Geophysical Union claims man to blame for global warming in official statement — but not all AGU board members agree

The Daily Mail reports:

The American Geophysical Union has definitively linked climate change to humanity’s reliance on fossil fuels.

In a statement, the Union said that humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years.

It claimed that human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years…

A 15-person panel reviewed and updated the position statement- a task which is done every four years.

However, one committee member, Roger Pielke Senior, who is a retired professor of atmospheric sciences at Colorado State University, opposed the statement.

Speaking to Georgia Tech climate scientist Judith Curry, Pielke said the statement was an inaccurate view of climate change dominated by the emission of carbon dioxide and a few other greenhouse gases.

He said that during the review process, other views were never given an adequate opportunity to be discussed.

Read more…

Click for AGU statement.

4 thoughts on “Geophysical Union claims man to blame for global warming in official statement — but not all AGU board members agree”

  1. “In a statement, the Union said that humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years.”

    These dicks can’t name one climate that has changed.

  2. The AGU has been particularly noisy — perhaps the word I need is virulent — about AGW, perhaps because of the similarity of the names. The science supporting AGW has always been weak, more speculation than anything else, and it’s weaker now.
    I said “…the AGU…” but really it’s the AGU leadership. At least a few of the members have loudly contradicted the official statements. So what does it take to change the leadership of the AGU?

  3. It is not just the AGU. Every major scientific body in the U.S. and the U.K. has been infiltrated by environmental ideologues who manage to sit in key editorial positions, e.g. at the NRC, at AAAS, at Scientific American, and many others. Just as with the IPCC, when blue ribbon panels of respected scientists make investigations at the behest of governments, the final summary reports get inserted language regarding the probability or certainty of human footprints when the actual text of such reports show only questions and doubts, no clear evidence that any human activity has affected any aspect of the climate. When “models” are cited as evidence, there is no accounting of the fact that these same models have failed to predict any phenomenon whatsoever.

Comments are closed.