Which scientific bodies currently deny humanity-caused global warming? Are there any?

Question

Specifically please, not just something like "many people say it is happening and many say it is not" or whatever, because it seems to me there are no bodies saying it is not anymore.

Lori: your reference is from 2003. First answerer: Could you give an article reference to your NASA quote please? Or a date?

Answer 1

Here's a listing of the position of many scientific bodies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

The only significant holdout is the American Association of Petroleum Engineers, who currently say the connection to man is "not proven". They're currently reevaluating that position because:

They are having members resign and having trouble recruiting young scientists because that position is considered unscientific and unjustified.

There are loads of scientists who agree that global warming is 80-90% man made. This graph, from the source below, is widely accepted as correct:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

Man made greenhouse gases as the main cause is the ONLY theory that matches the data. Other theories don't work. The numbers come out wrong. Note the key word "quantitative" in this quote:

"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know... Global warming is almost a no-brainer at this point. You really can't find intelligent, quantitative arguments to make it go away."

Dr. Jerry Mahlman, NOAA

The bottom line is the data. The very few skeptics have "logical" theories, the vast majority of scientists have the data.

"I wasn’t convinced by a person or any interest group—it was the data that got me. I was utterly convinced of this connection between the burning of fossil fuels and climate change. And I was convinced that if we didn’t do something about this, we would be in deep trouble.”

Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, USN (Ret.)
Former NASA Administrator, Shuttle Astronaut and the first Commander of the Naval Space Command

Answer 2

It seems agreed by all scientists on both sides of the argument that the Earth has a long history of temperature fluctuations (Ice Age to Warm Periods) of total global average temperature amplitude of approximately 10°C . Also, during these periods the global temperature seems to have somewhat stabilized for centuries to a number of millennia with periodic oscillations on the order of 1-3°C. So, what I can’t seem to get an understanding include the following. 1. How do we arrive at the conclusion that we are closer to the end of a warm period (temps to trend downward), as opposed to the beginning (temps could fluctuate upward naturally)? It seems the length of these peak dwells have varied significantly over the Earth history. So, how do we know where we are at? This has not been clearly identified in my opinion. 2. How do we arrive at the conclusion that temperatures are rising faster than ever before? It seems well agreed the temperature proxies of tree rings, ice cores, etc. are arguably effective as a general period temperature assessment but are also affected by other factors and therefore do not show the year-to-year, decade to decade rate of change with a high degree of accuracy. So my question is if we can’t measure rate of change accurately from this data, how do we make the conclusion current global temperatures are rising faster than ever before? Furthermore, recent proxy methods have simply been shown to be inaccurate in correlating present/recent temperature measurements to those in the past. To me, this is HUGE. 3. If we are relatively close to a significant cold asperity in the present warm period (ie little Ice Age), why shouldn’t we expect a peak heat asperity in the next few years or decades and for that peak to be naturally caused? If I can get the appropriate address of these, it would help me accept AGW.

Answer 3

The American Association of Petroleum Geologists is the only pre-existing scientific organization that does not support the current consensus on global warming. ("Pre-existing" in this context means an organization that existed before the climate change controversy. A number of advocacy and lobbying groups have sprung up since then.) But the AAPG is currently in the process of re-assessing its stand as a result of pressure from its membership.

There are dozens of pre-existing scientific organizations that support the consensus.

Answer 4

There's one - the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. You may get someone mentioning the Science and Environmental Policy Project, Oregon Institute and Scientific Alliance but these aren't scientific bodies. Apart from this there aren't any.

There are several non scientific organisations that deny global warming or partially deny it, these number about 20 in total and include the Cato Institute, Cooler Heads Coalition, Greenhouse Mafia and others. In the main these are groups of individuals with no official status and no backing from scientific or other organisations.

Answer 5

Scientists don't deny on a hunch. I promise that if computer models and their algorithms are made fully available to the public for scrutiny, scientists will be rolling over like dominoes.

Can you think of ANY plausible reason why policy is being discussed when the PRIME EVIDENCE for AGW is something for which everyone is supposed to take a small group of scientist's words?

If the case for AGW were airtight, you know these models would have been available years ago; the fact that they haven't DEMANDS that questions be asked.

Answer 6

According to NASA:

"We measure that carbon dioxide is currently increasing, and it seems to be getting warmer the last few decades. Although this suggests that increased greenhouse gases are causing the warming, it is not certain."

Reputable scientific bodies treat this theory as what it is, a theory that may or may not be true and still requires vast amounts of research. We have only in recent years begun to understand the climate cycles of the earth and what, if any, impact our 150 years of increasing pollution has made on this cycle.

As for Al Gore, that Suzuki guy, even the IPCC...they all thrive off of public fear of "global warming."

Answer 7

There are lots of scientists that dispute human caused global warming. As for scientific bodies, remember that they almost always are influenced by political forces.

Answer 8

You won't find a scientific body that denys anything, they always hedge. It is in the nature of science that there are no absolutes, only theories. The only certainty we have is mathematics.

Answer 9

Global Warming is a money making scheme at the moment, what scientific body wants to have their purse strings cut?

Answer 10

I'm a scientist who denies human-caused global warming. Also the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine are arranging a petition against governmental action on global warming.

My problem is this: the earth will warm and cool in its own cycles whether we cause it or not. It has been doing so steadily for billions of years in relation to the earth's distance from the sun, the sun's level of fusion activity, and the conditions of the earth herself. Therefore it behooves human populations to understand they may have to relocate in response to climate change, rather than try to stop climate change from happening; one way or the other, it will happen. Don't fear climate change, particularly a warming effect, it allows for a great deal of speciation and environmental growth in areas previously unable to thrive. It's nature's way.