Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
You mean the scientific claim that we were entering a period of global cooling was a lie?
- Status
F
ferdgoodfellow
Guest
Yes I have read the encyclical and listened to some commentary on it. I am trying to understand and embrace the larger principles contained therein. However, I strongly disagree with the Holy Father’s jumping on the IPCC bandwagon.Ferd…
Because I believe the experts in the field,…
Okay so why am I not a skeptic? Because of all that and more. I asked earlier if anyone has read the Popes encyclical which is available online? I believe as Catholics we should before we rush to judgment. Thank you for listening and have a great day!
As I’ve stated before, it is not surprising that he has done so. President Obama’s science advisor, John Holdren, tells us that the IPCC is the source of “the most important conclusions” about climate change and that these conclusions rest on: “…an immense edifice of painstaking studies published in the world’s leading peer-reviewed scientific journals. They have been vetted and documented in excruciating detail by the largest, longest, costliest, most international, most interdisciplinary, and most thorough formal review of a scientific topic ever conducted.” Other bodies have weighed in on global warming from time to time, but only the IPCC has undertaken such a massive, systematic, comprehensive, world-wide, and long term effort. So the IPCC now stands as the preeminent authority on global warming, and it is quite natural for the Holy Father to look to the IPCC for guidance.
But wasn’t a little more due diligence on the part of the Holy Father in order, given what is in the public record? I will furder splain meself after me noon nap.
cordially
ferd
E
Ender
Guest
I didn’t ask for evidence of global warming in the past. You made the very specific claim that “global warming is still on the rise.” I challenged that assertion and asked for evidence to counter the obvious fact that atmospheric temperatures have not risen for over 18 years. How can you claim warming is still going on…when it isn’t?
Ender
K
Karen107
Guest
Wow that’s what one gets when they answer why they believe in something . I will stand by My Pope despite the critics because I believe he’s right on.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
…and there are an equal number of articles by real scientists (not political scientists) who agree with the possibility of a warming climate…but do not agree it is caused by man.
…
Bingo…the magic word:** “consensus”**…
The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.
I maintain that this whole subject is less about “science” and mythical environmental control than it is about politics. Those who promote this hoax are only interested in passing laws like “Cap and Trade”- - the bartering of “carbon credits”, and the redistribution of wealth from industrial nations to third world countries.
I have stated that there is no evidence proving that man is capable of causing climate change.
I am confident of this statement because it is true and more and more people are realizing this.
S
sps49
Guest
You know, that is interesting. I too know scientists, physicists, chemists, biologists, anthropologists, and engineers in and out of the “field” as well, and have worked with and around them for many years. Yet I get a different narrative than you do. They freely admit their uncertainties in the data collection, analysis and model projections, do not broadcast all the possibilities, but responsibly analyze the likely or plausible scenarios. I read 2-4 papers a month for the last 12 years on climate science, in addition to the papers I read in the course of my professional work. Why do you think that is, why do you think that I have come to a different opinion of the subject than you have? Is it possible that that there are other plausible, realistic explanations than the catastrophic ones you are intimate with?
S
sps49
Guest
It’s a good thing that AGW is not an article of faith, and that we are free to have a dissenting opinion on it. The last thing we need is a “velvet hammer” to ensure compliance with opinions outside the deposit of faith.
F
ferdgoodfellow
Guest
Karen said: Because I believe the experts in the field,…
Normally it is reasonable to trust the collective and cumulative wisdom of scientific experts, but climate science is an exception.
Repeating my legal analogy, CO2 has been tried and convicted of causing dangerous global warming. This trial was conducted primarily by the IPCC and it has lasted over 20 years. CO2 now stands convicted, and it is as if you and I and Pope Francis are now part of the jury convened to determine CO2’s punishment. The world’s leading expert witness in the sentencing phase, the IPCC, is now urging us to impose drastic cuts in our CO2 emissions.
But before the jury starts its sentencing deliberations, a Friend of the Court (FOC) bursts into the courtroom and the following exchange occurs:
FOC: Your honor, in the interests of truth and justice I ask to be heard in this matter. I have new information concerning this case which exonerates the defendant. I request permission to cross-examine the State’s expert witness.
Judge: Very well, this is a grave matter and we want to have all the evidence.
FOC: Thank you, your honor. I call Rajendra Pachauri to the stand. [Pachauri is sworn in] Dr. P, you were chairman of the IPCC during while its last three reports were written and published?
P: Correct
FOC: But you recently resigned?
P: Ahem, yes, but I am innocent those charges.
FOC: You must mean those allegations of sexual impropriety. We may come back to that later. We have more substantive issues to address first.
[On the IPCC’s inherent bias]
Dr. P. do you maintain that the IPCC reports are fair and objective?
P: Of course. Our charter mandates that we be fair and objective.
FOC: But doesn’t your charter also state that you serve the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)?
P: Oh yes, I have been very open that the UNFCCC is our “main customer.”
FOC: But isn’t the UNFCCC a convention which has already determined that CO2 is guilty of causing dangerous global warming?
P: Well, technically that could be true, but we still have to follow the evidence wherever it leads.
FOC: Let me put the question this way: How long would you have lasted in your job as chairman if you produced reports that didn’t say CO2 was guilty and that global warming wasn’t a big problem? [No response from Dr. P.]
[The IPCC really isn’t a scientific organization.]
FOC: Dr. P, is the IPCC scientific organization?
P: Absolutely. We are all about the science.
FOC: But isn’t it true that the IPCC is ultimately a governmental body comprised of 195 member governments in which the politicians rule, not the scientists?
P: It is true that our members are governments, but I wouldn’t say the politicians rule.
FOC: [shows Dr. P a page from the IPCC website describing the inner workings of the IPCC.] But doesn’t each government select the scientists who will participate, which compromises their independence, and don’t the member governments choose the bureaucrats who conduct the day-to-day operations and control the review process, and don’t the politicians write the all-important Summary for Policymakers?
P: ahem, no, I mean, yes, but…
FOC: And don’t the politicians even reserve the right to edit the underlying scientific reports themselves so that they conform to the summaries?
P: No, that not true!
FOC: Dr. P, please read the following from the Principles Governing IPCC Work.
P: [reads text] Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter.
FOC: And isn’t it standard practice for the IPCC to release the Summary for Policymakers before the underlying scientific reports are completed?
P: [reluctantly] Yes.
FOC: So summarize your conclusions first, and then produce the reports?
P: [no answer]
[Suffice it to say, the politicians rule, not the scientists.]
END OF FIRST INSTALLMENT OF THE CROSS-X OF RAJENDRA PACHAURI
Normally it is reasonable to trust the collective and cumulative wisdom of scientific experts, but climate science is an exception.
Repeating my legal analogy, CO2 has been tried and convicted of causing dangerous global warming. This trial was conducted primarily by the IPCC and it has lasted over 20 years. CO2 now stands convicted, and it is as if you and I and Pope Francis are now part of the jury convened to determine CO2’s punishment. The world’s leading expert witness in the sentencing phase, the IPCC, is now urging us to impose drastic cuts in our CO2 emissions.
But before the jury starts its sentencing deliberations, a Friend of the Court (FOC) bursts into the courtroom and the following exchange occurs:
FOC: Your honor, in the interests of truth and justice I ask to be heard in this matter. I have new information concerning this case which exonerates the defendant. I request permission to cross-examine the State’s expert witness.
Judge: Very well, this is a grave matter and we want to have all the evidence.
FOC: Thank you, your honor. I call Rajendra Pachauri to the stand. [Pachauri is sworn in] Dr. P, you were chairman of the IPCC during while its last three reports were written and published?
P: Correct
FOC: But you recently resigned?
P: Ahem, yes, but I am innocent those charges.
FOC: You must mean those allegations of sexual impropriety. We may come back to that later. We have more substantive issues to address first.
[On the IPCC’s inherent bias]
Dr. P. do you maintain that the IPCC reports are fair and objective?
P: Of course. Our charter mandates that we be fair and objective.
FOC: But doesn’t your charter also state that you serve the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)?
P: Oh yes, I have been very open that the UNFCCC is our “main customer.”
FOC: But isn’t the UNFCCC a convention which has already determined that CO2 is guilty of causing dangerous global warming?
P: Well, technically that could be true, but we still have to follow the evidence wherever it leads.
FOC: Let me put the question this way: How long would you have lasted in your job as chairman if you produced reports that didn’t say CO2 was guilty and that global warming wasn’t a big problem? [No response from Dr. P.]
[The IPCC really isn’t a scientific organization.]
FOC: Dr. P, is the IPCC scientific organization?
P: Absolutely. We are all about the science.
FOC: But isn’t it true that the IPCC is ultimately a governmental body comprised of 195 member governments in which the politicians rule, not the scientists?
P: It is true that our members are governments, but I wouldn’t say the politicians rule.
FOC: [shows Dr. P a page from the IPCC website describing the inner workings of the IPCC.] But doesn’t each government select the scientists who will participate, which compromises their independence, and don’t the member governments choose the bureaucrats who conduct the day-to-day operations and control the review process, and don’t the politicians write the all-important Summary for Policymakers?
P: ahem, no, I mean, yes, but…
FOC: And don’t the politicians even reserve the right to edit the underlying scientific reports themselves so that they conform to the summaries?
P: No, that not true!
FOC: Dr. P, please read the following from the Principles Governing IPCC Work.
P: [reads text] Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter.
FOC: And isn’t it standard practice for the IPCC to release the Summary for Policymakers before the underlying scientific reports are completed?
P: [reluctantly] Yes.
FOC: So summarize your conclusions first, and then produce the reports?
P: [no answer]
[Suffice it to say, the politicians rule, not the scientists.]
END OF FIRST INSTALLMENT OF THE CROSS-X OF RAJENDRA PACHAURI
L
lynnvinc
Guest
[/QUOTE]
E
EmperorNapoleon
Guest
Not the case for several reasons:
- Trees and plants, including staple crops, exposed to higher levels of CO2 have higher yields. That might seem nice, but below the surface it is a bad thing. Leaves, fruits, vegetables, and grains have significantly fewer nutrients. That means anything depending on them for sustence must obtain and eat more just to offset the nutrient deficiency. This is bad news for many insects and animals that simply can’t ingest and process more food than their physiology allows. It is also bad news for the poor since they will have to buy more.
- Trees become more succeptible to disease and pests. They also have shorter lifespans. Their yield of seeds is much greater, but they do not experience accelerated growth. In short, mature trees die faster than can be offset by new forest growth.
- Most species of trees and plants and are extremely temperature sensitive. The rainforest demonstrates this as many of these species only exist at specific elevations and nowhere else. Some species have begun offsetting this by dissapearing from their original area and growing at higher elevations, but many have nowhere to go or simply don’t go anywhere so they go extinct. With them go the rest of the species connected to those ecosystems.
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
What is the IPCC again?
F
ferdgoodfellow
Guest
The Cross-X of Rajendra Pachauri –Part 2
[The IPCC has acted in accordance with this bias in ways too numerous to count.]
FOC: During your tenure as chairman, did you yourself maintain a fair and objective attitude, free of any biases against the defendant?
P: Of course.
FOC: Didn’t you once write a forward to a Greenpeace publication?
P: I did, but so what?
FOC: Didn’t you once say that you wished that IPCC critics would rub their faces with asbestos?
P: Er, I did, but they had it coming.
[The IPCC leadership, including Pachauri, have been hardly models of dispassionate objectivity.]
FOC: Has the IPCC thoroughly investigated other possible causes of late 20th century warming other than CO2?
P: Of course. We’ve looked at solar irradiance, volcanoes, and many and all the other possible causes. They’ve all been ruled out. CO2 is the only suspect with the means to cause global warming, motive, and opportunity. There is a strong correlation with atmospheric CO2 and the dramatic rise in global temperatures which we are experiencing…
FOC: Are you familiar with the work of Dr. Roy Spencer from the University of Alabama at Birmingham?
P: Or course.
FOC: Then you are aware that it is his opinion that natural cycles can explain the warming that occurred in the latter part of the 20th century?
P: Yes, but he is an Evangelical Christian who believes in intelligent design. How can we take his ideas seriously?
FOC: I have affidavits from Nir Shaviv, Sebastion Luening, Henrick Svensmark, and many other solar scientists who claim that their findings about solar influences on climate, other that solar irradiance, have been systematically ignored by the IPCC. What do you say them?
P: Cranks and outliers, all of them.
[In accordance with their mandate from the UNFCCC, the IPCC has systematically ignored other plausible causes of global warming.
FOC: I also have an affidavit from Dr. Vincent Gray. He claims that when he objected to the wording of drafts of IPCC reports, his objections were summarily dismissed. I have many other IPCC expert reviewers who experienced the same. What do you say to them?
P: If their opinions carried any weight, they would have been noted in the report.
FOC: It has been observed by Canadian journalist Donna Laframboise that the IPCC has not kept its distance from activist environmental organizations. She also exposed that the IPCC routinely lets hundreds of environmental activists into her ranks where they have served as administrators, lead authors, contributing authors, and expert reviewers, even while they have worked for organizations like Greenpeace and World Wildlife Fund. How does that show objectivity and lack of bias?
P: These were all professional people, perfectly capable of being fair and objective.
FOC: Dr. P, can you think of any employees of Exxon-Mobil or, say, the Heartland Institute, who have worked for the IPCC? [no answer]
[Again, the IPCC has acted in accordance with this bias in ways too numerous to count.]*
[The IPCC has acted in accordance with this bias in ways too numerous to count.]
FOC: During your tenure as chairman, did you yourself maintain a fair and objective attitude, free of any biases against the defendant?
P: Of course.
FOC: Didn’t you once write a forward to a Greenpeace publication?
P: I did, but so what?
FOC: Didn’t you once say that you wished that IPCC critics would rub their faces with asbestos?
P: Er, I did, but they had it coming.
[The IPCC leadership, including Pachauri, have been hardly models of dispassionate objectivity.]
FOC: Has the IPCC thoroughly investigated other possible causes of late 20th century warming other than CO2?
P: Of course. We’ve looked at solar irradiance, volcanoes, and many and all the other possible causes. They’ve all been ruled out. CO2 is the only suspect with the means to cause global warming, motive, and opportunity. There is a strong correlation with atmospheric CO2 and the dramatic rise in global temperatures which we are experiencing…
FOC: Are you familiar with the work of Dr. Roy Spencer from the University of Alabama at Birmingham?
P: Or course.
FOC: Then you are aware that it is his opinion that natural cycles can explain the warming that occurred in the latter part of the 20th century?
P: Yes, but he is an Evangelical Christian who believes in intelligent design. How can we take his ideas seriously?
FOC: I have affidavits from Nir Shaviv, Sebastion Luening, Henrick Svensmark, and many other solar scientists who claim that their findings about solar influences on climate, other that solar irradiance, have been systematically ignored by the IPCC. What do you say them?
P: Cranks and outliers, all of them.
[In accordance with their mandate from the UNFCCC, the IPCC has systematically ignored other plausible causes of global warming.
FOC: I also have an affidavit from Dr. Vincent Gray. He claims that when he objected to the wording of drafts of IPCC reports, his objections were summarily dismissed. I have many other IPCC expert reviewers who experienced the same. What do you say to them?
P: If their opinions carried any weight, they would have been noted in the report.
FOC: It has been observed by Canadian journalist Donna Laframboise that the IPCC has not kept its distance from activist environmental organizations. She also exposed that the IPCC routinely lets hundreds of environmental activists into her ranks where they have served as administrators, lead authors, contributing authors, and expert reviewers, even while they have worked for organizations like Greenpeace and World Wildlife Fund. How does that show objectivity and lack of bias?
P: These were all professional people, perfectly capable of being fair and objective.
FOC: Dr. P, can you think of any employees of Exxon-Mobil or, say, the Heartland Institute, who have worked for the IPCC? [no answer]
[Again, the IPCC has acted in accordance with this bias in ways too numerous to count.]*
S
sps49
Guest
The only studies that have shown decreases in nutrient value from elevated CO2 are meta-analysis studies of older work, which in themselves did not show a strong connection. The error bar size in the meta studies suggest that they were at detection thresholds, and the results themselves were not large decreases. This also tends to ignore the generational plant response to changing conditions, which the study did not examine.
The effects of change are not easy to predict,and making a statement that all change is bad is ignoring the plausible in favor of the possible, which is not a very rigorous approach, but it does get attention. There is always another side to the story, especially with AGW.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
The Cross-X of Rajendra Pachauri –Part 2
[The IPCC has acted in accordance with this bias in ways too numerous to count.]
FOC: During your tenure as chairman, did you yourself maintain a fair and objective attitude, free of any biases against the defendant?
P: Of course.
FOC: Didn’t you once write a forward to a Greenpeace publication?
P: I did, but so what?
FOC: Didn’t you once say that you wished that IPCC critics would rub their faces with asbestos?
P: Er, I did, but they had it coming.
[The IPCC leadership, including Pachauri, have been hardly models of dispassionate objectivity.]
FOC: Has the IPCC thoroughly investigated other possible causes of late 20th century warming other than CO2?
P: Of course. We’ve looked at solar irradiance, volcanoes, and many and all the other possible causes. They’ve all been ruled out. CO2 is the only suspect with the means to cause global warming, motive, and opportunity. There is a strong correlation with atmospheric CO2 and the dramatic rise in global temperatures which we are experiencing…
FOC: Are you familiar with the work of Dr. Roy Spencer from the University of Alabama at Birmingham?
P: Or course.
FOC: Then you are aware that it is his opinion that natural cycles can explain the warming that occurred in the latter part of the 20th century?
P: Yes, but he is an Evangelical Christian who believes in intelligent design. How can we take his ideas seriously?
FOC: I have affidavits from Nir Shaviv, Sebastion Luening, Henrick Svensmark, and many other solar scientists who claim that their findings about solar influences on climate, other that solar irradiance, have been systematically ignored by the IPCC. What do you say them?
P: Cranks and outliers, all of them.
[In accordance with their mandate from the UNFCCC, the IPCC has systematically ignored other plausible causes of global warming.
FOC: I also have an affidavit from Dr. Vincent Gray. He claims that when he objected to the wording of drafts of IPCC reports, his objections were summarily dismissed. I have many other IPCC expert reviewers who experienced the same. What do you say to them?
P: If their opinions carried any weight, they would have been noted in the report.
FOC: It has been observed by Canadian journalist Donna Laframboise that the IPCC has not kept its distance from activist environmental organizations. She also exposed that the IPCC routinely lets hundreds of environmental activists into her ranks where they have served as administrators, lead authors, contributing authors, and expert reviewers, even while they have worked for organizations like Greenpeace and World Wildlife Fund. How does that show objectivity and lack of bias?
P: These were all professional people, perfectly capable of being fair and objective.
FOC: Dr. P, can you think of any employees of Exxon-Mobil or, say, the Heartland Institute, who have worked for the IPCC? [no answer]
[Again, the IPCC has acted in accordance with this bias in ways too numerous to count.]*
OH…this is really good…
K
Karen107
Guest
Tsk Tsk, linking to a business magazine when we’re talking about a scientific truth. And I was taken to task for reading National Geographic!
K
Karen107
Guest
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a United Nations body that evaluates climate change science
.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.shtml
The IPCC is a scientific body under the auspices of the United Nations (UN). It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters.
Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information. IPCC aims to reflect a range of views and expertise. The Secretariat coordinates all the IPCC work and liaises with Governments. It is established by WMO and UNEP and located at WMO headquarters in Geneva. The IPCC is administered in accordance to UNEP, WMO and UN rules and procedures, including codes of conduct and ethical principles (as outlined in UN Ethics, WMO Ethics Function, Staff Regulations and 2012/07-Retaliation).
…
Because of its scientific and intergovernmental nature, the IPCC embodies a unique opportunity to provide rigorous and balanced scientific information to decision makers. By endorsing the IPCC reports, governments acknowledge the authority of their scientific content. The work of the organization is therefore policy-relevant and yet policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive.
Here is list of groups that are representing America.
climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Now lets look at this list of groups who supports manmade climate change.
opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php
I’m just stating facts…
K
Karen107
Guest
A ;letter from scientists to their Senator pleading government to act.
aaas.org/sites/default/files/migrate/uploads/1021climate_letter1.pdf
If you cant see the link here/s what it says…
October 21, 2009
Dear Senator:
As you consider climate change legislation, we, as leaders of scientific
organizations, write to state the consensus scientific view.
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. Moreover, there is strong
evidence that ongoing climate change will have broad impacts on
society, including the global economy and on the environment. For the
United States, climate change impacts include sea level rise for coastal
states, greater threats of extreme weather events, and increased risk of
regional water scarcity, urban heat waves, western wildfires, and the
disturbance of biological systems throughout the country. The severity
of climate change impacts is expected to increase substantially in the
coming decades.1
If we are to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change, emissions
of greenhouse gases must be dramatically reduced. In addition,
adaptation will be necessary to address those impacts that are already
unavoidable. Adaptation efforts include improved infrastructure design,
more sustainable management of water and other natural resources,
modified agricultural practices, and improved emergency responses to
storms, floods, fires and heat waves.
We in the scientific community offer our assistance to inform your
deliberations as you seek to address the impacts of climate change.
Letterhead acknowledgement.Now I don’t think these scientists are quacks.
American Association for the
Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of
Biological Sciences
American Meteorological
Society
American Society of
Agronomy
American Society of Plant
Biologists
American Statistical
Association
Association of Ecosystem
Research Centers
Botanical Society of America
Crop Science Society of
America
Ecological Society of America
Natural Science Collections
Alliance
Organization of Biological
Field Stations
Society for Industrial and
Applied Mathematics
Society of Systematic
Biologists
Soil Science Society of
America
University Corporation for
Atmospheric Research
aaas.org/sites/default/files/migrate/uploads/1021climate_letter1.pdf
If you cant see the link here/s what it says…
October 21, 2009
Dear Senator:
As you consider climate change legislation, we, as leaders of scientific
organizations, write to state the consensus scientific view.
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. Moreover, there is strong
evidence that ongoing climate change will have broad impacts on
society, including the global economy and on the environment. For the
United States, climate change impacts include sea level rise for coastal
states, greater threats of extreme weather events, and increased risk of
regional water scarcity, urban heat waves, western wildfires, and the
disturbance of biological systems throughout the country. The severity
of climate change impacts is expected to increase substantially in the
coming decades.1
If we are to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change, emissions
of greenhouse gases must be dramatically reduced. In addition,
adaptation will be necessary to address those impacts that are already
unavoidable. Adaptation efforts include improved infrastructure design,
more sustainable management of water and other natural resources,
modified agricultural practices, and improved emergency responses to
storms, floods, fires and heat waves.
We in the scientific community offer our assistance to inform your
deliberations as you seek to address the impacts of climate change.
Letterhead acknowledgement.Now I don’t think these scientists are quacks.
American Association for the
Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of
Biological Sciences
American Meteorological
Society
American Society of
Agronomy
American Society of Plant
Biologists
American Statistical
Association
Association of Ecosystem
Research Centers
Botanical Society of America
Crop Science Society of
America
Ecological Society of America
Natural Science Collections
Alliance
Organization of Biological
Field Stations
Society for Industrial and
Applied Mathematics
Society of Systematic
Biologists
Soil Science Society of
America
University Corporation for
Atmospheric Research
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
If they are a scientific body associated with the United Nations they aren’t credible in my opinion.
K
Karen107
Guest
Why ?
- Status