Monday, November 30, 2009

If one scare tactic doesn't work, try another.

In an earlier post, here, and in response to comments made to a post or two before that, I have have likened the religious fervor of the global warming enthusiasts to that of the population bomb alarmists of the late 1960s and 1970s. As I said, despite my general skepticism of the humanists-turned-anti-humanists, the global warming bubble has not been an interest of mine. But, lo and behold, what I thought was just a vague and general analogy turns out to be a direct link. For the man who dropped the population bomb that did so much to lay waste Europe and throw millions of innocent unborn babies into garbage pails co-authored a book by the current administration's "science czar," John Holdren, who has also been an outspoken supporter of the global warming agenda.

Here's what Mr. Holdren and his co-authors said in their 1977 book Ecoscience:
Individual rights. Individual rights must be balanced against the power of the government to control human reproduction. Some people—respected legislators, judges, and lawyers included—have viewed the right to have children as a fundamental and inalienable right. Yet neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution mentions a right to reproduce. Nor does the UN Charter describe such a right, although a resolution of the United Nations affirms the "right responsibly to choose" the number and spacing of children (our emphasis). In the United States, individuals have a constitutional right to privacy and it has been held that the right to privacy includes the right to choose whether or not to have children, at least to the extent that a woman has a right to choose not to have children. But the right is not unlimited. Where the society has a "compelling, subordinating interest" in regulating population size, the right of the individual may be curtailed. If society's survival depended on having more children, women could he required to bear children, just as men can constitutionally be required to serve in the armed forces. Similarly, given a crisis caused by overpopulation, reasonably necessary laws to control excessive reproduction could be enacted.

It is often argued that the right to have children is so personal that the government should not regulate it. In an ideal society, no doubt the state should leave family size and composition solely to the desires of the parents. In today's world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?
Here is another passage, headed "Involuntary fertility control."
The third approach to population limitation is that of involuntary fertility control. Several coercive proposals deserve discussion, mainly because some countries may ultimately have to resort to them unless current trends in birthrates are rapidly reversed by other means. Some involuntary measures could be less repressive or discriminatory, in fact, than some of the socioeconomic measure suggested.
A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men. This of course would be feasible only in countries where the majority of births are medically assisted. Unfortunately, such a program therefore is not practical for most less developed countries (although in China, mothers of three children are commonly "expected" to undergo sterilization).

The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births. No capsule that would last that long (30 years or more) has yet been developed, but it is technically within the realm of possibility.
These are the kind of people this administration turns to for science. It's chilling to say the least.

Source here.


Unknown said...

God forbid you should be scared of anything, well, except for the Nazis, Maoists, and Eugenicists running around in the Oval Office. Just remember the truth, which you claim to revere so much, hangs in the balance. No sane person or group is arguing with anyone about not having children. The argument is about whether the world they inherit will be worth living in, and whether we have the foresight as a species to take the hard but necessary steps to make it sustainable for them.

Do you honestly think the costs we incur by taking action will be more onerous then the cost we are sure to face by ignoring the problem until it's unsolvable? What happens to your children then? The longer it takes for us to get on the same page, the more draconian those steps will be. Global Warming is far from an exact science. But it doesn't have to be. Good science works by gathering objective data and developing hypothesis based on continued observations. The science tells us that the environmental concerns are reasonable. Sane and rational attempts at mitigating damage based on the collected data suggests strongly that global warming is something other than a cruel joke or a scare tactic meant to take away your religious freedoms.

Of course you can always circle the wagons, engage in some form of dreary moral retrenchment like the Manhattan Declaration,and pretend you live in a theocracy where constitutional and secular laws are treated with contempt. I find it stunning that someone who mouths an endless catechism of self sacrifice can be so obstinate about that principle when applied to the planet.

There are 4 possible scenarios based on accepting or rejecting action:

Action: Yes (We take steps to prevent disaster)
Effect: Nothing happens (We waste large sums of money, incur huge recession/depression and economic problems as a result, but we improve alternate forms of energy and more efficient modes of technology which ultimately reduces our dependence on foreign oil and dramatically lowers the risks of warfare.)

Action: Yes (We take steps to prevent disaster)
Effect: Everything predicted happens, but the consequences are far less severe.

Action: No (We take no action)
Effect: Nothing happens. The doomsayers were wrong. Our situation remains unchanged, no money wasted. We built churches in the St. Bernard parish and invite the Corp of Army Engineers over for potluck, Lake Pontchartrain punch and Bingo. Remember: Gradualism is just nature's way of getting you to be comfortable in the future with things you can barely tolerate now.

Action: No (We take no action)
Effect: Global climate disaster. Environmental, economic, political, social and public health catastrophe on a global scale: Rising sea levels of 20 or more feet, coastal cities disappearing, hundreds of millions of people world wide displaced, overcrowding, wide spread warfare for scarce resources, yada, yada, yada. The world becomes a much more hostile and unrecognizable place. Benefits: Much lower population. Down side: Much angrier and more pissed off people who will kill you for a facial tic, a pair of shoelaces or a pot pie.

The only defensible choice is action. Because the risk of not acting far outweighs the benefits of doing nothing. But then again, maybe it will all just go away if you continue to advise everyone to ignore it.

Climate Collapse

Shrinking Ice





Mike said...

"No sane person or group is arguing with anyone about not having children."

Exactly. No one is arguing, just scheming. The sanity of those doing the scheming is the whole point.

"The argument is about whether the world they inherit will be worth living in"

Hopefully they will have a say in what a world worth living in would look like. Unless of course, someone else decides that a world with them and their point of view is not "worthy." Perhaps the government can spell out for us what has worth and what does not. Oh wait, they are already doing that.

Doughlas Remy said...

Gil, there are a number of serious problems with your post about John Holdren. Before I begin, I would like to point out that my principal source of information is an article from The Catholic News Agency of July 15, 2009.

First of all, Holdren is not the current administration’s “science czar,” a title that suggests appointment without congressional oversight. His appointment as Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy was confirmed unanimously by the Senate.

Secondly, your quotations from Ecoscience are not the smoking gun that you think they are. Holdren and his co-authors were writing a textbook. It is standard practice in textbooks about policy-making to describe existing or proposed policies. In this case, they were describing the full range of population-control policies and the rationales behind them. These included the introduction of sterilants into the water supply and compulsory abortion.

Holdren was questioned about his position on these policies during his Senate confirmation hearings. He asserted that he was only describing them, not endorsing them. The article from The Catholic News Agency (cited above) reports some of the details of these hearings, which I will just summarize here:

In response to questions, Holdren said that he does not think that determining optimal population is a proper role of government and that it is not productive to focus on the “optimum population” for the U.S. He made it clear that he does not believe in coercive means of population control and does not advocate the measures described in the textbook. Further, he stated that the administration does not support those measures.

Here is the Ehrlichs’ response to the misrepresentation of their and Holdren’s views:

We were not then, never have been, and are not now ‘advocates’ of the Draconian measures for population limitation described—but not recommended—in the book’s 60-plus small-type pages cataloging the full spectrum of population policies that, at the time, had either been tried in some country or analyzed by some commentator.

Gil, don’t you think it would be a good idea to apologize for misrepresenting Holdren’s views? How would you feel if you described a point of view that you oppose, only to hear your words quoted back to you out of context and in such a way as to suggest that you support that point of view? If that were to happen, I imagine that you would be urging your readers to “look at the facts,” and “examine the evidence.”

Doughlas Remy said...

Gil, your post clearly uses out-of-context quotations to misrepresent John Holdren’s views, as I have just shown. But there are two other issues here: (1) What is your purpose in doing this? and (2) What are the effects?

I think we only need to look at Mike’s comment to see what the effects are. You have succeeded in either creating or nurturing a baseless fear about the Obama administration. Mike has picked up on your paranoia in perfect mimetic fashion: “Exactly,” he writes, “No one is arguing, just scheming. The sanity of those doing the scheming is the whole point.” So now we have the germ of full-blown hysteria about a problem that doesn’t even exist.

There are plenty of real things to be alarmed about, and Obama’s Afghan war is one of them. But let’s not waste time sweating about non-existent conspiracies, shall we? The oceans are rising while we are dithering.

If you are looking for a new motto for your masthead, I would recommend the title of this post: “If one scare tactic doesn’t work, try another.”

Doughlas Remy

Gordon said...

"You have succeeded in either creating or nurturing a baseless fear about the Obama administration."


Gil must have started a hug panic, since Obama's approval ratings have been tanking since July. Hell of a contagion.

Doughlas Remy said...

Gordon, this is exactly what I mean. Little rivulets join to make big rivers. At this particular moment, I am PO’d at Obama and hope he feels the pain of the lower approval ratings. But I believe it is unethical to fabricate conspiracy theories about our leaders. They do enough that is morally reprehensible without our having to lie about them. And in misrepresenting them, we only undermine our own credibility for those times when legitimate grievances need to be heard and believed.

Mike said...

Don't imagine that I was somehow sitting on the fence and Gil's post brought me off of it.

My response has more to do with how little dialogue anyone who argues for global warming will allow for. You either buy what they are selling or your not worth talking to. Listen to the tone of Dean's e-mail. It doesn't sound like he wants to talk, just attack.

Look at the leaked e-mails. What happened to all the data that was used to build the case for this theory? Shouldn't that be in hand as long as their are some of us doubters left?

"So now we have the germ of full-blown hysteria about a problem that doesn’t even exist."

For a second there, I forgot what your point was. I thought you were talking about global warming.

"Holdren was questioned about his position on these policies during his Senate confirmation hearings. He asserted that he was only describing them, not endorsing them."

Is it a suprise that he didn't endorse them under the circumstances? Are we sure that he was up front about his position?

Doughlas Remy said...

Mike, the leaked e-mails are not significant when viewed against the larger backdrop of climate change science. They are simply one more proof that scientists are fallible. Priests, too, are fallible, but you probably would not renounce Catholicism after hearing that a couple of priests somewhere molested some altar boys. If we rejected entire scientific theories because some of their proponents were corruptible, there would be no modern science as we know it.

I don’t think Dean is attacking anyone personally. He is saying that we need to stop dithering and start acting. We have dithered for much too long already, with the result that CO2 levels are well past the danger point. The evidence is in, and the time for arguments is over.

Imagine the following scenario: You live in a flood plain. There was an unusual amount of rain this year and the river that runs through your town is beginning to top its banks. Water is already flooding some low-lying areas. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and has reported extremely high water levels about 20 miles upriver and the state’s Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is urging immediate action by local citizens. If sandbagging does not begin immediately, the entire town will be under three feet of water in about five hours. The citizens must act quickly and decisively.

Meanwhile, spokesmen from large U.S. construction firms are interviewed about the problem on national television. They reassure everyone that fears about flooding are groundless. They claim to have discovered some irregularities in the DNR’s procedures and point to these as proof that the river is not rising. They urge everyone to go about their business as usual.

About half the citizens now deny that there is any problem. They think the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the state DNR are lying to them. A group of these citizens have gathered at the river bank with placards saying, “Don’t believe the fearmongers!” and “Leaked DNR e-mails prove hoax!” One of these citizens, in a television interview conducted in an already flooded area, looks down at the waves lapping at his feet and says, “Everything looks okay to me!” Others proclaim, “This is just a normal surge. Nothing to worry about.”

Without the joint efforts of every citizen, the sandbagging will not be completed in time and the town will be flooded. How would you analyze this situation?

What should the citizens do?
Why are they in denial about the problem?
Are there any objective measures of the problem?
What role should observation play in this scenario?

And finally, regarding John Holdren’s confirmation hearings, you write: “Is it a surprise that he didn’t endorse [these policies] under the circumstances? Are we sure that he was up front about his position?”

Without a statement from Mr. Holdren that he endorses the policies in question, there is simply no basis for claiming that he does endorse them, and to insist that he does is to enter once again into the realm of conspiracy theories. He shouldn’t have even needed to explain—to anyone who had opened his textbook and read the content for himself—that these policies were only described, not endorsed. But lest there be any doubt, the Senate asked him to go on record as not endorsing them. The Senate unanimously confirmed his appointment, thus demonstrating their trust in him.

Insisting that John Holdren is secretly trying to institute mandatory sterilization—in the face of all evidence to the contrary—is like insisting that the Obama administration is trying to foist “death panels” on us. Enough with the conspiracy theories, already! The river is rising!

Mike said...

The following excerpts were taken from a pronounced warning to the world in 1968 regarding the dangers of artificial contraception. In 1965 the "pill" was streamlined here in the U.S. and the rest is history. What follows seems very much like prophecy.

"Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards."

"Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection."

"Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone."

Pope Paul VI In his encylical "Humanae Vitae"

Robert Mooney said...

Artificial contraception (as opposed to natural contraception approved by the church but not used by the wider population) has tended to transfer pregnancy responsibility to females. This has undoubtedly had disastrous results in terms of fatherless families and financial and convenience pressure for abortion. But to suggest that Erlich and company, even if you believe, as you seem to, the worst interpretation of their book and otherwise published ideas, are the primary cause of the vast increase in abortion here and in Europe is a stretch. And it seems to absolve the culture of convenience we have suffered from, and gravely so, as have the other cultures to which we have so effectively exported it.

Gil, I am chagrined at your turn to taking a, and I hate to say it, political side in the culture war and adopting incautiously some of that side's arguments, some of which border on propoganda. Why, pray tell, do you so glibly accept the contrarian view on climate change? Just because some of the passionate on one side got stupid and tried to supress dissent, doesn't make the dissent correct. A more cautious position on the subject would befit you.

Gil Bailie said...

It is a familiar scenario: when those who patiently watch while a massive push to radically alter the political or social or moral landscape is taking place finally express their dismay and begin to push back, it is they who are accused of taking sides in the culture wars.

Doughlas Remy said...

...when those who patiently watch...finally express their dismay... and are accused of taking sides in the culture wars.

Gil, I don’t recall a time when you weren’t expressing your dismay or taking sides in the culture wars. But there’s nothing wrong with that, in my view. In times like ours, being a culture warrior may be the only responsible vocation. I’m just puzzled that you thought you were above the fray.

By my reckoning, you are fighting to return to a status quo that existed about 400 years ago. If you had lived at any time since the Discours de la m├ęthode, you would probably have been trying to roll back to the pre-Cartesian era. Modernism does not suit you, though, as I have so often pointed out, you obviously enjoy its benefits like the rest of us.

The AGW (anthropogenic global warming) debate did not particularly interest you until you discovered that it touched on population issues, which are of overriding concern to the Catholic Church. AGW and Catholic doctrine might have stayed in separate corners had it not been for the link between overpopulation and the environmental crisis that we are now experiencing. While world population is increasing exponentially, resources are diminishing exponentially. As forests are harvested to build more homes or to free more land for agriculture to feed the teeming billions, more and more CO2 remains of necessity in the atmosphere. Our planet now has about seven times as many people as it can sustainably support.

All major world scientific organizations are telling us that we are in crisis. You are telling us that we are not. But you’re not a scientist and you are offering no scientific evidence to buttress your denial. What, then, is the basis for your view that AGW is a hoax? I believe Robert was correct in identifying that basis as—at least in part—a political one. You have aligned yourself with a political party that is staunchly opposed to abortion, and resistance to climate action is a key item on their agenda. Many Republicans, e.g., those connected with the oil and gas industries, oppose AGW action for reasons that have nothing to do with abortion. Few if any of them, however, oppose AGW action for reasons that are based on sound science.

You have aligned yourself, in other words, with entities who view scientific evidence as a threat to their interests and worldviews—because of their oil and gas connections, or because of their religious beliefs about population growth, or because of their religious beliefs about the end times. Notice the prominence of “religious beliefs” among these obstructions. Can it be any surprise that secularists are becoming frustrated and angry at this spectacle of irrational beliefs trumping scientific evidence at a time when clear and unobstructed vision is so critical?

Doughlas Remy

Mike said...

"But to suggest that Erlich and company, even if you believe, as you seem to, the worst interpretation of their book and otherwise published ideas, are the primary cause of the vast increase in abortion here and in Europe is a stretch."

Robert, this is not what I am suggesting. It is a failed morality that has brought us to where we are in the crisis of aborttion. Pope Paul VI, in my view, warned us about what would come, and now we are seeing the consequences. Yet, even today, many Catholics are duped into believing that artificial contraception is not in fact a problem. Rather, they are told it is the solution. If contraception is sold as the solution to a problem for families, it's no surprise that the state will also see it as a solution to its problems. It's like trying to exstinguish a fire with jet fuel. Hopefully, one day, a majority of Catholics will be as prepared to defend the Church's teaching on artificial contraception as they are to defending its teaching on abortion.

Mike said...


I think it's astonishing that you lecture Gil about fear mongering and then you jump right into an analogy about the coming flood. On another post, Dean compares global warming doubters to those who ignored the threats to Pearl Harbor. It's like you have been so indoctrinated that you don't recognize even the mention of fear unless it comes from someone outside of your ideological sphere.

Over the last year, we have been told by two seperate administrations that a stimulus bill was absolutely necessary for our economy and there was no time to dilly dally (even though the majority of that money won't even have been spent until next year). Next, we were told that health care needed a complete overhaul and it needed to be done immediately or we would suffer grave consequences. The global warming issue has been brewing for years and now we are being given the same warning. Act now, there is no time to delay. All of this, of course, is being done with our granchildren's grandchildren's money. Some of us are just getting tired of being told that we are to ignorant to know what we ought to be afraid of.

Doughlas Remy said...

Mike, there is nothing astonishing about my position on fear. It is simply this: We should fear whatever threatens our security and survival, and we should not fear whatever doesn’t. I am saying that we are faced with the problem of unsustainable population growth and that the solution is to lower our birth rates. My fear is that we will not accept that solution, and Gil’s fear is that we will. My position is based on scientific evidence and Gil’s is based on dogma.

As you can see, I am not opposed to fear. I think fear is cool. We need it. It serves our survival. Without fear, we would not know to jump out of the way of an approaching truck.

What works against our survival, however, is fearing solutions rather than problems. Fearing to jump when the truck is approaching just doesn’t make sense. And it’s unhealthy.

So how do we know that the truck is real? Well, we observe it. In a fraction of a second, we assess its size, its weight, its speed, and its trajectory. And when the truck shows no signs of braking, we jump. And if anyone whispers in our ear that the truck is not there, we ignore them.

Yes, we are being told by the world’s scientific community that AGW is a critical issue that can only be addressed through adoption of certain radical measures. They aren’t asking us to take all this on faith, however. On the contrary, they are placing the evidence before us, and this evidence consists in many cases of well-documented events that have already happened or are now in progress, such as the melting of glaciers or the disappearance of polar ice. At the end of Dean’s comment, at the beginning of this thread, you will find a list of linked resources. I hope you will take the time to examine some of them.

Here’s an excerpt from an article in the online edition of The Guardian (Leo Hickman: “A Shroud Over the Truth,” 10/6/09, Hickman maintains that climate-change deniers are like those whose faith convinces them, despite the evidence, that the Turin Shroud is authentic. In the first paragraph, he is quoting a professor or organic chemistry at the University of Pavia who proved that the shroud is a fake.

"If they don't want to believe carbon dating done by some of the world's best laboratories they certainly won't believe me," says Professor Garlaschelli, acknowledging that his own studies into the origins of the shroud will have little, if any, impact on the relic's true believers.

Anyone who regularly wrestles in the bear-pit that is the climate change "debate" will nod their head in recognition at Garlaschelli's frustrations. The parallels are clear. There is a section of society that stubbornly refuses to "believe" in anthropogenic climate change, despite a near avalanche of evidence urging them to "believe" otherwise. Their faith in the status quo of the fossil-fuelled economy is immovable, it seems. The evidence before them suggesting otherwise is a challenge to their own belief that a free-market, libertarian approach to life is the best way forward. And because they don't like the smell of the solutions being proposed (by all means, let's have that debate – urgently), climate science is, therefore, judged to be a fraud, a conspiracy, a big lie being perpetuated by a left-wing cabal led by a cackling Al Gore or malevolent James Hansen. It would be laughable, if it wasn't so serious an issue.

It's a situation where an ideologically fuelled belief is allowed to trump an evidence-based belief. It's a world guided by empiricism versus a world prejudiced by emotion. And, personally, I know which world I "believe" in.

BTW, do you have any idea what Pope Benedict's position on AGW is?

Mike said...

Great. Not only do we have to worry about being bombed, and flooded, now we have to worry about being hit by a truck and, from the other post, our kitchen exploding. All of this "rational" thought is unsettling.

Proof that one is hung up on an ideological concept becomes evident when upon receiving information questioning the data upon which that concept was formulated, it is ignored and those responsible for making that information available are targeted for investigation before the new information is even acknowledged or studied.

I do not know what his holiness' position on global warming is, but I would love to learn more. I would like to see you post something about it because it's going to force you to make a decision. Either you will post something that demonstrates that he thinks it isn't real, or you will have to admit that your characterization of all believers was disingenuous. After all, you do realize that the Pope is Catholic right?

Also, why should we be afraid of global warming? We have natural selection on our side. We will probably just develop bomb proof skin and gils. Then we will just have to watch out when we cross the street and order carryout.

Dan Florio said...

The Vatican takes environmental responsibility seriously:

The pope himself has preached of a need for better environmental stewardship:

And more choice words regarding the environment from the pope:

But he also cautions against a kind of climate change-oriented orthodoxy that can easily subordinate immediate human needs to a sort of planet-worship (I'm paraphrasing mightily, read it for yourself):

Doughlas Remy said...

Great. Not only do we have to worry about being bombed, and flooded, now we have to worry about being hit by a truck and, from the other post, our kitchen exploding. All of this "rational" thought is unsettling.

Mike, since reading this, I have been trying to think of non-catastrophic analogies for catastrophic global warming, and I haven’t come up with any. I’m sorry all these scenarios are unsettling, but our whole purpose is to unsettle you if we can, because complacency and denial are inappropriate responses to the crisis that we’re facing.

The Vatican seems to be sending contradictory signals about this. The last article that Dan Florio cited (just above) shows Benedict denying that there is any cause for alarm. But in news just out a couple of days ago (12/2/09), we learn that the Vatican City State, which uses huge amounts of energy because of its heavy tourism, has committed itself to be the first carbon-neutral state in the world. They have sponsored a reforestation effort in Hungary to compensate (by absorption) for what the Vatican emits in carbon gases each year.

Maybe the Vatican is hedging its bets.

Dan Florio said...

I don't know about hedging bets, but sounding a warning against environmental pantheism while simultaneously acting in an environmentally responsible fashion is to me not a contradiction, but a sign of wisdom.

Doughlas Remy said...

(Part One)
Today, on, I found the following open letter to Congress from US scientists on climate change and recently stolen e-mails:

As U.S. scientists with substantial expertise on climate change and its impacts on natural ecosystems, our built environment and human well-being, we want to assure policy makers and the public of the integrity of the underlying scientific research and the need for urgent action to reduce heat-trapping emissions. In the last few weeks, opponents of taking action on climate change have misrepresented both the content and the significance of stolen emails to obscure public understanding of climate science and the scientific process.

We would like to set the record straight.

The body of evidence that human activity is the dominant cause of global warming is overwhelming. The content of the stolen emails has no impact whatsoever on our overall understanding that human activity is driving dangerous levels of global warming. The scientific process depends on open access to methodology, data, and a rigorous peer-review process. The robust exchange of ideas in the peer-reviewed literature regarding climate science is evidence of the high degree of integrity in this process.

As the recent letter to Congress from 18 leading U.S. scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Meteorological Society, states:

“Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science. … If we are to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change, emissions of greenhouse gases must be dramatically reduced.”

These “multiple independent lines of evidence” are drawn from numerous public and private research centers all across the United States and beyond, including several independent analyses of surface temperature data. Even without including analyses from the UK research center from which the emails were stolen, the body of evidence underlying our understanding of human-caused global warming remains robust.

We urge you to take account of this as you make decisions on climate policy.

Doughlas Remy said...

(Part two)
The following is a partial list of the signers of the above document:

David Archer, Ph.D.
Department of the Geophysical Sciences
University of Chicago
Chicago, IL

William C. Clark, Ph.D.^
Harvey Brooks Professor of International Science, Public Policy, and Human Development
John F. Kennedy School of Government
Harvard University
Cambridge, MA

Peter C. Frumhoff, Ph.D.
Director of Science and Policy
Chief Scientist, Climate Campaign
Union of Concerned Scientists
Cambridge, MA

Inez Fung, Ph.D.^
Professor of Atmospheric Science
Co-Director, Berkeley Institute of the Environment
University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley, CA

Neal Lane, Ph.D.
Rice University
Former Director, National Science Foundation
Former Director, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
Houston, TX

Michael MacCracken, Ph.D.
Chief Scientist for Climate Change Programs
The Climate Institute
Washington, DC

Pamela Matson, Ph.D.^
School of Earth Sciences
Stanford University
Stanford, CA

James J. McCarthy, Ph.D.
Alexander Agassiz Professor of Biological Oceanography
Harvard University
Cambridge, MA

Jerry Melillo, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist and Director Emeritus
The Ecosystems Center
Marine Biological Laboratory
Woods Hole, MA

Edward L. Miles, Ph.D.^
Bloedel Professor of Marine Studies and Public Affairs
School of Marine Affairs
Co-Director, Center for Science in the Earth System, JISAO
University of Washington
Seattle, WA

Mario J. Molina, Ph.D.^
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
University of California, San Diego
Nobel Laureate, Chemistry
San Diego, CA

Ellen Mosley-Thompson, Ph.D.^
Director, Byrd Polar Research Center
Professor of Geography and University Distinguished Scholar
The Ohio State University
Columbus, OH

Gerald R. North, Ph.D.
Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Sciences and Oceanography
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX

Michael Oppenheimer, Ph.D.
Albert G. Milbank Professor of Geosciences and International Affairs
Department of Geosciences and Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs
Princeton University
Princeton, NJ

Jonathan T. Overpeck, Ph.D.
Co-Director, Institute of the Environment
Department of Geosciences
Department of Atmospheric Sciences
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ

Ronald G. Prinn, Ph.D.
TEPCO Professor of Atmospheric Science
Director, Center for Global Change Science
Co-Director, Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, MA

Alan Robock, Ph.D.
Distinguished Professor
Rutgers University
President, Atmospheric Sciences Section, American Geophysical Union
Chair-Elect, Atmospheric and Hydrospheric Sciences Section, American Association for the Advancement of Science
New Brunswick, NJ

Benjamin D. Santer, Ph.D.
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Livermore, CA

William H. Schlesinger, Ph.D.^
President, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies
Millbrook, NY

Daniel P. Schrag, Ph.D.
Sturgis Hooper Professor of Geology
Professor of Environmental Science and Engineering
Director, Harvard University Center for the Environment
Cambridge, MA

Drew Shindell, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
New York, NY

Richard C. J. Somerville, Ph.D.
Distinguished Professor Emeritus and Research Professor
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
University of California, San Diego
La Jolla, CA

Warren M. Washington, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist
National Center for Atmospheric Research
Boulder, CO

Donald J. Wuebbles, Ph.D.. The Harry E. Preble Professor of Atmospheric Sciences
Department of Atmospheric Sciences
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Urbana, IL