50,000 Scientists Change Their Minds On Climate Change, Why?

Question

In 2003 the American Geophysical Union (AGU), the world's largest society of Earth scientists representing 50,000 members, called for further study to understand climate change.

On 24/01/08 the AGU issued a follow-up statement stating its conclusions.

The AGU says it now believes that recent changes in climate are attributable to human activity, that the changes to Earth’s climate system were "best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of GHG’s generated by human activities in the 20th Century".

‘The organization, also states that the world would need to cut emissions of greenhouse gases by more than 50 percent to avoid warming the planet by 2 degrees Celsius, a level at which substantial disruptions would take place.’

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7207335.stm

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/2008-03.html

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=geophysicists-urge-steep-cuts-in-greenhouse-gases

http://chronicle.com/news/article/3799/the-warning-from-50000-scientists-ear

Answer 1

Because science is really all about changing your mind as new data comes in.  The only people who DON'T change their minds are ideologues like George W. Bush and religious fanatics Pat Robertson.

Answer 2

there are two very simple and obvious things to keep in mind when talking about climate change.

         1.  we as a species have not been keeping records long enough to know for a fact what kind of cycles the earth has.



          2. Politics

Answer 3

wormwar1, what are your qualifications to define 'real' science?

Just interested.

eastanglian, can you share your sources?

cdall, we actually have records in the form of ice cores and deep ocean sediments going back millions of years.

Answer 4

It seems to me that it's most likely that they've been arm-twisted into agreeing with everyone else.  Either that or get frozen out of the rest of the world.

It still doesn't mean that everyone else is right though, just bullies.

Maybe Al Gore has some influential friends!

Answer 5

Scientists new a hundred years ago that global warming caused by human activity was a possibility, just because its taken a hundred years for people to admit it does not mean scientists keep changing their mind, it is more to do with politics.

Answer 6

They were threatened [yep it's true :-)... look it up in wikipedia]

Answer 7

Two factors.

1) The evidence is even more clear and overwhelming now than it was 4 years ago

2) Much more attention has been brought to the topic in recent years, and thus the membership has had the time to become more knowledgeable of the science.

It was around 2003, when my boss (a very smart Physicist) brought it to my own attention.  Prior to that, I'd heard about it a few times, but was ignorant of any scientific facts supporting it.

Answer 8

You might start by reading the Intro and first chapter of  this book: Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years.

It is written by a few of the climate scientists who developed the  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report that Al Gore refers to often. The policy 'reviewers' changed the conclusions of the scientists before the IPCC report was published. Why would the policy makers want to change the conclusions of scientists?

Interesting that Al Gore's net worth has grown by $180M since 2001. Why was he not so outspoken when he was VP?

It appears that in this case, the UN is trying to politicize science. They have drawn the conclusions and are working to get scientist to provide support. The net is more dollars from us, while China and others continue pumping not only CO2, but lots of other stuff into the air. In Beijing on a weekday, you can look at the sun on a 'clear' day and it does not hurt your eyes.

We should be good stewards of our atmosphere, and the air in the US has been getting cleaner since the mid 70's when the US legislated restrictions. The environmental restrictions under Pres. Bush are much more restrictive than under Clinton. There is still much hypocrisy such as California's government who commissioned a coal power plant to be built in Wyoming so California could say they are not building new coal plants within the state. We (the US) continue to build coal plants because the green folks have lobbied against nuclear plants. We could be using either nuclear or solar to change things but groups like the Sierra Club prevent them but allow coal plants. Hypocrisy....

Answer 9

I don't understand the signifigance of your question.

One would hope that every year our understanding is better than before. Why query that ?

I was under the impression that GW awareness began 20+ years ago. Maybe the number of people listening was low though. I certainly noticed milder climates in my town over 20 years ago. (Been here 30.)

Oh I get it now - you don't want to be told not to squander your resources.  Its not important that your grandchildren will be living in caves. That's if you survive this year's economic melt-down.

Answer 10

The best info source is the scientists who resigned.

They resigned cos data was falsified to create the GW myth.

Greenland Ice sheet is thicker.

Antarctica is Colder

Central heating raises weather stations temps in all cities.

Outside cities, some places are colder over 100 years.

For 20 years when CO2 went down, temp ROSE !

Man creates 0.5 percent of GLOBAL CO2

10 % reduction by man = .05 % global reduction.

Endless mis information

Why we ask !

Answer 11

Can I see the results of the poll?  What percentage of its members agree?  If the world has to cut emissions by 50%, and developing countries do not have to abide by them, by how should the developing countries cut emissions?  And what effect will that have on the economies?

Answer 12

Looks like someone needs more grant money. They must have realized that it's better to go along with the hoax than to stick with real science.

Answer 13

where is a list of theses 50,000 scientists

i do not believe they exist.  the tree huggers have been pulling this for years

they make claims of a large number of scientist support global warming but when we try to find a list of these scientists we can not find them

making a claim that is based on a membership list is a bogus claim.

environmental movement has been making these bogus claims for 40 years.

i could as a retired mine superintendent join this group

in mining you work with geophysics. and i do not have a degrees in any field related to geophysics

this claim is a bogus claim and just the type that the treehuggers have been making for years

50,000 MEMBERS DOES NOT MEAN 50,000 SCIENTISTS

PLUS IT DOES NOT MEAN THEY KNOW ANY THING ABOUT CLIMATOLOGY.

I AM A MEMBER OF THE SOCIETY OF MANUFACTURING ENGINEERS. (SME)

AND THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF EXPLOSIVES ENGINEERS (ISSE)

I DO NOT HAVE A DEGREE IN THE ENGINEERING FIELD.

YET I  HAVE WORKED IN IN MANUFACTURING AND AS A BLASTER.

This qualifies me for membership

Answer 14

Tim

One problem with global warming is that the concept is so vague in the minds of the people. The critical interpretation is basically how it’s explained in school and the news. However most of the public see global warming connected with the ozone and pollutants which cause harmful greenhouse gasses, etc. therefore investigating and fighting for things like alternative energy (ie. Solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol, biodiesel, etc)

Greenhouse gases are real and do contribute to global warming. Think of the different gas layers like ozone (o3) that circumference the globe as the clear plastic on a greenhouse. Longer rays of light from the Sun go in and reflect off different thermal masses bouncing back and creating shorter lengths of energy that cannot exist the plastic barrier. These beams then just continue to bounce around inside the green house until they’re finally absorbed completely (some do escape but very few), thereby warming the greenhouse greatly even in cold temperatures.

Basically there are 2 ways that this reaction (or lack of) affects the planet. Global warming and global cooling.

1. as we add to the gases in the stratosphere, where the ozone layer is (Carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, etc), we add to the plastic of the greenhouse, trapping more short wave length energy and heating the earth more.

2. as we deplete the ozone (with chlorofluorocarbons or CFCs), we allow more long wave length energy, which bounces back out to space without heating any thermal masses on earth, thereby cooling the planet.

It’s pretty easy to see the results..

Melting ice sheets & glaciers

Floods & droughts

Great hurricanes & cyclones

Seasonal extremes

Seasonal phenomena’s

Species extinction

New & resurgent diseases

There are many ways to stop both global warming and cooling from accruing or at least slow them down until we can discover a way to reverse it, but Stop burning fossil fuels is the biggest.

I currently own 2 converted h2 vehicles which run on 100% hydrogen and 1 EV (electric vehicle), not to mention our home is completely off the grid, using alternative energy (solar, wind, etc)

If you interested in DIY alternative fuels / energy info, or step by step guides to walk you threw Green living do a google search for agua-luna alternative energy

Hope this helped, feel free to contact me personally if you have any questions,

Dan Martin

Retired Boeing Engineer now living 100% Off-the-Grid with my family, using Alternative Energy & loving every minute.

for more info visit agua-luna com

Answer 15

Because, in the 5 years, the evidence has become undeniable.

MONTEE - You need an example other than Pat Robertson.  Even he accepts it these days.

Pat Robertson (very conservative Christian leader) "It is getting hotter and the ice caps are melting and there is a build up of carbon dioxide in the air.  We really need to do something on fossil fuels.”