Welcome to my blog and thanks for the hat tip. I'll add it to the list A.S.A.P. Lists like this are of great value as it lists the scientists *by name*. Libertarians generally have a strong distrust of large organizations. A petition signed by 100 individual scientists would mean a lot more to a libertarian than 1 governmental organization representing 300 scientists.
Very worthwhile. As an editing tip you might like to lose the "(sic)" after the word "recognise" - there may be other examples like this in your list too - because your anticipated reader probably ought to know enough to expect (UK) English spelling from a UK society.
Some other institutions you may want to add to the consensus list;
ExxonMobil's response to the 4th IPCC
"Since the Third Assessment Report in 2001 the number of relevant studies has increased substantially. There is increasing evidence that changes in the earth's climate over the last century have had a discernible influence on many physical and biological systems. Results from climate models and scenarios of future society indicate that future climate change could have wide-ranging affects on water availability, ecosystems, food production, coastal zones and society. These studies assume that no actions are taken to mitigate or adapt to future changes.
Because the risks to society and ecosystems could prove to be significant, ExxonMobil believes that it is prudent now to develop and implement global strategies that address the risks, keeping in mind the central importance of energy to the economies of the world. This includes putting policies in place that start us on a path to reduce emissions, while understanding the context of managing carbon emissions among other important world priorities, such as economic development, poverty eradication and public health."
Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)
"The IPCC confirmed that human activity has increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, including carbon dioxide – in 2007 at its highest level for 650 000 years.
The presence of such high concentrations of greenhouse gases is altering the Earth’s climate, raising temperatures and impacting on the landscape."
http://www.csiro.au/science/ps38v.html
(I cut the links in half and put the latter half on the next line because it seemed in preview the longish ones would be cut off)
Excellent resource for this strand of the debate. Please keep it updated.
here's a couple more: Chevron: http://www.willyoujoinus.com/issues/environment/?s=section3 (points at various places, and they do seem to actually mean it.)
Shell Oil: (more): Lord Ron Oxburgh was Chairman for a while: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20050126/ai_n9693285 Shell boss warns of global warming `disaster'
George Bush!! (Well, George H. W. Bush), in 1989: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=17765
Great resource for helping to convince the uneducated. The AGU has updated it's position and made it stronger and you need to update your link to this statement.
The mission of Logical Science is to defend mainstream science. We will do this by exposing how poorly it is portrayed by the mass media and documenting the war on science that industrial and special interest groups have been waging to promote their ideology. Another defensive strategy is to discuss supporting evidence and technologies that will help people adapt. To avoid being a monomaniac some scientific "fun stuff" will be added to spice up the blog. I'm a computational biologist that believes anyone with a high school degree, an open mind and a little time on their hands can understand the science and see just how bad the misinformation is. If I am doing my job correctly, you don't have to believe me, because you can always check the references. I don't want people to have to believe me, because that's not what science is about. You should look at the facts and draw your own conclusions.
7 comments:
Andrew Dessler points me to the recent unanimous statement of Texas A&M University's renowned meteorology/oceanography faculty here.
Tobis,
Welcome to my blog and thanks for the hat tip. I'll add it to the list A.S.A.P. Lists like this are of great value as it lists the scientists *by name*. Libertarians generally have a strong distrust of large organizations. A petition signed by 100 individual scientists would mean a lot more to a libertarian than 1 governmental organization representing 300 scientists.
I beleive that it is best to seek out facts and to distinguish these from the 'other stuff'.
I am seeking definitive information on the following:
Why we are not now entering a new ice age period - or are we?
Very worthwhile. As an editing tip you might like to lose the "(sic)" after the word "recognise" - there may be other examples like this in your list too - because your anticipated reader probably ought to know enough to expect (UK) English spelling from a UK society.
Best wishes!
Some other institutions you may want to add to the consensus list;
ExxonMobil's response to the 4th IPCC
"Since the Third Assessment Report in 2001 the number of relevant studies has increased substantially. There is increasing evidence that changes in the earth's climate over the last century have had a discernible influence on many physical and biological systems. Results from climate models and scenarios of future society indicate that future climate change could have wide-ranging affects on water availability, ecosystems, food production, coastal zones and society. These studies assume that no actions are taken to mitigate or adapt to future changes.
Because the risks to society and ecosystems could prove to be significant, ExxonMobil believes that it is prudent now to develop and implement global strategies that address the risks, keeping in mind the central importance of energy to the economies of the world. This includes putting policies in place that start us on a path to reduce emissions, while understanding the context of managing carbon emissions among other important world priorities, such as economic development, poverty eradication and public health."
http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/
news_statements_20070406_climateipcc2.aspx
And similar (Europe) - this seems to be the definitive statement on climate change.
http://www.exxonmobileurope.com/
Europe-English/Citizen/Eu_VP_climate.asp
Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)
"The IPCC confirmed that human activity has increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, including carbon dioxide – in 2007 at its highest level for 650 000 years.
The presence of such high concentrations of greenhouse gases is altering the Earth’s climate, raising temperatures and impacting on the landscape."
http://www.csiro.au/science/ps38v.html
(I cut the links in half and put the latter half on the next line because it seemed in preview the longish ones would be cut off)
Excellent resource for this strand of the debate. Please keep it updated.
Barry.
Great resource.
here's a couple more:
Chevron:
http://www.willyoujoinus.com/issues/environment/?s=section3
(points at various places, and they do seem to actually mean it.)
Shell Oil: (more):
Lord Ron Oxburgh was Chairman for a while:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20050126/ai_n9693285
Shell boss warns of global warming `disaster'
George Bush!! (Well, George H. W. Bush), in 1989:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=17765
Great resource for helping to convince the uneducated. The AGU has updated it's position and made it stronger and you need to update your link to this statement.
Post a Comment