99 PER CENT OF SCIENTISTS? SCEPTICAL SCIENTISTS REVOLT
We often read statements such as:“All science academies support the notion of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.” In fact position statements about climate change from science academies and associations are usually made without debate or consultation with the wider membership.
But now there’s a revolt from the members:
So what happens when it is revealed to the membership that their organisation has issued an alarmist statement as if it represented the views of all members?
Members of the London Geological Society expressed their views in no uncertain terms in letters to the Editor of their journal.
For instance, LGS member Clive Randle (FGS) said: “I am not a denier that Climate Change has existed throughout the Earth’s history and is apparently taking place but I do question the sole focus on Anthropogenic Global Warming as being the cause.”…
Britain’s Royal Society shifted its position on climate change in 2010 away from total support of the IPCC toward expressing much more uncertainty.
In fact a review of the Royal Society’s initial position was forced on the society by 43 of its Fellows who demanded that its publication Climate Change Controversies, produced in 2007 and published on its website, should be rewritten to consider more rational views.
In a statement about global warming, the Royal Society now says: “There remains the possibility that hitherto unknown aspects of the climate and climate change could emerge and lead to significant modifications in our understanding.”…
The Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) was formed in 1980 from the merger of the Chemical Society, the Royal Institute of Chemistry, the Faraday Society and the Society for Analytical Chemistry.
Society Fellow, Dr. Leslie Woodcock told the Yorkshire Evening Post: “If you talk to real scientists who have no political interests, they will tell you there is nothing in global warming. It’s an industry which creates vast amounts of money for some people.”
The US National Academy of Sciences…, through its executive, it urged the government to take drastic action by raising the cost of coal and oil to slow (imaginary) global warming…
In a 2012 interview with John Humphrys (BBC Radio 4 Today program) the NAS president Dr. Ralph Cicerone appeared to soften his alarmist stance. He was asked:
“You’re not saying – if we don’t do these things, we’re going to go to hell in a handbasket, we’re going to fry, in a few years.”
He cautiously backtracked: “No. I don’t think it’s useful, I don’t think it gets us anywhere, and we don’t have that kind of evidence.”
In 2009, the American Physical Society (APS) Council decided to review its current climate statement when more than 250 of its membership urged a change to the APS climate statement.
Many physicists wrote to the APS governing board, pointing out: “Measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th – 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today.”…
Dr. Judith Curry sent the following message to the APS Panel on Public Affairs (POPA): “No one cares about your political preferences in the climate change debate. You have demonstrated that you bring nothing intellectually to the table (once Koonin and Rosner left). You simply have no business issuing a policy statement on climate change. You have embarrassed the APS membership.”…
A statement by APS editor Jeffrey Marque explains: “There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution.”
The American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) has made its position clear: “Geologists study the history of the earth and realize climate has changed often in the past due to natural causes. The earth’s climate naturally varies continually, in both directions, at varying rates, and on many scales. In recent decades global temperatures have risen. However, our planet has been far warmer and cooler today than many times in the geologic past, even within the past 10,000 years.” …
The American Chemical Society (ACS) considers itself to be the world’s largest scientific society. In 2009, skeptical members of the ACS openly revolted against the ACS Editor in Chief, Rudy Baum with many ACS scientists demanding he be removed after he promoted, without due consultation, the position that: “The science of anthropogenic climate change is becoming increasingly well established.”…
A survey of members, published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society found that 50% disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement: “Most of the warming since 1950 is likely human induced.”
In fact only 8% strongly agreed…
In 2015 The French Mathematical Society (Société de Calcul Mathématique) released a comprehensive 2-part document arguing against the meme of dangerous anthropogenic global warming, stating:… “There is not a single fact, figure or observation that leads us to conclude that the world’s climate is in any way disturbed – It is variable, as it has always been, but rather less so now than during certain periods or geological eras.”
In 2012 the German Academy of Sciences and Engineering rejected the notion of climate catastrophe and stated that coping with climate change would not pose any difficult challenges. In a study commissioned by the German Federal Government, Acatech President Dr. Reinhard Hüttl said: “No climate conditions are going to occur here that already do not exist on the globe elsewhere and that we cannot cope with.”…
In 2009 the Polish Academy of Sciences (PAS)produced a report that pointed to the IPCC’s position on catastrophic anthropogenic global warming as becoming increasingly untenable. The Geologic Science Committee of the PAS reported: “Experiments in natural science show that one-sided observations, those that take no account of the multiplicity of factors determining certain processes in the geo-system, lead to unwarranted simplifications and wrong conclusions when trying to explain natural phenomena.”
In 2007 the Royal Belgian Weather Institute concluded that carbon dioxide could never play the decisive role that is currently attributed to it.
Climate scientist Dr. Luc Debontridder said:“Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It is responsible for at least 75 % of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore’s movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it.”…
The Russian Academy of Science completely rejects the notion of anthropogenic global warming, predicting that: “In the coming years the temperature over the entire planet will fall.”
A Japanese Geoscience Union symposium survey in 2008 “showed 90 per cent of the participants did not believe the IPCC report.” Dr. Akasofu, Kusano and Dr. Maruyama state that large influences on global climate over time may be global cosmic rays and solar activity…
In 2013, … a group of 20 ex-NASA retirees (calling themselves The Right Climate Stuff TRCS team) reported that the science used to support the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming meme is not settled and no convincing physical evidence exists to support catastrophic forecasts. They state:“There is no convincing physical evidence of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. Most of the alarm regarding AGW results from output of unvalidated computer models.”
In 2008 A survey of more than 51,000 scientists from the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta, Canada(APEGGA) found 68% of them disagreed with the statement that: “The science is settled.”
In 1991, a survey of U.S. atmospheric scientists confirmed that there is no consensus about the cause of the slight warming observed during the past century. They pointed to sunspot variability, rather than anthropogenic carbon dioxide, as being responsible for the global temperature fluctuations recorded since the 1800’s.
The Geological Society of Australia’s president Dr. Laurie Hutton said the society was unable to produce a definitive statement on climate since the issue: “had the potential to be too divisive and would not serve the best interests of the society as a whole.”
The Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering objected to the alarmist statements made by its president, Australia’s former chief scientist, Dr. Robin Batterham.
Members of the AATSE objected to alarmist claims by the academy executive. Rather they wanted to make their position clear along the lines that: “The academy does not believe the science is settled regarding climate change.”
And: “Many scientists believed climate changes are nothing unusual, based on past geological records.”
This is a very marked revolt, and puts the lie to the “99 per cent of climate scientists” meme that journalists run with.
(Thanks to Professor Frank.)