255 members of the National Academy of Sciences defend climate science integrity

May 06, 2010

Two hundred fifty-five members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, including 11 Nobel Prize laureates, have joined together to defend the rigor and objectivity of climate science. Their statement, "Climate Change and the Integrity of Science," will be published in the journal Science on May 7, 2010 as the Lead Letter, along with a supporting editorial.

This statement, signed by 255 of the world's leading scientists, explains the scientific research process and confirms the fundamental conclusions about based on the work of thousands of scientists worldwide. It specifically reaffirms the "compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the on which we depend," and highlights that there is nothing identified in recent events that has changed the fundamental conclusions about climate change.

The statement also condemns recent political attacks on climate scientists, many of which are driven by special interests or dogma and not an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that satisfies the evidence we see around us. The evidence shows that the planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere, most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the last century is due to human activities, and that warming the planet causes complex climate changes that affect people and the environment.

Scientists from 53 different disciplines, like environmental sciences and ecology, chemistry, geology, geophysics, plant and microbial biology, and more, all members of the National Academy of Sciences but signing on as individuals, came together in agreement to reiterate an urgent call to action: "Society has two choices: we can ignore the science and hide our heads in the sand and hope we are lucky, or we can act in the public interest to reduce the threat of global climate change quickly and substantively."

Explore further: Solar energy-driven process could revolutionize oil sands tailings reclamation

Provided by Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security

3.3 /5 (16 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

1,700 UK scientists back climate science

Dec 10, 2009

(AP) -- Fighting back against climate skeptics, over 1,700 scientists in Britain have signed a statement defending the evidence that climate change is being caused by humans, Britain's weather office said Thursday.

Global warming may bring mass species loss

Apr 11, 2006

A study by U.S. and Canadian scientists confirms earlier dire predictions of species loss, concluding global warming could spark mass species extinctions.

The Antarctic Canary -- the human impact on climate change

Sep 04, 2006

As the UK attempts to move towards a low carbon economy, leading scientists and a world expert on sustainable energy in buildings this week discuss the evidence for climate change and possible solutions. A public seminar ...

Recommended for you

Big changes in the Sargasso Sea

5 hours ago

Over one thousand miles wide and three thousand miles long, the Sargasso Sea occupies almost two thirds of the North Atlantic Ocean. Within the sea, circling ocean currents accumulate mats of Sargassum seawee ...

Water-quality trading can reduce river pollution

5 hours ago

Allowing polluters to buy, sell or trade water-quality credits could significantly reduce pollution in river basins and estuaries faster and at lower cost than requiring the facilities to meet compliance costs on their own, ...

Managing land into the future

9 hours ago

Food production is the backbone of New Zealand's economy—and a computer modelling programme designed by a Victoria University of Wellington academic is helping ensure that farming practices here and overseas ...

User comments : 34

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

joefarah
2.6 / 5 (10) May 06, 2010
Just for the record, this amounts to just over 10% of the members and associates of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Am I therefore to assume that a whopping 90% of scientists would not sign this statement? New Headline:

Almost 90% of NAS Scientists Don't Sign CC Statement
gunslingor1
3.5 / 5 (8) May 06, 2010
New Headline:
Joefarah doesn't look at evidence when he makes decisions, he only looks at his beliefs!

Well, lets see the counter document?
marjon
2 / 5 (8) May 06, 2010
we can act in the public interest

If that action didn't involve destroying the world's economy I might believe them.
The Wegman Report, commissioned by the NAS, stated that climate science climate research was incestuous with the researchers in the field peer reviewing each other's work.
This story is just more propaganda for Cap and Tax legislation.
jamey
5 / 5 (4) May 06, 2010
I'd like a better breakdown of the scientist's fields - a molecular biologist can be pretty far removed from the actual field of ecology, even though his results might bear on the ecological analysis.
JayK
3.2 / 5 (9) May 06, 2010
The NAS didn't commission the Wegman Report. Wegman happened to be the chair of the NAS Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics and the report was requested by two partisan Republicans (Barton and Whitfield). The Wegman Report has been severely criticized as partisan and nit[icky while finding no serious flaws with MBH98.

Marjon is a liar.
Caliban
3.5 / 5 (8) May 06, 2010
The NAS didn't commission the Wegman Report. Wegman happened to be the chair of the NAS Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics and the report was requested by two partisan Republicans (Barton and Whitfield). The Wegman Report has been severely criticized as partisan and nit[icky while finding no serious flaws with MBH98.

Marjon is a liar.


Spot on, JayK-

I frequently see physorg articles republished/quoted/linked in a variety of other forums, and, to cursory readers -especially ones lacking in scientific training or knowledge- posts by trolls and deniers are probably, as often as not, taken at face value.

I guess it's up to us to provide the firewall so that the less savvy don't get infected by all this pseudo-/fake-o/slant-o science with which these clowns are constantly polluting this forum.

marjon
2.1 / 5 (11) May 06, 2010
"Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and
that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis."
I agree NAS did not commission Wegman's report. It is too bad they did not as Wegman et al truly demonstrated an effective peer review of Mann's hockey stick data, which, after much Congressional prodding, NAS had to agree with by stating there were significant uncertainties in the data before the 1600s.
It would be nice if the AGW believers would practice real science and stop polluting this forum with their faith.
djr
4.3 / 5 (6) May 06, 2010
I think it is understandable that we feel strongly about the issue of climate change (whether pro or con) - it is a very sensitive issue. However to accuse AGW believers of 'polluting' this forum seems to get things really turned around. I read phyhysorg daily - and try to stay up with the science as best I can. Physorg constantly reports on research that seems to be acruing mountains of data - supporting the idea that the earth is warming - glaciers melting etc. etc. And every article is attacked - but seems to me the science is pretty solid. It is nice to see a few more balanced comments appearing these days.
superhuman
3.1 / 5 (10) May 06, 2010
I find it appalling that "scientists" are signing petitions in support of science they cannot verify due to lack of expertise.

This is the worst kind of dishonest politics, exploiting the trust the public places in science for political gain.
freethinking
1.4 / 5 (9) May 06, 2010
Progessive AGW believers will do the following with those that don't believe as they believe, first they ridicule (you dont believe in AGW your stupid, paid off by big oil, etc), if that doest work they will attempt to shout down the opposition (the sience is settled, all scientists agree), then they will attempt to silence (read any AGW emails... those that started climategate?). Progressives if they cant ridicule, shout down, or silence someone then comes violence.
marjon
2.2 / 5 (10) May 06, 2010
AGWites attack heretics with a money argument,
but they are silent when their high priest, Al Gore, buys another mansion for $8.5M. http://articles.l...20100428
marjon
1.9 / 5 (9) May 06, 2010
I think it is understandable that we feel strongly about the issue of climate change (whether pro or con) - it is a very sensitive issue. However to accuse AGW believers of 'polluting' this forum seems to get things really turned around. I read phyhysorg daily - and try to stay up with the science as best I can. Physorg constantly reports on research that seems to be acruing mountains of data - supporting the idea that the earth is warming - glaciers melting etc. etc. And every article is attacked - but seems to me the science is pretty solid. It is nice to see a few more balanced comments appearing these days.

Maybe one should ask why the controversy and why Physorg reports so few stories challenging AGWites. The money supports research efforts to prove AGW. Most climatologists who challenge the models are retired or tenured and can't have their careers destroyed.
marjon
2 / 5 (8) May 06, 2010
"255 members of the National Academy of Sciences defend climate science integrity"

"The National Academy of Sciences membership consists of approximately 2,100 members "http://www.nasonl...ERS_Main

As joefarah said, how many NAS members do NOT defend the climate science integrity?
Not a biased headline from Physorg?
marjon
1.9 / 5 (9) May 06, 2010
"It can be said with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries. "
"Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from A.D. 900 to 1600"
"Very little confidence can be assigned to statements concerning the hemispheric mean or global mean surface temperature prior to about A.D. 900 "
http://books.nap....p;page=3
According to NAS, no science can support a claim that the earth is the warmest, ever.
Caliban
3.4 / 5 (5) May 06, 2010
AGWites attack heretics with a money argument,
but they are silent when their high priest, Al Gore, buys another mansion for $8.5M. http://articles.l...20100428


Not down with the free market if it's not one of your guys, eh?

Double Ironic Hypocrisy.
marjon
2 / 5 (8) May 06, 2010
AGWites attack heretics with a money argument,
but they are silent when their high priest, Al Gore, buys another mansion for $8.5M. http://articles.l...20100428


Not down with the free market if it's not one of your guys, eh?

Double Ironic Hypocrisy.

I am all for the free market. AGWites like Gore are not.
Gore had to create an artificial market supported by government sanction. "Mr. Gore is poised to become the world's first "carbon billionaire," profiteering from government policies he supports that would direct billions of dollars to the business ventures he has invested in. http://www.telegr...ire.html
"
I want everyone to reap the rewards of a truly free market.
JayK
3.3 / 5 (7) May 06, 2010
Where is your science, deniers? Sites like Watt's Blog of Boogers attempts to say snow is a sign that global warming is false. Their attempts to attack the "wet-bulb" article contained nothing in regards to an analysis. When there is billions available from Republicans and oil companies, where are the scientists to do the work? Claiming that grants cause corruption isn't going to cut it, it just makes you and your arguments petty and vindictive. Where is your science?
marjon
2 / 5 (4) May 07, 2010
Claiming that grants cause corruption

That is what people like you do to Lindzen and anyone else who questions the 'faith'.
random
not rated yet May 07, 2010
It's very sad to see the line between science and politics being blurred to such a degree. You can imagine the angst us 'apolitical' ones feel while trying to make an informed decision on such a highly charged topic. It seems like it will only get worse in the coming decades. Yet another downside of the information age that we failed to predict.
ForFreeMinds
2.7 / 5 (7) May 07, 2010
I think it would have been better if the Academy had issued a statement criticizing the biased work, manipulated data, hiding of data, blacklisting of AGW critics, and general lack of following general scientific principles used by the political hacks masquerading as scientists who are manufacturing a crisis to ensure their funding and wallets remain fat. As it is, I suspect th small group is comprised of many who survive off of AGW grants from politicians who want more control over us.
freethinking
1.8 / 5 (5) May 07, 2010
forfreeminds... progressives will never complain about biased work, manipulated data, hiding of data, or blacklisting of people if it is done in the name of a progressive idea. Thier belief is that progessive idea are absolutely right.

Random, I agree that the line between science and politics has been blurred. The reason it is because of progressive thought and belief is so rampant in universities and the media.
JayK
2.6 / 5 (5) May 07, 2010
Oh, the cry of the poor persecuted right winger. It has such a delightful tone to it, melancholy and full of promises never kept.
marjon
2.3 / 5 (6) May 07, 2010
Oh, the cry of the poor persecuted right winger. It has such a delightful tone to it, melancholy and full of promises never kept.

Pointless verbage, delete.
Choice
5 / 5 (3) May 08, 2010
Not all 'scientists' are alike. An oil drilling engineer and a veterinarian can both be considered scientists yet I am not sure if their views of climate change merit any greater weighting than anyone else's. The key to stories such as this one is the type of scientists we are talking about. So what if 90% of perfume chemists reject climate change?
marjon
2 / 5 (4) May 08, 2010
Not all 'scientists' are alike.

That is why science has made so much progress. Scientists used be a skeptical lot not prone to join a 'consensus' without performing the experiments for themselves.
Einstein's theories continue to be tested, but not Al Gore's?
XQZME
2.3 / 5 (9) May 09, 2010
ALGORE-ISM: A multibillion dollar faith based, global hoax to redistribute wealth, install global governance, grab power and money, and levy social justice by warning of a nonexistent, impending, major, global catastrophe, invoking the god of “Science”, claiming a consensus, and refusing debate.

Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is preached as the next global catastrophe.

For basis of definition, see: “The Reason” about 5/9 down at:

appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_Summary.htm
ALGORE-ISM: A multibillion dollar faith based, global hoax to redistribute wealth, install global governance, grab power and money, and levy social justice by warning of a nonexistent, impending, major, global catastrophe, invoking the god of “Science”, claiming a consensus, and refusing debate.

Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is preached as the next global catastrophe.

For basis of definition, see: “The Reason” about 5/9 down at:

appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_Summary.htm
Caliban
3 / 5 (6) May 09, 2010
@XQZME

What is this gobbledegook? If you can't post any cogent argument -then skip it. There are plenty of other trolls to handle the project. They even know how to post a link.
jonnyboy
May 09, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
JayK
5 / 5 (2) May 09, 2010
Someone spent a lot of time putting that appinsys.com webpage together, then they forgot to put their name on it. I wonder why? It could be the massive statistical errors, or it could be because jonnyboy is lame. Either reason works for me.
Caliban
5 / 5 (1) May 09, 2010
cal or should i call you jk, get a life.


Hey jonny-

There for just a moment, I thought that you were going to prove the pudding...but then you failed to post a link.

Ah, well -like JayK says...
ereneon
1 / 5 (2) May 09, 2010
There is an even bigger issue here than climate change itself, which not many people talk about for some reason. This is inherently a bad topic for science as a whole, because both sides have such a strong motivation to cheat. Climate researchers and Al Gore climate change profiteering types need it to remain a "big deal" or their careers are over. Oil companies and big polluters want the whole issue to go away so they can go about business as usual. Real, honest science has no chance, and all the cheating and corruption on both sides of this debate are destroying the reputation of science as a whole in the eyes of the public.
Personally, I'm not very inclined to trust either side. The climate is indeed changing, but when has it ever not in Earth's history? The real problem is whether or not it is changing because of human action, and I think this is still an open issue which should be vigorously debated.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) May 09, 2010
he real problem is whether or not it is changing because of human action, and I think this is still an open issue which should be vigorously debated.

And I would add: "...while preparing to adapt to the changes."
Something humans have been doing for quite some time.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (3) May 10, 2010
The only thing to be found here is a lack of science.

Science cares not about consesus or who's signed what. It's about results, results that are currently absent on BOTH sides of the issue.

Thankfully the majority of scientists would rather wait to see the final outcome of the work from the field before they make a decision. I happily count myself amongst that group, regardless of what my preconceptions are. After all, if you can't be disenfranchised of your preconceptions, what point is there in any form of education. Stay open minded, and await the repeatable results.
JayK
5 / 5 (3) May 10, 2010
Insinuations of corruption and manipulation are not proof, they are baseless assertions that ignore the hard work being done by climate scientists.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) May 10, 2010
Insinuations of corruption and manipulation are not proof, they are baseless assertions that ignore the hard work being done by climate scientists.
Or evidence of the few poisoning the well for the many. Climatology and climate science on the whole are irrefutable and adhere to the scientific method entirely. If HADCRUT and UEA, and Penn State all did conspire to create a global warming hoax, they picked a topic that was already of intense debate by all involved in environmental science. If Mann and Gore did become overly alarmist they only served to bring themselves to the forefront of tom foolery.

What they didn't do was discredit the scientific underpinnings of AGW. The UN did that. The rest of climatology looks upon these idiots for what they are and continue forward with integrity and merit.

Saying otherwise shows ignorance of purpose and distrust with science on the whole. Can we say Heartland Institute?