Appeal to U.S. Gov. to address climate change by 1700 scientists?

Question

1,700 scientists and economists, with expertise relevant to our understanding of the scientific and economic dimensions of climate change, its impacts, and solutions, have sent an appeal to the u.s. gov. to take the lead in fighting global warming.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/scientists-and-economists.html

Answer 1

It's another piece of evidence to add to the pile supporting the scientific consensus on AGW.  Here is the key component:

"Endorser Criteria: Ph.D. or doctoral candidate professionals with expertise relevant to our understanding of the scientific and economic dimensions of climate change, its impacts, and solutions."

Inevitably the 'skeptics' will compare this to the Oregon Petition (in fact, one already did).  The Oregon Petition only got 9,000 PhD signatures in every single scientific field that exists.  This list got 1,700 PhD (or PhD candidate) signatures in a field relevant to climate science or economics.  

Take note, 'skeptics' - that's the kind of endorser criteria that actually means something.  People who have expertise in the field.

Answer 2

This move is as self-serving as anything, and doesn't serve to impress me much.  It reduces the dialogue to a rather sophomoric 'look how many scientists we have in our camp,' and tends to confuse the public.

I've been wary of this group.  I think this is as much a calculated move to increase their public profile as anything.  How many news sources carried this news?  I searched on Yahoo just now, and nothing came up.

I wish this appeal felt more genuine, I wish more people could realize how many scientists support the concept of global climate change.

That said, I think the U.S. has little choice put to step up on this.  There may be a bit of a ripple effect emanating from this call.  I hope so.

Answer 3

It is only 1,700 fools!

Answer 4

It is hard to be patient but history shows that when important events are pressing, the right thing gets done. That doesn't mean that the people can sit back and expect it to be taken care of. As always, your involvement and decision to do the correct thing, in this case limiting environmental inputs that are causing changes and control on squandering resources/ supporting useless consumption, is how changes eventually happen. The word will spread and understanding will be at hand. Like an elephant, change is slow in the world of people, but as the elephant picks up speed, best to get out of the way as she isn't about to stop to quickly.

Answer 5

Interesting how the 1700 list their affiliations, degrees and fields of study.   I hope congress and the president respond.  It will likely have to wait until after the elections though, but the timing of the release is great - move the issue to the front of the line if possible for the presidential campaign.

I agree with you heretic that everybody should address the issue.  I think scientist (geologist, climatologist, ecologist types) and economist are the important players because these are the folks who have the expertise to know the physics behind AGW, the impacts on climate, the impacts on ecosystems (human food supply included), and the potential effects of doing nothing vs taking some kind of action.  Most laymen would not know this and it takes years of training and education to examine a problem of this complexity.

Oxl- need to look at the sources.  The Union of Concerned Sceintist has been around for a couple of decades. Research the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and see what you get.  How many of the "scientist"} actually know anything about the subject?  Is there any kind of affiliations listed and expertise list or is it just whoever they could get to sign.  How many Nobel laureates, etc.  How many of the names on the bogus petition (the one with 31,000 signatures) are even correct?  That was just an Exxon propaganda campaign.

Answer 6

There is no 'consensus' on global warming.

In December 2007 a report was presented to the US Senate  in which over 400 eminent scientists from around the world disputed global warming claims. This should be essential reading for anyone who wants to know the truth.

The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore.

Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC;  the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Stockholm University; University of Melbourne; Columbia University; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London.

You can find the report here; At least read the introductory sections

thttp://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?F...

Proponents of man-made global warming like to note how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements endorsing the so-called "consensus" view that man is driving global warming. But both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the "consensus" statements. This report gives a voice to the rank-and-file scientists who were shut out of the process.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?F...

Answer 7

More than 31,000 scientists, including 9000 PhD's claim that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane are actually beneficial for the environment.

Answer 8

OMG, is Inhofe behind this, doing it to discredit people who believe climate science?

One of the Exxon-funded groups has to be behind this, to make the Oregon Petition look slightly less silly.

Edit -

Yes... there's someone in a junk science boiler room right now, banging their head aganist the table crying, "DRAT, they've figured it out!  We'll just have to try something else..."

(As for the American thing, I am dating a Brit... do you think I may have caught something?)

I'm surprised that the Union of Concerned Scientists would go public with something like this with less than 10,000 signatures (to better oppse the 31,000 pointless ones from a purely political count standponit), but I suppose they have to actually collect the signatures.

Answer 9

Why is it that Europeans remain so ignorant of history and science and yet pretend to be well informed?  It is literally mind boggling to me.  It doesn't take that much effort to inform themselves, yet they insist on remaining blissfully ignorant of the harmful effects of socialism every time it is tried.  It seems to be the British way to stoical take all sorts of punishment and abuse in stride but why they foist this upon themselves is a mystery to me.  Even assuming Global warming were harmful and caused by man, the assumption that government will cure it is the height of folly IMO.  Fool you once, that is understandable, fool you over and over again, well what can I say?  I can only conclude you enjoy being fooled.