What does the American Association for the Advancement of Science say about global warming?

[watsup]

In another thread, one of our deniers said that he “had access” to the “journal” magazine called “Science”, which is published by the AAAS as cited in the title to this thread, so since he basically cited that organization, I thought I would see what are their thoughts about global warming, to wit:
“1. Climate scientists agree: climate change is happening here and now.Based on well-established evidence, about 97% of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening. This agreement is documented not just by a single study, but by a converging stream of evidence over the past two decades from surveys of scientists, content analyses of peer-reviewed studies, and public statements issued by virtually every membership organization of experts in this field. Average global temperature has increased by about 1.4˚ F over the last 100 years. Sea level is rising, and some types of extreme events – such as heat waves and heavy precipitation events – are happening more frequently. Recent scientific findings indicate that climate change is likely responsible for the increase in the intensity of many of these events in recent years.”

 

[ChezC3]

Climate change is real.

Man plays a part

Exactly how is too grand a question to solve especially when politics are envolved

 

[watsup]

Climate change is real.

Man plays a part

Exactly how is too grand a question to solve especially when politics are envolved

It is the deniers who are engaging in the politics of the issue. Scientists are in widespread agreement.

 

[ChezC3]

It is the deniers who are engaging in the politics of the issue. Scientists are in widespread agreement.

Al Gore is a denier? And no, scientists are not.

 

[watsup]

“3. The sooner we act, the lower the risk and cost. And there is much we can do.Waiting to take action will inevitably increase costs, escalate risk, and foreclose options to address the risk. The CO2 we produce accumulates in Earth’s atmosphere for decades, centuries, and longer. It is not like pollution from smog or wastes in our lakes and rivers, where levels respond quickly to the effects of targeted policies. The effects of CO2 emissions cannot be reversed from one generation to the next until there is a large- scale, cost-effective way to scrub carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Moreover, as emissions continue and warming increases, the risk increases.

By making informed choices now, we can reduce risks for future generations and ourselves, and help communities adapt to climate change. People have responded successfully to other major environmental challenges such as acid rain and the ozone hole with benefits greater than costs, and scientists working with economists believe there are ways to manage the risks of climate change while balancing current and future economic prosperity.

As scientists, it is not our role to tell people what they should do or must believe about the rising threat of climate change. But we consider it to be our responsibility as professionals to ensure, to the best of our ability, that people understand what we know: human-caused climate change is happening, we face risks of abrupt, unpredictable and potentially irreversible changes, and responding now will lower the risk and cost of taking action.

Download the Full Document »
Descargar el document completo »

​

Leiserowitz et al. (2013). “Climate change in the American mind: Americans’ global warming beliefs. Yale Project on Climate Change Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication. http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/files/Climate-Beliefs-April-2013.pdf
[ii] National Research Council (2013). Abrupt Impacts of Climate Change: Anticipating Surprises, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.”

What We Know

What We Know helps us understand the science behind the realities, risks and response to the climate challenge.

whatweknow.aaas.org

 

[watsup]

“2. We are at risk of pushing our climate system toward abrupt, unpredictable, and potentially irreversible changes with highly damaging impacts. Earth’s climate is on a path to warm beyond the range of what has been experienced over the past millions of years.[ii] The range of uncertainty for the warming along the current emissions path is wide enough to encompass massively disruptive consequences to societies and ecosystems: as global temperatures rise, there is a real risk, however small, that one or more critical parts of the Earth’s climate system will experience abrupt, unpredictable and potentially irreversible changes. Disturbingly, scientists do not know how much warming is required to trigger such changes to the climate system.”

What We Know

What We Know helps us understand the science behind the realities, risks and response to the climate challenge.

whatweknow.aaas.org

 

[watsup]

Al Gore is a denier? And no, scientists are not.

So you disagree with the assessment of the American Association for the Advancement of Science?

 

[watsup]

Al Gore is a denier? And no, scientists are not.

I used the term “widespread agreement”, with the implication that it is primarily CLIMATE SCIENTISTS that I am talking about. Can you show otherwise?

 

[Bergslagstroll]

In another thread, one of our deniers said that he “had access” to the “journal” magazine called “Science”, which is published by the AAAS as cited in the title to this thread, so since he basically cited that organization, I thought I would see what are their thoughts about global warming, to wit:
“1. Climate scientists agree: climate change is happening here and now.Based on well-established evidence, about 97% of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening. This agreement is documented not just by a single study, but by a converging stream of evidence over the past two decades from surveys of scientists, content analyses of peer-reviewed studies, and public statements issued by virtually every membership organization of experts in this field. Average global temperature has increased by about 1.4˚ F over the last 100 years. Sea level is rising, and some types of extreme events – such as heat waves and heavy precipitation events – are happening more frequently. Recent scientific findings indicate that climate change is likely responsible for the increase in the intensity of many of these events in recent years.”

There you also for example have this letter to Congress from 31 leading American scientific organizations.

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous
scientific research concludes that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the
primary driver. This conclusion is based on multiple independent lines of evidence and the vast
body of peer-reviewed science.
There is strong evidence that ongoing climate change is having broad negative impacts on
society, including the global economy, natural resources, and human health. For the United
States, climate change impacts include greater threats of extreme weather events, sea level rise,
and increased risk of regional water scarcity, heat waves, wildfires, and the disturbance of
biological systems. The severity of climate change impacts is increasing and is expected to
increase substantially in the coming decades.1"

Thirty-one top scientific societies speak with one voice on global climate change – The Ecological Society of America

www.esa.org

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Climate change is real.

Man plays a part

Exactly how is too grand a question to solve especially when politics are envolved

Taking action on climate change should be a bipartisan issue. That the evidences are so overwhelming that federal agencies under the control and scrutiny of the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress continued to acknowledge the urgent need for action.

"The impacts of climate change are already being felt in communities across the country. More frequent and intense extreme weather and climate-related events, as well as changes in average climate conditions, are expected to continue to damage infrastructure, ecosystems, and social systems that provide essential benefits to communities. Future climate change is expected to further disrupt many areas of life, exacerbating existing challenges to prosperity posed by aging and deteriorating infrastructure, stressed ecosystems, and economic inequality. Impacts within and across regions will not be distributed equally. People who are already vulnerable, including lower-income and other marginalized communities, have lower capacity to prepare for and cope with extreme weather and climate-related events and are expected to experience greater impacts. Prioritizing adaptation actions for the most vulnerable populations would contribute to a more equitable future within and across communities. Global action to significantly cut greenhouse gas emissions can substantially reduce climate-related risks and increase opportunities for these populations in the longer term."

Fourth National Climate Assessment: Summary Findings

This report is an authoritative assessment of the science of climate change, with a focus on the United States. It represents the second of two volumes of the Fourth National Climate Assessment, mandated by the Global Change Research Act of 1990.

nca2018.globalchange.gov

There also Trump's pick for head of NASA was willing to look at the evidence and acknowledge the need for action.

Trump's NASA Chief Changed His Mind on Climate Change. He Is a Scientific Hero.

Bridenstine has also backed up his rhetoric with vocal support for NASA's climate missions, which have been threatened under a Trump presidency.

www.space.com

Also that especially red states can benefit from renewable energy.

Renewable Energy Surges Even In Fossil Fuel Friendly Red States

The nation’s two largest coal-producing states, Wyoming and West Virginia, have entered the top ten in renewable energy and energy storage, respectively, according to a new report.

www.forbes.com

As fossil fuel jobs falter, renewables come to the rescue

"People don't realize it, but there is a 100% renewable revolution going on right underneath our feet."

www.cbsnews.com

 

[ChezC3]

Taking action on climate change should be a bipartisan issue..

100% absolutely right it should be. The problem lies in what action should be taken. Let's look at the Dems plan in Carbon Tax which is literally a gateway drug to tax all of us for breathing. And don't think they won't do it. I live in the City of Chicago where these scumbag sons of bitches have managed to actually tax a tax...so breathing is a fresh and viable option for these ****ers....

1. Dems are going to give billions of dollars to New Energy (solar, wind, et al)
2. Dems are going to take billions of dollars from Old Energy (oil, coal, et al)
3. Dems are going to increase regulatory burdens, very expensive regulatory burdens on our companies giving our overseas competitors a significant advantage.
4. Doing all this is so that Dems can phase out Old Energy completely, bankrupt them, send them to the poor house, end their existence.

Now not even getting into the ramifications of labor, oil workers and coal miners aren't such because they're inclined to sit behind a desk and code, nor would they have the necessary credentials or skills required to take on equal leveled positions in New Energy -- not even getting into that...

We're also not going to get into the billions upon billions of dollars invested in equipment, technology, land, development, research, exploration et al, nor are we going to get into the trillions of down stream dollars that come from products made from petroleum -- ignore that too

While we're at it lets just forget the treaties in which American companies are hamstrung all the while allowing the real polluters of the globe, i.e China, India to take there sweet ass time and make a few more trillion off polluting the earth. -- we won't mention that either...

So taking in to account what we must and ignoring what we must -- the ability for New Energy to meet the demands both current and expected is questionable at best. As is its costs, efficacy in pollution reduction, the unknown biohazards of its own that will be created and on top of all that it will take decades and trillions to implement.

And people wonder why there is political gridlock?

Come up with a plan, a real ****ing plan that addresses what I said to ignore and what I pointed out and then we can get somewhere. I can come up with the plan, it's not that hard, real easy in fact but it won't get done because some scumbag politician on either side won't be getting their cut.

 

[istodolez]

Exactly how is too grand a question to solve especially when politics are envolved

"too grand a question to solve"? You mean for the species of animal that has recently found the subatomic particle responsible for mass? For the species who figured out that E=mc^2? For the species that has eradicated countless diseases?

Yeah, that sounds about right.

Or do you actually mean you don't want it solved because it might not be the answer you like?

Nah, I'm sure it's "insoluble".

 

[istodolez]

Now not even getting into the ramifications of labor, oil workers and coal miners aren't such because they're inclined to sit behind a desk and code,

I don't mean to scare you but starting in the late 70's or so coal mining companies moved to more automated systems decimating the workforce needed to run a coal mine. That was done NOT for the environment but for pure unadulterated profit for the coal companies.

If we as Americans REALLY cared about the fate of the blue-collar working class we would have been on the case long ago increasing educational opportunities for them.

So let's not act like we will suddenly start caring about blue collar employment NOW.

 

[watsup]

I note that the typical denier suspects so often carefully avoid these threads in which the discussion points to the decisions of solid scientific organizations such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science as regards AGW. In another thread, one of these deniers is basically bragging about his membership in AAAS in order to bolster his "creds" as knowing about science, but he doesn't seem to want to acknowledge what that organization has concluded about the present global warming. Interesting!

 

[Bergslagstroll]

100% absolutely right it should be. The problem lies in what action should be taken. Let's look at the Dems plan in Carbon Tax which is literally a gateway drug to tax all of us for breathing. And don't think they won't do it. I live in the City of Chicago where these scumbag sons of bitches have managed to actually tax a tax...so breathing is a fresh and viable option for these ****ers....

1. Dems are going to give billions of dollars to New Energy (solar, wind, et al)
2. Dems are going to take billions of dollars from Old Energy (oil, coal, et al)
3. Dems are going to increase regulatory burdens, very expensive regulatory burdens on our companies giving our overseas competitors a significant advantage.
4. Doing all this is so that Dems can phase out Old Energy completely, bankrupt them, send them to the poor house, end their existence.

Now not even getting into the ramifications of labor, oil workers and coal miners aren't such because they're inclined to sit behind a desk and code, nor would they have the necessary credentials or skills required to take on equal leveled positions in New Energy -- not even getting into that...

We're also not going to get into the billions upon billions of dollars invested in equipment, technology, land, development, research, exploration et al, nor are we going to get into the trillions of down stream dollars that come from products made from petroleum -- ignore that too

While we're at it lets just forget the treaties in which American companies are hamstrung all the while allowing the real polluters of the globe, i.e China, India to take there sweet ass time and make a few more trillion off polluting the earth. -- we won't mention that either...

So taking in to account what we must and ignoring what we must -- the ability for New Energy to meet the demands both current and expected is questionable at best. As is its costs, efficacy in pollution reduction, the unknown biohazards of its own that will be created and on top of all that it will take decades and trillions to implement.

And people wonder why there is political gridlock?

Come up with a plan, a real ****ing plan that addresses what I said to ignore and what I pointed out and then we can get somewhere. I can come up with the plan, it's not that hard, real easy in fact but it won't get done because some scumbag politician on either side won't be getting their cut.

The unpaid costs social and environmental cost of fossil fuel are trillions of dollar of globally there that also include the massive cost of pollution. There it also low income and working classes that will be most hurt by climate change and also live nearest to toxic pollution.

https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2019/05/02/Global-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-Remain-Large-An-Update-Based-on-Country-Level-Estimates-46509

Health benefits far outweigh the costs of meeting climate change goals

Meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement could save about a million lives a year worldwide by 2050 through reductions in air pollution alone. The latest estimates from leading experts also indicate that the value of health gains from climate action would be approximately double the cost of...

www.who.int

That at the same time for example Germany shows that you can create new jobs and opportunities for former coal workers.

How Germany closed its coal industry without sacking a single miner

After Coal: Can Australia learn from Germany's efforts to end its coal era while protecting its workers and communities?

www.smh.com.au

Also countries that have come further then US in the transiton away from fossil fuels and have higher taxes ranks higher then US on for example Forbes best country for business list.

https://www.forbes.com/best-countries-for-business/list/#tab:eek:verall

How Sweden Became the World’s Most Sustainable Country: Top 5 Reasons

For years, Sweden has ranked among the most sustainable countries in the world. What's being done differently, and what insights can we gain by taking a closer look?

info.esg.adec-innovations.com

A record year: Wind and solar supplied more than half of Denmark’s electricity in 2020

Read more about A record year: Wind and solar supplied more than half of Denmark’s electricity in 2020.

stateofgreen.com

Electric cars rise to record 54% market share in Norway in 2020

The sale of electric cars in Norway overtook those powered by petrol, diesel and hybrid engines last year, with German auto-maker Volkswagen replacing Tesla as the top battery-vehicle producer, new data showed on Tuesday.

www.reuters.com

While for example a internal carbon tax and a tax on import like EU's can both speed up the transition away from fossil fuel and even out the competition.

Explainer: What an EU carbon border tax might look like and who would be hit

The European Commission plans a carbon border tax aimed at shielding European steel producers and other energy-intensive industries against cheaper imports from countries with less strict climate policies.

www.reuters.com

 

[PoS]

Climate change is real.

Man plays a part

Exactly how is too grand a question to solve especially when politics are envolved

Exactly. Climate has always been changing, even before humans came into existence.

 

[watsup]

Exactly. Climate has always been changing, even before humans came into existence.

Standard denier talking point. *YAWN*

 

[ChezC3]

Exactly. Climate has always been changing, even before humans came into existence.

I knew going into this as I'm sure you did too that there is no talking with these people. It's the same "the sky is falling" chicken little bull shit and we must completely destroy entire swaths of the economy to save us. Of course we're the dumb ones, but what always makes me laugh is as their comments drip of condescension, their "superior intellect" always fails to grasp the most basic of concepts. Like, jobs of tomorrow don't put food on the table today.

That's why they're called the Unthinking Left, I suppose....well, one of the reasons...

 

[Buzz]

I knew going into this as I'm sure you did too that there is no talking with these people. It's the same "the sky is falling" chicken little bull shit and we must completely destroy entire swaths of the economy to save us. Of course we're the dumb ones, but what always makes me laugh is as their comments drip of condescension, their "superior intellect" always fails to grasp the most basic of concepts. Like, jobs of tomorrow don't put food on the table today.

That's why they're called the Unthinking Left, I suppose....well, one of the reasons...

Did you come here to debate or to just make a fool of yourself spouting off stupid denialist talking points and spewing insults??

 

[istodolez]

Exactly. Climate has always been changing, even before humans came into existence.

OK, for the umpteenth time let me tell you what people who have actual degrees in geology think:

YES Earth's climate has changed! Even before humans!

It is precisely because of these changes that we know a lot more about how NATURAL FORCINGS WORK in the absence of human activities.

This is how we know that the last 50 years or so of warming have likely been DOMINATED NOT BY NATURAL FORCINGS but by something else. That something else is human activity.

So good for you! You figured out what we teach sophomore geology majors! Woo Hoo! Now learn what that information tells us!!!!

 

[watsup]

I knew going into this as I'm sure you did too that there is no talking with these people. It's the same "the sky is falling" chicken little bull shit and we must completely destroy entire swaths of the economy to save us. Of course we're the dumb ones, but what always makes me laugh is as their comments drip of condescension, their "superior intellect" always fails to grasp the most basic of concepts. Like, jobs of tomorrow don't put food on the table today.

That's why they're called the Unthinking Left, I suppose....well, one of the reasons...

I don’t think that you made even a single remark outside of the standard denier talking points. Do you have any thoughts directly regarding the topic of what the scientific organization the AAAS has to say about the present global warming?

 

[istodolez]

but what always makes me laugh is as their comments drip of condescension, their "superior intellect" always fails to grasp the most basic of concepts. Like, jobs of tomorrow don't put food on the table today.

You know what bothers me? YOUR side's condescension! Some of us have doctorates in earth science and decades of experience in the physical sciences, so YEAH we might have more appreciation of the data!

As to your "jobs tomorrow/food today" dialectic: speaking as someone who has worked on alternative fuels in one postdoc and who has spent YEARS innovating the lab (>15 patents and counting) I can tell you that people are doing a lot of work ON YOUR BEHALF. Those jobs of tomorrow will HAVE to come. Oh yeah and "food today"? Interesting you should say that. My first postdoc was with the USDA. Agriculture is pretty key to our ability to feed ourselves. Do you have a clue what climate change will do to our agricultural infrastructure? Do you know where most of your table vegetables come from? Do you know how they get water there? Just any of it? What happens if weather patterns change decreasing snowfall in the Sierrra's? How do you think that will affect you personally? (HINT: It will affect you VERY VERY VERY personally, no matter where in the US you live.)

Don't denigrate education or expertise.

 

[iguanaman]

100% absolutely right it should be. The problem lies in what action should be taken. Let's look at the Dems plan in Carbon Tax which is literally a gateway drug to tax all of us for breathing. And don't think they won't do it. I live in the City of Chicago where these scumbag sons of bitches have managed to actually tax a tax...so breathing is a fresh and viable option for these ****ers....

1. Dems are going to give billions of dollars to New Energy (solar, wind, et al)
2. Dems are going to take billions of dollars from Old Energy (oil, coal, et al)
3. Dems are going to increase regulatory burdens, very expensive regulatory burdens on our companies giving our overseas competitors a significant advantage.
4. Doing all this is so that Dems can phase out Old Energy completely, bankrupt them, send them to the poor house, end their existence.

Now not even getting into the ramifications of labor, oil workers and coal miners aren't such because they're inclined to sit behind a desk and code, nor would they have the necessary credentials or skills required to take on equal leveled positions in New Energy -- not even getting into that...

We're also not going to get into the billions upon billions of dollars invested in equipment, technology, land, development, research, exploration et al, nor are we going to get into the trillions of down stream dollars that come from products made from petroleum -- ignore that too

While we're at it lets just forget the treaties in which American companies are hamstrung all the while allowing the real polluters of the globe, i.e China, India to take there sweet ass time and make a few more trillion off polluting the earth. -- we won't mention that either...

So taking in to account what we must and ignoring what we must -- the ability for New Energy to meet the demands both current and expected is questionable at best. As is its costs, efficacy in pollution reduction, the unknown biohazards of its own that will be created and on top of all that it will take decades and trillions to implement.

And people wonder why there is political gridlock?

Come up with a plan, a real ****ing plan that addresses what I said to ignore and what I pointed out and then we can get somewhere. I can come up with the plan, it's not that hard, real easy in fact but it won't get done because some scumbag politician on either side won't be getting their cut.

The truth is that with only 4% of the world's population the U.S. is the 2nd largest emitter of fossil CO2 and we need to lead the way for anyone else to matter. Leading by example is what we do. The ever changing rants of deniers will not change that fact. Now deniers are complaining about other nations who have lower per person CO2 emissions than we do. Can't you get you story straight?

 

[OrphanSlug]

Climate change is real.

Man plays a part

Exactly how is too grand a question to solve especially when politics are envolved

^^^ I nominate this post as winning Sunday. ^^^

We have been stuck here for way too damn long. We know the climate changes, we know that humanity plays a part in this regardless, and now that politics has stepped in with all their ideologies - flaws - and motivations we have screwed ourselves out of any real advancement on this issue.

 

[Grand Mal]

Exactly. Climate has always been changing, even before humans came into existence.

Yes, climate has always changed. It always took centuries for the changes to happen and animals evolved along the way.
Changes that used to take many centuries now happen in a generation or two. And we're responsible for that. But there's some comfort to be had- all that carbon we're putting into the atmosphere was taken out of the atmosphere by by huge, lush plant life and oceansful of plankton back when the planet was much warmer than it is today. That was what caused one of those centuries-long periods of climate change, all those tons of carbon being taken out of the atmosphere and buried in the ground. So we're returning the planet to it's former warmth. Too quickly for even the most adaptable species, us, to have time to adjust but sacrifices must be made.