Griff please seek professional help.

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)

not: recieve [sic]

I before E except after…

Pissed (AND hallucinating that the world is ending)

Or better yet find some denial experts that do not recieve pay from the oil or coal industry

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.

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

The questions are:
- 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.

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.

you guys lie twice and you come out with another misdirection

Maybe they are part of the:

the oil industry funded climate denial network

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.

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.

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.

Kea you really think that the oil industry funded climate denial network is the real science you poor poor fuckwit

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.