| Revision as of 18:09, 12 November 2009 editNigelj (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers13,869 editsm rv other unsupported edits from 58.161.22.253← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 22:27, 11 January 2022 edit undoHydrogenation (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,490 edits Modifying redirect categories using Capricorn ♑ |
| (292 intermediate revisions by 94 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
⚫ |
#REDIRECT ] |
|
]s, many governmental reports, and the non-U.S. media often state that there is virtually unanimous agreement in the ] in support of human-caused ], although there is less agreement on the specific ] of this warming. Opponents either maintain that most scientists consider global warming "unproved," dismiss it altogether, or highlight the dangers of focusing on only one viewpoint in the context of unsettled science.<ref></ref><ref></ref><ref name="crichton03aliens">{{cite web|url=http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html|title=Lecture at CalTech: "Aliens Cause Global Warming"|first=Michael|last=Crichton|authorlink=Michael Crichton|date=17 January 2003|accessdate=2007-04-14}}</ref> |
|
|
Others maintain that either proponents or opponents have been stifled or driven underground.<ref name="bushpressure">{{cite web|url=http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11074-us-climate-scientists-pressured-on-climate-change.html|title=US climate scientists pressured on climate change|authorlink=New Scientist|date=31 January 2007|accessdate=2007-08-10|publisher=]}}</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Redirect category shell| |
|
==Scientific opinion== |
|
|
|
{{R from merge}} |
|
===Scientific consensus=== |
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
| ⚫ |
{{Main|Scientific opinion on climate change}} |
|
|
|
|
|
The majority of ] agree that global warming is primarily caused by ] such as ] burning and ].<ref>{{cite web|title=Global Warning|date=5 February 2007|accessdate=2007-04-12|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/04/AR2007020400953.html|publisher=Washington Post}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Scientists agree on climatic change, differ on severity|last=Barker|first=Scott|publisher=]|date=October 25, 2003|accessdate=2007-04-12|url=http://www.csm.ornl.gov/PR/NS-10-25-03.html}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=A guide to facts and fictions about climate change|publisher=]|url=http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/downloaddoc.asp?id=1630|accessdate=2007-11-18|month=March|year=2005|quote="However, the overwhelming majority of scientists who work on climate change agree on the main points"}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change|publisher=]|url=http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686|accessdate=2008-01-04|month=December|year=2004}}</ref> The conclusion that global warming is mainly caused by human activity and will continue if ] emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by more than 75 ], including all of the ] of science of the ]. The ],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate-change-final.pdf|title=Understanding and Responding to Climate Change|format=PDF|accessdate=2008-12-29}}</ref> the ],<ref> December 2006</ref> the ],<ref> February 2003</ref> the ],<ref></ref> and the Joint Science Academies of the major industrialized and developing nations<ref>{{cite web|url=http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf|title=Joint Science Academies' Statement|format=PDF|accessdate=2008-12-29}}</ref><ref></ref> explicitly use the word "]" when referring to this conclusion. |
|
|
|
|
|
A 2004 essay by ] in the journal '']'' reported a survey of 928 ] of ] papers related to global climate change in the ] database.<ref>{{Citation|title=Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change|last=Oreskes|first=Naomi|author-link=Naomi Oreskes|year=2004|journal=]|volume=306|issue=5702|page=1686|doi=10.1126/science.1103618|url=http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686}}</ref> Oreskes claimed that "Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. ... This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with ], the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies." ] claimed to have found flaws in Oreskes' work,<ref>{{cite web|title=The Dangers of Consensus Science|first=Benny|last=Peiser|authorlink=Benny Peiser|date=May 17, 2005|publisher=]|accessdate=2007-04-12|url=http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/NationalPost.htm}}</ref> but his attempted refutation is disputed<ref>{{cite web|title=Peiser admits to making a mistake|last=Lambert|first=Tim|publisher=Deltoid (blog)|url=http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/03/peiser_admits_to_making_a_mist.php|date=22 March 2006|accessdate=2007-04-12}}</ref><ref name="PeiserMW" /><ref>{{cite web|title=Peiser’s 34 abstracts|last=Lambert|first=Tim|publisher=Deltoid (blog)|date=May 6, 2005|accessdate=2007-04-12|url=http://timlambert.org/2005/05/peiser/}}</ref> and has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Peiser later withdrew parts of his criticism,<ref>{{cite web|title=Climate science: Sceptical about bias|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7092614.stm|first=Richard|last=Black|date=2007-11-14|accessdate=2008-04-22|publisher=BBC|quote=This saga has also been so well documented, not least on Dr Peiser's website, that again there is little new to say, except that Dr Peiser now says he is glad Science decided not to publish his research because "my critique of Oreskes' flawed study was later found to be partially flawed itself".}}</ref> |
|
|
also commenting that "the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous."<ref name="PeiserMW">{{cite web|title=RE: Media Watch enquiry|url=http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/ep38peiser.pdf|first=Benny|last=Peiser|authorlink=Benny Peiser|date=October 12, 2006|publisher=]|accessdate=2007-04-12|format=PDF}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Bolt's Minority View|url=http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1777013.htm|date=2006-10-30|accessdate=2008-04-22|publisher=]}}</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
A 2006 ] by ] in '']'' challenged the claim that scientific consensus had been reached, and listed the Science journal study as well as other sources, including the IPCC and NAS reports, as part of "an intense effort to suggest that the theoretically expected contribution from additional carbon dioxide has actually been detected."<ref>{{cite web|title=Don't Believe the Hype|url=http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597|last=Lindzen|first=Richard S.|authorlink=Richard Lindzen|date=|publisher=]|accessdate=2007-04-12|quote="Although no cause for alarm rests on this issue, there has been an intense effort to claim that the theoretically expected contribution from additional carbon dioxide has actually been detected. Given that we do not understand the natural internal variability of climate change, this task is currently impossible. Nevertheless there has been a persistent effort to suggest otherwise, and with surprising impact."}}</ref> Lindzen wrote in ''The Wall Street Journal'' on April 12, 2006,<ref name="LindzenCoF">{{cite web|title=Climate of Fear|url=http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220|last=Lindzen|first=Richard S.|authorlink=Richard Lindzen|date=April 12, 2006|publisher=]|accessdate=2007-04-12}}</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Cquote|But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.}} |
|
|
|
|
|
At least one survey of the scientific community has found the opposite problem—] notes that in surveys a much larger fraction of U.S. scientists consistently state that they are pressured by their employers or by U.S. government bodies to ''deny'' that global warming results from human activities<ref name="bushpressure" /> or risk losing funding. |
|
|
|
|
|
In response to claims of a consensus on global warming, some skeptics have compared the theory to a ],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cdfe.org/global_warming_religion.htm|title=In Global Warming we trust|date=2 December 2004|accessdate=2007-08-18|author=Marc Morano|publisher=]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L21418509.htm|title=Czech leader Klaus fights global warming "religion"|author=Jan Lopatka|publisher=Reuters|date=21 March 2007|accessdate=2007-08-18}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2007/06/archery.html|title=Archery|author=Kevin Steel|publisher=]|date=13 June 2007|accessdate=2007-08-18}}</ref> to scientific support for the ] movement,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/180_Eugenics.pdf|title=Science and Politics: Global Warming and Eugenics|author=]|publisher=Oxford University Press|year=1996|accessdate=2007-08-18|format=PDF}}</ref><ref name="linder-oped">{{cite web|url=http://washtimes.com/op-ed/20070218-100445-1207r.htm|title=Global Warming Theory and the Eugenics Precedent - John Linder}}</ref> and to discredited scientific theories such as ]<ref>,''Tracinski, Robert'', Brooksnews.com, April 2007</ref> and ].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://republicans.oversight.house.gov/hearings/OpeningStatement.aspx?OSID=11|title=Opening Statement of a Congressional Hearing}}</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
In 2008, Fergus Brown, ] and ] submitted a paper titled "Is there agreement amongst climate scientists on the IPCC AR4 WG1?"<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frsgc/research/d5/jdannan/survey.pdf|title=Is there agreement amongst climate scientists on the IPCC AR4 WG1?|author=Fergus Brown|co-authors=Roger Pielke and James Annan|publisher=(unpublished)|year=2008|accessdate=2008-04-20|format=PDF}}</ref> It was rejected for publication by the ] (AGU) publication ] and ''].'' Pielke writes: “From this experience, it is clear that the AGU EOS and Nature Precedings Editors are using their positions to suppress evidence that there is more diversity of views on climate, and the human role in altering climate, than is represented in the narrowly focused 2007 IPCC report.”<ref>{{cite web|url=http://climatesci.org/2008/04/17/fairness-in-climate-science-reporting-an-example-of-bias-by-the-agu-publication-eos-by-fred-spilhaus/|title=Fairness In Climate Science Reporting - An Example Of Bias|author=Roger A. Pielke|publisher=]|year=2008|accessdate=2008-04-20}}</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
A survey published in 2009 by Peter Doran and Maggie Zimmerman of , ] of 3146 Earth Scientists found that 97% of active ] agree that human activity is causing global warming.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/97_of_active_climatologists_ag.php|title=97% of active climatologists agree that human activity is causing global warming|author=Tim Lambert|publisher=Tim Lambert|year=2009|accessdate=2009-01-20}}</ref> A summary from the survey states that: |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Cquote|It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf|title=Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change|author=Peter T. Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman|publisher=]|year=2008|accessdate=2009-01-20}}</ref>}} |
|
|
|
|
|
===Position statements=== |
|
|
Several scientific organizations have issued position statements in which they explicitly used the term "consensus": |
|
|
*], 2006: "The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Joint National Academies' statement."<ref name="aaas board"> ''www.aaas.org'' December 2006</ref> |
|
|
*]: "In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth’s warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. ... On climate change, have assessed consensus findings on the science..."<ref></ref> |
|
|
*]: "We recognise the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."<ref></ref> |
|
|
*]: "The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus."<ref></ref> |
|
|
*], 2003: "The nature of science is such that there is rarely total agreement among scientists. Individual scientific statements and papers—the validity of some of which has yet to be assessed adequately—can be exploited in the policy debate and can leave the impression that the scientific community is sharply divided on issues where there is, in reality, a strong scientific consensus.... IPCC assessment reports are prepared at approximately five-year intervals by a large international group of experts who represent the broad range of expertise and perspectives relevant to the issues. The reports strive to reflect a consensus evaluation of the results of the full body of peer-reviewed research.... They provide an analysis of what is known and not known, the degree of consensus, and some indication of the degree of confidence that can be placed on the various statements and conclusions."<ref> February 2003</ref> |
|
|
*]: “A consensus, based on current evidence, now exists within the global scientific community that human activities are the main source of climate change and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible for driving this change.”<ref name="autogenerated1">{{cite web | url=http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/4/825/NASAC%20G8%20statement%2007%20-%20low%20res.pdf | title=Joint statement by the Network of African Science Academies (NASAC) to the G8 on sustainability, energy efficiency and climate change | year=2007 | accessdate=2008-03-29 | publisher=Network of African Science Academies |format=PDF}}</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
*], 2008: "INQUA recognizes the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."<ref></ref> |
|
|
*, 2006: "There is almost total consensus among experts that the earth’s climate is changing as a result of the build-up of greenhouse gases.... There is broad scientific consensus that coral reefs are heavily affected by the activities of man and there are significant global influences that can make reefs more vulnerable such as global warming...."<ref>, June 16, 2006</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
===Heartland Institute's list=== |
|
|
|
|
|
On April 29, 2008, environmental journalist Richard Littlemore revealed that a list of "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares"<ref></ref> propagated by the ] included at least 45 scientists who neither knew of their inclusion as "coauthors" of the article, nor agreed with its contents.<ref></ref> Many of the scientists asked the Heartland Institute to remove their names from the list; for instance, Gregory Cutter from the ] was reported by Littlemore as saying, |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Cquote|I have ''no'' doubts ..the recent changes in global climate ''are'' man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there.}} |
|
|
|
|
|
However, the Heartland Institute refused to remove any names from the list. In a statement on May 5, 2008, Institute CEO Joseph Bast said that the title of the September 14, 2007 news release announcing the list had been changed to "500 Scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.webcitation.org/5XasltdIG|title=Controversy Arises Over Lists of Scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares|accessdate=2008-05-06|last=|first=|coauthors=|date=|work=|publisher=}}</ref> In the same statement, Bast also charged that the outraged scientists: |
|
|
{{Cquote|...have crossed the line between scientific research and policy advocacy. They lend their credibility to politicians and advocacy groups who call for higher taxes and more government regulations to “save the world” from catastrophic warming ... and not coincidentally, to fund more climate research. They are embarrassed—as they should be—to see their names in a list of scientists whose peer-reviewed published work suggests the modern warming might be due to a natural 1,500-year climate cycle.}} |
|
|
Bast also stated that: |
|
|
{{Cquote|The point should be obvious: There is no scientific consensus that global warming is a crisis.}} |
|
|
|
|
|
===Petitions=== |
|
|
|
|
|
In 1997, the “World Scientists Call For Action” petition was presented to world leaders meeting to negotiate the ]. The declaration asserted, “A broad consensus among the world's climatologists is that there is now ‘a discernible human influence on global climate.’" It urged governments to make “legally binding commitments to reduce industrial nations' emissions of heat-trapping gases”, and called global warming “one of the most serious threats to the planet and to future generations.”<ref name=1997_Call_for_Action> |
|
|
{{cite web|url=http://www.ucsusa.org/ucs/about/1997-world-scientists-call-for-action.html|title=World Scientists Call For Action|author=Union of Concerned Scientists|archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20071012163018/http://ucsusa.org/ucs/about/1997-world-scientists-call-for-action.html|archivedate=10/12/2007|xquote=Projections indicate that demand for food in Asia will exceed the supply by 2010.}}</ref> |
|
|
The petition was conceived by the ] as a follow up to their 1992 ], and was signed by “more than 1,500 of the world's most distinguished senior scientists, including the majority of Nobel laureates in science”<ref></ref><ref></ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
To support his claim of a lack of consensus, the website of prominent skeptic ]'s ] (SEPP) lists four petitions. According to SEPP, these petitions show that "the number of scientists refuting global warming is growing."<ref>{{cite web|title=The number of scientists refuting global warming is growing|last=Crandall|first=Candance|date=November 20, 1998|publisher=Washington Post|url=http://www.sepp.org/key%20issues/glwarm/ccwtltr.html|accessdate=2007-04-12}}</ref> The petitions are: |
|
|
* The 1992 "Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming," signed by 47 scientists, claims "such policy initiatives ] scheduled to convene in Brazil in June 1992] derive from highly uncertain scientific theories. They are based on the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuels and requires immediate action. We do not agree."<ref>{{cite web|title=Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming|date=27 February 1992|publisher=]|accessdate=2007-04-12|url=http://www.sepp.org/policy%20declarations/statment.html}}</ref> |
|
|
* The "]" (also from 1992), signed by over 4000 scientists including 72 ] winners.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.sepp.org/policy%20declarations/heidelberg_appeal.html|title=The Heidelberg Appeal}}</ref> This appeal makes no mention of climate change or any other specific ], but is essentially a plea for policy based on "scientific criteria and not on irrational preconceptions". |
|
|
* Singer's "] on Global Climate Change" (1995 and 1997). Critics point out that most of the signatories lack credentials in the specific field of climate research or even physical science in general.<ref>{{cite web|first=David|last=Olinger|title=Cool to the warnings of global warming's dangers Series: COLUMN ONE|url=http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sptimes/access/22741240.html?dids=22741240:22741240&FMT=FT&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Jul+29%2C+1996&author=DAVID+OLINGER&pub=St.+Petersburg+Times&edition=&startpage=1.A&desc=Cool+to+the+warnings+of+global+warming%27s+dangers+Series%3A+COLUMN+ONE|publisher=]|date=29 July 1996|accessdate=2007-04-13}}</ref> Followup interviews found at least twelve signers who denied having signed the Declaration or had never heard of it.<ref></ref> |
|
|
* The "]", self-signed and unverified by third party, was started in 1998 by physicist ], past president of the United States National Academy of Sciences. The identical petition card was circulated again in late 2007 and ] presented the petition of 31,000 claimed signatories in Washington DC on May 19, 2008.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS223541+15-May-2008+PRN20080515|title=Advisory: Dr. Arthur Robinson (OISM) to Release Names of over 30,000 Scientists Rejecting Global Warming Hypothesis|date=2008-05-15|publisher=Reuters.com}}</ref> Critics point out that many of the signatories of the petition lack a background in climate-related sciences<ref>{{cite journal|url=http://www.sciam.com/page.cfm?section=sidebar&articleID=0004F43C-DC1A-1C6E-84A9809EC588EF21|title=Skepticism about sceptics|journal=]|date=5 March 2005|accessdate=2007-04-12|issue=Mar 2005|format={{Dead link|date=June 2008}} – <sup></sup>}} {{Dead link|url=http://www.sciam.com/page.cfm?section=sidebar&articleID=0004F43C-DC1A-1C6E-84A9809EC588EF21|date=June 2008|date=August 2009}} See also: {{cite web|url=http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?fded5949-97a0-41e8-ad66-bba0fa15e61f|author=Todd Shelly|publisher=]|accessdate=2007-03-31|date=14 July 2005|title=Bashing the Scientific Consensus on Global Warming}}</ref> and that the petition itself mentions only "catastrophic heating" and not the broader issue of global warming. The petition's website claims that all of the 31,000 signatories are qualified scientists with "technical training suitable for the evaluation of the relevant research data."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm|title=Oregon Petition website}}</ref> However, anyone with a degree was entitled to sign the list and this would therefore include many who are not qualified to evaluate the complex data and modelling involved.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2|title=The Denial Industry|first=George|last=Monbiot|author-link=George Monbiot|date=]}}</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
===Open Letters=== |
|
|
|
|
|
In April 2006, a group describing itself as "sixty scientists" signed an ]<ref>{{citeweb|url=http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605|title=Open Kyoto to debate|publisher=Financial Post|accessdate=2008-07-02}}</ref> to the Canadian Prime Minister ] to ask that he revisit the science of global warming and "Open Kyoto to debate." As with the earlier statements, critics pointed out that many of the signatories were non-scientists or lacked relevant scientific backgrounds.<ref>{{cite web|title=Who are the sixty|url=http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1056|publisher=desmogblog.org|accessdate=2007-03-02}}</ref> For example, the group included David Wojick, a journalist, and ], a social anthropologist. More than half the signatories cited past or emeritus positions as their main appointments. Only two (Richard Lindzen and ]) indicated current appointments in a university department or a recognized research institute in climate science.<ref></ref> One of the signatories has since publicly recanted, stating that his signature was obtained by deception regarding the content of the letter.<ref>{{cite web|title=Signatory Bails on Anti-Climate Science Petition|last=Hoggan|first=Jim|publisher=DeSmogBlog.com|date=18 April 2006|accessdate=2007-04-12|url=http://www.desmogblog.com/signatory-bails-on-anti-climate-science-petition}}</ref> In response shortly afterward another open letter to Prime Minister Harper endorsing the IPCC report and calling for action on climate change was prepared by ] and signed by 90 Canadian climate scientists initially, plus 30 more who endorsed it after its release.<ref>{{cite web|title="Canada's top climate scientists issue open letter to Prime Minister Harper calling for action on climate change (press release)"|url=http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/April2006/19/c8968.html|last=McBean|first=Gordon|date=April 19, 2006|accessdate=2007-04-20}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cfcas.org/LettertoPM19apr06e.pdf|title="An Open Letter to the Prime Minister of Canada on Climate Change Science"|last=McBean|first=Gordon|date=April 19, 2006|accessdate=2007-04-20|format=PDF}}</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
In October 2009, the leaders of 18 US ] and organizations sent an open letter to members of the ] stating, "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."<ref>] website October 22, 2009.]</ref> |
|
|
The letter goes on to warn of predicted impacts on the United States such as ] and increases in ], ], ], ], and the disturbance of ]. It then advocates for a dramatic reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases. |
|
|
|
|
|
The letter was signed by the Presidents or Executive Directors of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, ], American Geophysical Union, ], American Meteorological Society, ], , ], , ], , ], , ], ], , ], and the ].<ref></ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
==References== |
|
|
|
|
|
{{reflist|colwidth=30em}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{DEFAULTSORT:Climate Change Consensus}} |
|
|
] |
|