Posted on 05/07/2010 5:04:55 PM PDT by dila813
We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular. All citizens should understand some basic scientific facts. There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything. When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action. For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet.
Scientific conclusions derive from an understanding of basic laws supported by laboratory experiments, observations of nature, and mathematical and computer modeling. Like all human beings, scientists make mistakes, but the scientific process is designed to find and correct them. This process is inherently adversarial—scientists build reputations and gain recognition not only for supporting conventional wisdom, but even more so for demonstrating that the scientific consensus is wrong and that there is a better explanation. That's what Galileo, Pasteur, Darwin, and Einstein did. But when some conclusions have been thoroughly and deeply tested, questioned, and examined, they gain the status of "well-established theories" and are often spoken of as "facts."
For instance, there is compelling scientific evidence that our planet is about 4.5 billion years old (the theory of the origin of Earth), that our universe was born from a single event about 14 billion years ago (the Big Bang theory), and that today's organisms evolved from ones living in the past (the theory of evolution). Even as these are overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, fame still awaits anyone who could show these theories to be wrong. Climate change now falls into this category: There is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend.
{CHECK OUT THE DROWNING POLAR BEAR IMAGE POSTED}
Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers are typically driven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other scientific assessments of climate change, which involve thousands of scientists producing massive and comprehensive reports, have, quite expectedly and normally, made some mistakes. When errors are pointed out, they are corrected. But there is nothing remotely identified in the recent events that changes the fundamental conclusions about climate change:
(i) The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere. A snowy winter in Washington does not alter this fact.
(ii) Most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the last century is due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.
(iii) Natural causes always play a role in changing Earth's climate, but are now being overwhelmed by human-induced changes.
(iv) Warming the planet will cause many other climatic patterns to change at speeds unprecedented in modern times, including increasing rates of sea-level rise and alterations in the hydrologic cycle. Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are making the oceans more acidic.
(v) The combination of these complex climate changes threatens coastal communities and cities, our food and water supplies, marine and freshwater ecosystems, forests, high mountain environments, and far more.
Much more can be, and has been, said by the world's scientific societies, national academies, and individuals, but these conclusions should be enough to indicate why scientists are concerned about what future generations will face from business-as-usual practices. We urge our policy-makers and the public to move forward immediately to address the causes of climate change, including the un restrained burning of fossil fuels.
We also call for an end to McCarthy-like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by association, the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking distractions to avoid taking action, and the outright lies being spread about them. Society has two choices: We can ignore the science and hide our heads in the sand and hope we are lucky, or we can act in the public interest to reduce the threat of global climate change quickly and substantively. The good news is that smart and effective actions are possible. But delay must not be an option.
P. H. Gleick,* R. M. Adams, R. M. Amasino, E. Anders, D. J. Anderson, W. W. Anderson, L. E. Anselin, M. K. Arroyo, B. Asfaw, F. J. Ayala, A. Bax, A. J. Bebbington, G. Bell, M. V. L. Bennett, J. L. Bennetzen, M. R. Berenbaum, O. B. Berlin, P. J. Bjorkman, E. Blackburn, J. E. Blamont, M. R. Botchan, J. S. Boyer, E. A. Boyle, D. Branton, S. P. Briggs, W. R. Briggs, W. J. Brill, R. J. Britten, W. S. Broecker, J. H. Brown, P. O. Brown, A. T. Brunger, J. Cairns, Jr., D. E. Canfield, S. R. Carpenter, J. C. Carrington, A. R. Cashmore, J. C. Castilla, A. Cazenave, F. S. Chapin, III, A. J. Ciechanover, D. E. Clapham, W. C. Clark, R. N. Clayton, M. D. Coe, E. M. Conwell, E. B. Cowling, R. M Cowling, C. S. Cox, R. B. Croteau, D. M. Crothers, P. J. Crutzen, G. C. Daily, G. B. Dalrymple, J. L. Dangl, S. A. Darst, D. R. Davies, M. B. Davis, P. V. de Camilli, C. Dean, R. S. Defries, J. Deisenhofer, D. P. Delmer, E. F. Delong, D. J. Derosier, T. O. Diener, R. Dirzo, J. E. Dixon, M. J. Donoghue, R. F. Doolittle, T. Dunne, P. R. Ehrlich, S. N. Eisenstadt, T. Eisner, K. A. Emanuel, S. W. Englander, W. G. Ernst, P. G. Falkowski, G. Feher, J. A. Ferejohn, A. Fersht, E. H. Fischer, R. Fischer, K. V. Flannery, J. Frank, P. A. Frey, I. Fridovich, C. Frieden, D. J. Futuyma, W. R. Gardner, C. J. R. Garrett, W. Gilbert, R. B. Goldberg, W. H. Goodenough, C. S. Goodman, M. Goodman, P. Greengard, S. Hake, G. Hammel, S. Hanson, S. C. Harrison, S. R. Hart, D. L. Hartl, R. Haselkorn, K. Hawkes, J. M. Hayes, B. Hille, T. Hökfelt, J. S. House, M. Hout, D. M. Hunten, I. A. Izquierdo, A. T. Jagendorf, D. H. Janzen, R. Jeanloz, C. S. Jencks, W. A. Jury, H. R. Kaback, T. Kailath, P. Kay, S. A. Kay, D. Kennedy, A. Kerr, R. C. Kessler, G. S. Khush, S. W. Kieffer, P. V. Kirch, K. Kirk, M. G. Kivelson, J. P. Klinman, A. Klug, L. Knopoff, H. Kornberg, J. E. Kutzbach, J. C. Lagarias, K. Lambeck, A. Landy, C. H. Langmuir, B. A. Larkins, X. T. Le Pichon, R. E. Lenski, E. B. Leopold, S. A. Levin, M. Levitt, G. E. Likens, J. Lippincott-Schwartz, L. Lorand, C. O. Lovejoy, M. Lynch, A. L. Mabogunje, T. F. Malone, S. Manabe, J. Marcus, D. S. Massey, J. C. McWilliams, E. Medina, H. J. Melosh, D. J. Meltzer, C. D. Michener, E. L. Miles, H. A. Mooney, P. B. Moore, F. M. M. Morel, E. S. Mosley-Thompson, B. Moss, W. H. Munk, N. Myers, G. B. Nair, J. Nathans, E. W. Nester, R. A. Nicoll, R. P. Novick, J. F. O'Connell, P. E. Olsen, N. D. Opdyke, G. F. Oster, E. Ostrom, N. R. Pace, R. T. Paine, R. D. Palmiter, J. Pedlosky, G. A. Petsko, G. H. Pettengill, S. G. Philander, D. R. Piperno, T. D. Pollard, P. B. Price, Jr., P. A. Reichard, B. F. Reskin, R. E. Ricklefs, R. L. Rivest, J. D. Roberts, A. K. Romney, M. G. Rossmann, D. W. Russell, W. J. Rutter, J. A. Sabloff, R. Z. Sagdeev, M. D. Sahlins, A. Salmond, J. R. Sanes, R. Schekman, J. Schellnhuber, D. W. Schindler, J. Schmitt, S. H. Schneider, V. L. Schramm, R. R. Sederoff, C. J. Shatz, F. Sherman, R. L. Sidman, K. Sieh, E. L. Simons, B. H. Singer, M. F. Singer, B. Skyrms, N. H. Sleep, B. D. Smith, S. H. Snyder, R. R. Sokal, C. S. Spencer, T. A. Steitz, K. B. Strier, T. C. Südhof, S. S. Taylor, J. Terborgh, D. H. Thomas, L. G. Thompson, R. T. TJian, M. G. Turner, S. Uyeda, J. W. Valentine, J. S. Valentine, J. L. van Etten, K. E. van Holde, M. Vaughan, S. Verba, P. H. von Hippel, D. B. Wake, A. Walker, J. E. Walker, E. B. Watson, P. J. Watson, D. Weigel, S. R. Wessler, M. J. West-Eberhard, T. D. White, W. J. Wilson, R. V. Wolfenden, J. A. Wood, G. M. Woodwell, H. E. Wright, Jr., C. Wu, C. Wunsch, M. L. Zoback
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: petergleick@pacinst.org
Notes 1. The signatories are all members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences but are not speaking on its behalf. 2. Signatory affiliations are available as supporting material at www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/328/5979/689/DC1.
I can't help noticing the image they chose to place next the letter posted on their site.
A Drowning Polar Bear Image really makes me think that this is real scientific and without an agenda.
I wonder about the source of the paycheck these "scientists" enjoy.
These idiots should realize that what we’re criticizing is fraud and science with a political agenda!
I’m sure we on the other side can put together a rebuttal letter with even more names on it.
Here is a sample:
M. L. Zoback —>> He is a geologist with no background in climate science. Yet I do note that he has signed on to many science papers relating to climate history as it relates to Geology. I am sure he knows his contribution is valid and reputable even though is co-author’s aren’t. He wouldn’t know any better.
C. Wunsch —>> http://puddle.mit.edu/~cwunsch/ His site is full of Propaganda for Climate Change, definitely an advocate.
Don't talk down to us, dickheads. The next wave of politicians we elect is going to be specifically instructed to cancel your grants. You'll be lucky to find jobs teaching Earth Science in Nebraska.
This is about as unscientific a letter as I’ve ever seen.
There is scant evidence that;
1. the Earth is warming
2. Man is causing it, or
3. ANY of the proposed “solutions” will work to relieve the problem.
Haven’t these guys ever heard of the work of Edward Lorenz?
How can we take these supposed “Professional Scientists” seriously when such an over the top image is posted right next to the story.
OMG, The Polar Bears are going to die. Blah Blah Blah!
Here is a real scientist Lord Monckton’s testimony in Congress on May 6th!
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/testimony_of_the_viscount_monckton_of_brenchley_before_congress_may_6_2010/
Correct. The fact is that almost all “scientists” are government employees or get their money from the government. You either promote the party line or you lose funding. It’s very similar to the so-called “diversity studies” where liberal cities use statistics to prove that they are racist, and therefore in need of racial preference programs. If you are a government scientist, you start with the conclusion, and you look for evidence to support it. For example, if you are associated with the environmental fraud movement, you assume that the entire earth’s surface is habitat for an “endangered” species, you go out and find a species somewhere in the vicinity of the area that you are trying to block anything from happening, and you designate that species as “endangered” and the area as “habitat”. I have witnessed this very thing on many occasions.
They’re feeling the “heat”!
P. H. Gleick, co-founder and president of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security in Oakland, California. http://www.pacinst.org/about_us/staff_board/gleick/
R. M. Adams Professor Emeritus Distinguished Fellow of the American Agricultural Economics Association Oregon State University http://arec.oregonstate.edu/faculty2/adams.html
R. M. Amasino Howard Hughes Medical Institute Professor U of Wisconsin http://www.biochem.wisc.edu/faculty/amasino/publications.aspx
I have noticed a pattern of this too.
Teachers, Professors, Scientists, and Politions in an unholy alliance.
What happened to the days of Scientists seeking knowledge without an agenda to stamp out opposition to their theory in the public. If they were concerned only with their quest for knowledge and not establishing control over a population, they wouldn’t have to care what we think.
Once their research and proof got better, we would eventually be convinced. But no, they had to come out and join the political movement. How much real science is going on when they are involved in petty politics.
They need to knock of the advocacy.
Wow ... those are just the first three. I see a trend developing. Possibly a straight line trend.
Look in the mirror, Pal ... "projection" is a theory, isn't it?
P. H. Gleick, co-founder and president of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security in Oakland, California. http://www.pacinst.org/about_us/staff_board/gleick/
Check this out
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/gleick/index?
He is a Huffington Post Poster.
That makes me think that he is a trustworthy scientist/sarc
I did the ones in Arizona.
Luc E. Anselin, Arizona State University, School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. He is an expert in the field of “spatial econometrics”, which is, as far as I can tell, is applying economics statistics to geography. In other words, he doesn’t know diddly squat about climate or weather. Gave over $750 to Obama campaign, and $1000 to other Democrats. He is from Belgium.
Donald M. Hunten, University of Arizona, is actually a retired planetary atmospheric scientist, mostly dealing in other planets.
Brian Al Larkins, University of Arizona, a Botanist. His research interest is molecular and cellular aspects of seed development. In other words, the only things he knows about climate or weather is the best conditions to germinate seeds.
Yea, most of these people have not enough background to realize they have been hijacked by the Green Commies. I suspect most of these people are good people, but they are believers. They have been sold this theory and are now invested in it.
?Isn’t this illegal?
Gave over $750 to Obama campaign, and $1000 to other Democrats. He is from Belgium.
J. Lippincott-Schwartz is a bio-med scientist
This statement is psycho-babble. Our planet has experienced climate change since its inception billions of years ago.
Scientific evidence supports the hypothesis that climate change on Earth is caused primarily by the Sun.
There is simply no scientific basis for claiming that the recent global warming was caused by mankind, especially by carbon dioxide emissions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.