Douglas Martinson, Antarctic Researcher, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory: “It just drives me crazy . . . It is so frustrating. We have known for decades “” no question “” that global warming was started by anthropogenic increases of CO2,” Martinson said, adding that the evidence is overwhelming. “The straws that broke the camel’s back are so thick now you can’t even see the camel. . .. People’s opinions being dictated by talk show hosts “” it’s just not right. Get your information from a scientist, not a talk show host.”
Climate scientists are starting to get angry that they are losing the single most important science messaging effort in human history to the most insidiously successful disinformation campaign in human history. Who wouldn’t be mad as hell and high water in a world seemingly dominated by anti-science, pro-pollution media, politicians and disinformers who insist we put our foot on the accelerator when all the scientific evidence increasingly makes clear how close to the precipice we are?
What follows are some quotable quotes by climate scientists in two recent articles. These are from Brad Johnson’s post, Colorado Climate Scientists Tell Ken Buck: Global Warming Is Not A ‘Hoax’:
Scott Denning, Climatologist, Colorado State University: “There’s really no question at all that CO2 molecules emit heat. It seems like the onus is on them to explain how you can add heat to the surface without warming it up. The basic science of the effect of human-produced CO2 on climate change is 150 years old. It was first measured in 1863. The first estimates of the effect were published in 1896. It piles up and the more stuff you put up there, the more heat you’re going to get.”
Dennis Ojima, Chair, Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory, Colorado State University: “Quite simply, there is no hoax in studying climate change. It is an important research concern, the same as studying cancer or the economic growth. There is no controversy about the role human actions have made to alter the climate system through the emissions of greenhouse gases over the past 150 years. The fundamental physics associated with the impact of this change in atmospheric concentrations of these gases is not disputed. The manner in which these gases react in the atmosphere is one of the fundamental properties of the climate system. The science at the fundamental level related to greenhouse gases and climate are as solid and as important as the finding that germs are responsible for illnesses and that there are specific strategies to reduce germs in the environment we live in.”
Caspar Amman, Scientist, Climate And Global Dynamics Division, National Center For Atmospheric Research: “Climate science is not at all a hoax…. The magnitude [of expected warming], even on a geologic perspective, is a substantial change, far larger than anything human civilization has ever seen.”
Christian Shorey, Geology And Geologic Engineering Faculty, Colorado School Of Mines: “Though it is impossible for a scientist to speak of natural phenomena in terms of absolute certainty, I would have to say that the present state of our knowledge leaves little possibility that human induced greenhouse gas accumulation in our atmosphere is not causing an increase in average global surface temperatures…. Proper policy will have to take a long term view of the problem, and as such our politicians will need to have a proper respect for the results of well researched science.”
Like the quote that opens this post, the following quotes come from an article in The Antarctic Sun, “Winter of discontent: USAP researchers frustrated by backlash against climate science,” which notes, “For researchers involved in the U.S. Antarctic Program (USAP) External U.S. government site, the recent backlash against science can be summed up in one word: frustrating.”
Richard Alley, Professor Of Geosciences, Pennsylvania State University: “The fact that important people in Washington don’t know that is our failure,” he said. “This is not policy prescriptive, saying there is a greenhouse effect and we’re increasing it. It’s in no way a political statement. Saying there is not a greenhouse effect is a political statement because there’s no scientific basis for it.”
Don Voigt, Antarctic Researcher, Pennsylvania State University: “We’re just making observations here and trying to tell people what’s going on. Being attacked for an observation is kind of strange “” it’s beyond comprehension in a lot of ways,” Voigt said. “At some point you keep doing what you’re doing because you know it’s the right thing to do.”
Leigh Stearns, Department Of Geology, University Of Kansas: “It’s such a pervasive change, in the Arctic in particular, and parts of the Antarctic. We need to be better activists of our science. We need to get the word out in a more succinct matter,” Stearns said. “It’s not political. It’s our environment,” she added.
So they are frustrated. But are they going to take it any more?