Can anyone name a major scientific organization that says the current global warming isn't real or is natural?

Question

These say it's real and mostly caused by us.

The National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Institute of Physics, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Association, etc.

Answer 1

Bob, easy... The answer is there are NONE.

I've been pointing this out for years...

"No remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_... (that being some proof, too bad people are too stubborn or dillusional for that to mean anything).

I saw that Dana beat me to the answer this time (good job Dana), but that's the short of it, it's not necessary to meniton the last major scientific organization that decented and reversed their position.

--------------------------------

I'm glad to see you guys use this kind of information which should be putting an end to this ridiculousness that global warming is somehow a hoax or something.

In any case, I know you guys hate it when I go on and on but I'm going to again, this time because of 'Liss's comment, I feel I have to address this nonsense that there are any scientific organizations that support the myth, that Global Warming is a myth... So this is to her and her skeptic buddies... (I'll shorten my answer later)...

Liss -

Well first of all, Bob asked for 'Major Scientific Organizations' not Prominent Global Warming Skeptics Organizations or ExxonMobil think tanks which is the direction you went in here.

Also, you said of the Questioner - Bob... "He's just a sheep following paid organizations blindly."

lol... I have to laugh because that's pretty funny, seeing that actually described you (not Bob) to a 'T'. All the sources you provided are intimately linked to ExxonMobil. I can see you know... worshipping the likes of Sean Hannity on the Fox News Channel, and then you come on here calling other people sheep. LMAO

I'm surprised you didn't name CEI along with those (Competitive Enterprise Institute). Why didn't you? They are all more or less one in the same, don't they deserve a mention? CEI is best know for their television and youtube spots over the years promoting carbon 'Carbon - We call it life' and criticizing Al Gore for having a large home and using jets, to get from city to city, etc as well as his film and award (all right up your alley, am I wrong?). All stupid arguments but effective for people like you who are actually distracted from the 'facts' by silliness like that. Gore for example needs to get from place to place to get the ball rolling everywhere. He buys carbon credits (money goes towards things which help to reduce the world's carbon footprint such as re-forestation projects) to offset any part of his personal carbon footprint unlike nearly 99.99999% of the rest of the people in the world. Also, no one deines that carbon is essential to life, but CO2, the gas made from carbon, acts as a GHG (Green House Gas) and when there is 'too much' or not enough, it can have a profound impact on our climate. A third of the CO2 in the world's atmosphere today has been put there by humans, taken from buried fossil fuels... meaning, it didn't not exist in our CO2 cycle naturally 200 years ago... we put it there, and very quickly on the geological timescale, and we're still introducing much more every single day - which is why there are so many people urgently trying to do something about it.

BTW - You also forgot to mention Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM), Cooler Heads Coalition and the Greening Earth Society (GES) - Incidentally, GES was founded on Earth Day 1998 by the 'Western Fuels Association' to promote the view that increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 are good for humanity. LMAO - it's so funny how corrupt people are and how people will believe anything powerful figures will tell them (proven by Milgram's Experiment - Milgram http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_exp...

The NCPA - That's really funny. First of all, that is not a scientific 'organization' at all, let alone a major one. None of the ExxonMobil funded think thanks you listed are. There are no major scientific institutions that fail to support the evidence of the present climate change influenced by human activities.

As for Fredrick Singer, can you possibly find anyone any more biased? He has been paid to support companies who made DDT, cigarettes and so on, Singer is considered a traitor for hire (literally - why do you think the oil companies hire him? It's because of his 'Big Tobacco' tactics that they also use - and people like you fall for) in the science field and when he's not selling out for money, he works on projects promoting himself and has often written for the Wall Street Journal and other publications speaking out again Kyoto and sounding off again and again that global warming isn't real and doing anything about it will hurt our economy, etc. (yeah, he'll be looked at as a real hero a hundred years form now - not!). Singer along with some others like him should be considered public enemy #1 right up there with Osama Bin Laden, Phillip Cooney, d**k Cheney, Fred Smith, Sylvan Wittwer, Frederick Seitz and Myron Ebell to name but a few. http://www.desmogblog.com/search/node/no...

Singer himself is a major supporter of coal, oil and gas and a major advocate of ideas like drilling in Alaska. The only alternative energy he supports and speaks highly about is nuclear energy. http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Heidelberg-App...

In a February 2001 letter to the Washington Post, Singer denied receiving funding from the oil industry, except for consulting work some 20 years prior. SEPP, however, received multiple grants from ExxonMobil, including 1998 and 2000. In addition, Singer's current CV on the SEPP website states that he served as a consultant to several oil companies. The organizations Singer has recently been affiliated with - Frontiers of Freedom, ACSH, NCPA, etc. - have received generous grants from Exxon on an annual basis. Singer Letter to the Editor -Washington Post February 12, 2001 It is ironic that the attempt by two environmental activists to misrepresent my credentials [letters, Feb. 6] coincides with a sustained cold spell in the United States that set a 100-year record. As for full disclosure: My resume clearly states that consulted for several oil companies on the subject of oil pricing, some 20 years ago, after publishing a monograph on the subject. My connection to oil during the past decade is as a Wesson Fellow at the Hoover Institution; the Wesson money derives from salad oil. Singer is listed as a $500 plus contributor to the Center for Individual Rights. Singer's publications include "The Scientific Case Against the Global Climate Treaty" (SEPP, 1997), "Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate" (The Independent Institute, 1997) Singer signed the Leipzig Declaration.

National Center for Policy Analysis has received $465,900 (on the books) from ExxonMobil since 1998.

1998

$65,900 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving

Source: ExxonMobil 1998 grants list

2000

$30,000 ExxonMobil Foundation

Source: ExxonMobil Foundation 2000 IRS 990

2001

$40,000 ExxonMobil Foundation

Source: ExxonMobil 2001 Annual Report

2002

$30,000 ExxonMobil Foundation

Source: ExxonMobil 2002 Annual Report

2003

$75,000 ExxonMobil Foundation

Source: ExxonMobil 2003 Corporate Giving Report

2004

$75,000 ExxonMobil Foundation

Source: Exxon Giving Report 2004

2005

$75,000 ExxonMobil Foundation

Source: ExxonMobil 2005 DIMENSIONS Report (Corporate Giving)

2006

$75,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving

Source: ExxonMobil Corporate Giving Report 2006

George C Marshall Institute

Founded in 1984, The George Marshall Institute primarily focused on defense issues, advocating funding for Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative and Star Wars. GMI has since branched out and is one of the leading think tanks trying to debunk climate change.

The Institute is partially supported by the Exxon Education Foundation and American Standard Companies. And receives a wide-range of donations from conservitive donors, Exxon being one of the biggest.

George C. Marshall Institute has received $715,000 (on the books) from ExxonMobil since 1998.

1999

$50,000 ExxonMobil Foundation

'support for science and public policy education programs'

Source: ExxonMobil Foundation 1999 IRS 990

2000

$50,000 ExxonMobil Foundation

general support

Source: ExxonMobil Foundation 2000 IRS 990

2001

$60,000 ExxonMobil Foundation

'climate change work'

Source: ExxonMobil 2001 Annual Report

2002

$80,000 ExxonMobil Foundation

'global climate change program'

Source: ExxonMobil 2002 Annual Report

2002

$10,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving

Awards Dinner

Source: ExxonMobil 2002 Annual Report

2003

$95,000 ExxonMobil Foundation

Global Climate Change Program

Source: ExxonMobil 2003 Corporate Giving Report

2004

$25,000 Exxon Corporation

Awards Dinner -- Climate Change Activities

Source: Exxon Giving Report 2004

2004

$145,000 ExxonMobil Foundation

Climate Change

Source: Exxon Giving Report 2004

2005

$90,000 ExxonMobil Foundation

DISCREPANCY: 2005 Corporate Giving Report: General Operating Support. IRS 990 form 2005: Climate Change.

Source: ExxonMobil 2005 DIMENSIONS Report (Corporate Giving)

2005

$25,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving

Awards Dinner and General Operating Support

Source: ExxonMobil 2005 DIMENSIONS Report (Corporate Giving)

2006

$85,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving

General support and annual dinner

Source: ExxonMobil Corporate Giving Report 2006

Cont'd...

Answer 2

Exxon-Mobil.  Peabody Coal.

They employ many scientists.

Isn't it amazing that all the great scientific advances come from the private sector??!!

--------------------------------------...

Bob, I was in academia.  It was a carreer path I briefly considered.  I have a masters in mathematics and turned down fellowships for the sake of the private sector.

NOTHING  coming from academia is unbiased.  Nothing.  With VERY FEW exceptions they are all a bunch of leftists.  It was not an environment I could live in and I opted out.  The ratio of democrats to republicans in academia speaks for itself.

Answer 3

Bob, I think you are now going through your 'death throws'!

There has been more than enough information provided in the past which you refuse to believe.

To waste my time to research a few would not convince you anyway.

You claim to be a scientist, yet you don't ever seem to provide any scientific evidence, other than some websites you have found which tend to support your beliefs!

This is NOT what science is about!

If you were a true scientist, then you would accept the facts.

You would not be misled by 'gut feelings, or media hype'!

I agree with KJA63 completely.

We should all be doing as much as we can to conserve energy and resources, and protect our environment.

I also have to say that the internet is not the only place or even the best place to find information.

Some people actually are still able to read something called books.

I have to go now It looks like the postman has just shown up with my latest check from EXXON!

Answer 4

National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) has come out against global warming.  NCPA contains a number of climate change skeptics including Sherwood Idso and S. Fred Singer.

Global Climate Coalition

George Marshall Institute

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine

Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)

There you go..a few.

Riiight, I give you some, and you bat it aside.  It goes against your argument so you ignore it, just like all the rest of the Global Warming fanatics.  Selective science indeed.  I have no respect for your opinions.

By the way, only ONE of those was a think tank, the rest were organizations.  Did you read the first and assume they were all think tanks?  "You know what happens when you make an assumption.  You make an as$ out of u and umption."

(Yes I know that isn't the right way to say it, it is a movie quote "The Long Kiss Goodnight" modified for language)

Cliff:  He's just a sheep following paid organizations blindly.  "Give me something to follow," so he doesn't have to think for himself.

Answer 5

Global Warming is completely natural. It's been going on for centuries. It's not man-made. It started long before the industrial revolution.

The temperatures of the Sun and the Earth are dynamic, never constant. Not only is it natural, but it's cyclical as well.

Now, with that said, human beings have to do their part to conserve resources, recycle, compost, etc...

Answer 6

Organizations don't make climate any less certain. Organizations haven't provided any real evidence. You can name organizations all you want, that doesn't make AGW true.

And regarding the IPCC FAR, if by peer review you mean lots of people read it, then yeah, you are correct. But the difference between FAR and a real peer review process is that the authors and editors didn't have to accept any comments. And a vast majority of comments were on grammar, wording, and length. Reviewers only had to agree that the small section they reviewed was mostly correct. Editors only had to rubber stamp it. No one had to completely agree with it.

Answer 7

It wold be unscientific to say regarding a system as complex and poorly understood as the climate that human activity is absolutely definately not a factor in climate change.  Anyone examining the issue with an open mind can not completely dismiss the somewhat speclative and incomplete theories that CO2 can somehow capture significant heat and this can be considerably multiplied by various feedback mechanisms.  

Absolute statements are generally reserved for statements designed to protect the rights of certain groups of people.

Like for example, all doctors either remain silent or claim It is impossible to transfer AIDS with normal social interation including children biting each other.

However you could take a look at the New Zealand Climate Change Coalition - they seem to have a healthy scepticism on the subject.

Answer 8

Try "Friends of Science"

Answer 9

No, they can't.  They can't even name a professional engineering organization that does (not that engineers have any involvement with climate science).

KJA63 -

Yes, and past natural cycles had a cause, didn't they?  In your mind, what was the cause of many past natural climate cycles?  Scientists have determined that the worst were triggered by greenhouse gasses, CO2 from volcanoes (after the short term cooling effect of sulfate aerosols fades away) and methane from melting tundra and methane clathrates on the ocean floor.  And what happens as a result?  Sometimes nearly all life on the planet goes extinct.  That's why they warn us that we have to stop triggering this warming.  Methane levels shot up last year...  

chilebreath -

That's a really weak excuse.  If such organizations esisted, they'd be plastered all over the denialist blog Web sites.  You could look up the list in less than one minute with Google or Yahoo.  Go on, find even one...  I ahve time... really, find even a single one... no?  nothing?

You're also way off on the media.  It's well documented that the media artificially pumps up the false appearance of two sides on this topic, since even false controversy drives their profits:

The Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University, documents how the media supports the false appearance of controversy on the topic of global warming:

http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/05...

Creating controversy where science finds consensus

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1978

"A new study has found that when it comes to U.S. media coverage of global warming , superficial balance—telling "both" sides of the story—can actually be a form of informational bias."

Media False Balancing Allowed Extreme Views to be Treated Same as Scientific Consensus

http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/Gl...

Liss - S. Fred Singer?  Are you serious?  What do you think he does for a living?  Here's his CV, posted on his own Web site, go take a look:

http://www.sepp.org/about%20sepp/bios/si...

Looks to me like Singer's scientific work peaked in the 50's he was involved with the oil industry in the 70s and 80s, and for the last 16 years or so he has done no research.

Here's what he does:

"Climate skeptic S. Fred Singer founded Science and Environmental Policy Project in 1990. SEPP's mission is 'to clarify the diverse problems facing the planet and, where necessary, arrive at effective, cost-conscious solutions.'"

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfact...

Dr S Fred Singer's Science and Environmental Policy Project has received $20,000 from ExxonMobil.  

He appears to write opinion pieces for agenda-driven think tanks.  Is that what scientists do, in your opinion?

Cliff F -

You mean "throes"...

You talk about facts, but offer none.  The fact is, you could find none, so your lecture seems to be entirely about yourself.  Interesting.

Nice Lady (etc.) -

Yes, a PR war is being waged by some of the same people who successfully delayed action against the tobacco companies for years:

At Fox News, a Pundit for Hire

http://www.freepress.net/news/print.php?...

"Objective viewers long ago realized that Fox News has a political agenda. But, when a pundit promotes this agenda while on the take from corporations that benefit from it, then Fox News has gone one disturbing step further"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Mill...

You're educated and intelligent enough to dig deeper into the best possible scientific papers you can find to see if there's even a single paper that credibly contradicts global warming theory.  The Soon and Balliunas paper was flawed and resulted in much of the journal staff being fired.  Singer runs an organization that seems to do no more than publish industry-friendly articles (and accept industry funding).  Gray is a weather man.  If Hurricanes are or are not increasing due to global warming, that's all about a symptom anyway, not about whether or not it's happening or caused by man.  I propose that you can see the serious flaws in any source of skeptical information, in any "paper" they offer, in less than 5 minutes in a search engine.  Many are actually strongly supporting global warming theory, thtey are simply grossly represented by the denialist blogs (Schwartz's paper on aerosols, etc). You can track the ExxonMobil funding.  You can see the causes of past warming such as the Perrmian Triassic Extinction.  You can see the tobacco industry lobbyist front and center in the denial.  This time however, the paleontological record tells us that the consequences are much more serious (extinction of nearly all life on the planet in the case of the Permian Triassic extinction, involving a warming of only a few degrees).  You can see the detailed analysis in the State of the Carbon Cycle report, in spite of the President's public show of skepticism, and you can find the MIT report on strategy that states that the U.S. should not enter into agreements until we can bring other major emitters into the fold with us (namely China).

So why don't you educate yourself?  It really takes only a matter of seconds.

Dana's point is not scientific; it's not meant to be.  It simply shows that there's no substantive debate.  Not about the major points.  That's valuable information for the people who cannot look into and understand the scientific basis for the theory and who will never look up the credibility of the "skeptical" sources or the accuracy of their reporting either.  So unfortunately your criticism is essentially correct it misses the point and does not contradict Dana's statement that no major scientific organization doubts global warming.  

There is no scientific basis for choosing a doubtful position, and the consequences are far too grave to wait.  Since science loves challenges to theories, either of those statements would have been demonstrated in scientific papers many times over if there was any fluff in global warming theory that left a logical flaw open for attack.  I've looked.  I eagerly research all the new reports offered by the skeptical blogs.  I can't find a single shred of credible skeptical science.  You think that it it exists?  So show me.

Answer 10

The Friends of Extinct Species Society

The Cataleptic Flower Arrangers of New Zealand

The International Union of Crossing Guards

Answer 11

None exist.  The lone scientific organization to make such a claim was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPS).  You can't blame them, because their jobs depend on oil.  However, so many of their members disagreed with the association's position and were quitting because of it that the AAPS was forced to change its position.

"Prior to the adoption of this statement, the AAPG was the only major scientific organization that rejected the finding of significant human influence on recent climate, according to a statement by the Council of the American Quaternary Association. The AAPG updated its statement in part because the previous statement was "not supported by a significant number of our members and prospective members".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_...

The best the 'skeptics' can do is cite politically biased think tanks, because scientists simply don't support their position.

Answer 12

Well of course there are, but you won't hear the major media name them or give them any credit.  Does that tell you how unbalanced and twisted this issue is?

Answer 13

NO.......they are ALL out on a Limb.

none of them can produce/provide/attest to any type of Truth-ful Recording/s.

Answer 14

Wake up, U don't need some science pump up to know if it is true. Do your research and measure the green house gas . If they are not there how can it cause GW. They show where CO2 has increased 300 % now read the fine print and see what percent of the over all air it is. U will find that 300 ppm is what it is all about. Now convert that to percent of the over all air system.

Answer 15

That's a little like asking if you can name a major religion that doesn't believe in God.  I know it's not exactly the same, but your method of "truth by consensus" is not scientifically meaningful.  A majority of Icelanders (a developed country!) believe that little gnome like people run around the country pushing rocks in front of cars and essentially being pests.  They even build roads and such to not "disturb" the "hidden people" as they call them.  But their consensus doesn't make their existence fact.

I am an American Chemical Society Member, and I will never forget the Chem. Eng. News editiorial where the frustrated ACS president just simply told everyone that as far as ACS is concerned this is over, and everyone needs to shut up and accept it.

That really isn't paraphrasing much.  I know many chemists and engineers who think this is the least scientific approach to a scientific issue that they've ever seen.

Answer 16

Wow... at the very foundation of this whole ongoing "debate" is a total lack of understanding about science.

Yes, JELLO and others - I am referring to you.  I expect more because it seems that some of you who have chosen the "skeptics" approach are intelligent folks, but you're missing some key ingredients to really be credible.

First of all you fail to realize that ALL scientists are by nature "skeptics".  

Secondly, yes, scientists do not "prove" things - as JELLO always is quick to point out - there is always a degree of uncertainty... HOWEVER - that doesn't make their analyses or their methods or their BEST EDUCATED guesses based on the BEST EVIDENCE AVAILABLE any less valid.

Think of it as a scale - a scale that gets tipped one way or the other based on our understanding - and consensus.  Those of you who decry the anthro-induced global climate change link are in a tough spot.  All you really have is minority OPINIONS, sparse and hardly conclusive evidence (try the word "suggestive"), a conspiracy theory about the larger international scientific community having an agenda... ah what's the point... if you don't know what I am trying to teach you, you probably never will.

I think what is key is for some of you to understand is that you really aren't debating on the same terms as those who are inclined to believe the best available evidence we have right now.

And why not?  What's your goal?  It's bizarre.  If we all fall in step with you so called "skeptics" (and you really need to look up the definition of that word) then we do nothing.

If YOU naysayers and doubting Thomases are wrong what's the consequence?  It's tragic.

If us SHEEP are wrong what's the consequence?  A cleaner world.  Better air quality.  A less consumptive and wasteful society... hmmm...

Shouldn't that be enough for you who know the REAL TRUTH to hold your toungues and let the rest of us idiots go forward in handing the planet over to the liberals and the radical environmentalists?

Would some of you please, please for me so I can believe there is hope in the world go talk to your high school science teacher and ask them again what the scientific method is all about?

Answer 17

Why is it that you just follow what groups say?  At one time there was only one doctor who had an understanding of germs and how they transferred from one patient to other patients.  Every other doctor just dismissed germs as delusions.  Would you have believed that germs weren't real?  I'm guessing that the answer is probably so.

Group consensus doesn't make science right.  Bridges don't carry loads just because 51% of sceintist say they should.  They do so because the math is right and the effects of the variables can be calculated.  Even if only 1 person has the right calculations, the bridge will still carry the loads.

With global warming there is no calculations of the variables.  No one can say if the future will be warmer or colder.  The best any scientist can do is say that since it was warmer this year than last year, next year should be warmen than this year.

That's their guess, not proof that global warming is real.