE
Center for Science and Democracy
Scientific Integrity
Global Warming
Clean Vehicles
Clean Energy
Nuclear Power
Nuclear Weapons & Global Security
Food and Agriculture
TEXT SIZEAAA PRINT SHAREEMAIL Home » SSI » Climate Change
Scientific Consensus on Global Warming
Scientific societies and scientists have released statements and studies showing the growing consensus on climate change science. A common objection to taking action to reduce our heat-trapping emissions has been uncertainty within the scientific community on whether or not global warming is happening and if it is caused by humans. However, there is now an overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is indeed happening and humans are contributing to it. Below are links to documents and statements attesting to this consensus.
Scientific Societies
Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations
“Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.” (October, 2009)
American Meteorological Society: Climate Change: An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society
“Indeed, strong observational evidence and results from modeling studies indicate that, at least over the last 50 years, human activities are a major contributor to climate change.” (February 2007)
American Physical Society: Statement on Climate Change
“The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.” (November 2007)
American Geophysical Union: Human Impacts on Climate
“The Earth’s climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.” (Adopted December 2003, Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007)
American Association for the Advancement of Science: AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change
“The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.” (December 2006)
Geological Society of America: Global Climate Change
“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.” (October 2006)
American Chemical Society: Statement on Global Climate Change
“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.” (July 2004)
National Science Academies
U.S. National Academy of Sciences: Understanding and Responding to Climate Change (pdf)
“The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.” (2005)
International academies: Joint science academies’ statement: Global response to climate change (pdf)
“Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring.” (2005, 11 national academies of science)
International academies: The Science of Climate Change
“Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change. We do not consider such doubts justified.” (2001, 16 national academies of science)
Research
National Research Council of the National Academies, America’s Climate Choices
“Most of the recent warming can be attributed to fossil fuel burning and other human activities that release carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.” America’s Climate Choices, Advancing the Science of Climate Change, 2010
U.S. Climate Change Research Program, Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States (2009)
“Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced. Global temperature has increased over the past 50 years. This observed increase is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases.”
Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, Peter T. Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman
“It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.”
Doran surveyed 10,257 Earth scientists. Thirty percent responded to the survey which asked: 1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant? and 2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, Naomi Oreskes
“Oreskes analyzed 928 abstracts published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and listed in the ISI database with the keywords ‘climate change.’… Of all the papers, 75 percent either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view that global warming is happening and humans are contributing to it; 25 percent dealt with methods or ancient climates, taking no position on current anthropogenic [human-caused] climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.”
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, IPCC, 2007. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level”
“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”
IPCC defines “very likely” as greater than 90% probability of occurrence.
Sign-on Statements
The Importance of Science in Addressing Climate Change: Scientists’ letter to the U.S. Congress. Statement signed by 18 scientists.
“We want to assure you that the science is strong and that there is nothing abstract about the risks facing our Nation.” (2011)
Climate Change and the Integrity of Science
Signed by 255 members of the National Academy of Sciences. “… For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet. … The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere. …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.” (2010)
U.S. Scientists and Economists’ Call for Swift and Deep Cuts in Greenhouse Gas Emissions
“We call on our nation’s leaders to swiftly establish and implement policies to bring about deep reductions in heat-trapping emissions. The strength of the science on climate change compels us to warn the nation about the growing risk of irreversible consequences as global average temperatures continue to increase over pre-industrial levels (i.e. prior to 1860). As temperatures rise further, the scope and severity of global warming impacts will continue to accelerate.” (2008)
Increase Your Leadership on Global Warming: A Letter from California Scientists
“If emissions continue unabated, the serious consequences of a changing climate for California are likely to include a striking increase in extreme heat and heat-related mortality, significant reductions in Sierra snowpack with severe impacts on water supply, mounting challenges to agricultural production, and sea-level rise leading to more widespread erosion of California’s beaches and coastline.” (2005)
Vote:December 4th, 2012 at 11:43 pm
Vote:December 4th, 2012 at 11:45 pm
tldr. What was the point?
Vote:December 4th, 2012 at 11:57 pm
My spell cheaker has crashed
Vote:Just pointing out the crap you guys belive is as scientific as a three year olds dripple in a sand pit
December 5th, 2012 at 12:04 am
I believe the satellite records, sorry if they’re not scientific enough for you.
Vote:December 5th, 2012 at 4:12 am
Like I said above – it’s very obvious who the real nutters are.
Griff please seek professional help.
Vote:December 5th, 2012 at 8:31 am
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997.0/trend/plot/rss/from:1997.0
Vote: