Dr. Michael Mann
Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science, Pennsylvania State University; Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC), Pennsylvania State University
There is extremely broad agreement among the world’s scientists on the basic fact of human-caused climate change. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, all of the scientific societies of all the industrial nations, more than 30 scientific societies around the U.S., at least 97% of scientists publishing in the field.
All of these have concluded, based on the evidence, that climate change is real, is human caused, and is having adverse impacts on us, our economy, and our planet. Yet, we find ourselves at this hearing today, with 3 individuals who represent that tiny minority that reject this consensus or downplay its significance and only one, myself, who is in the mainstream.
That’s 25%-that’s a far cry from 97%, an inauspicious start for an honest discussion about science.
Dr. Judith Curry
President, Climate Forecast Applications Network; Professor Emeritus, Georgia Institute of Technology
“Owing to these pressures, and the gutter tactics of the academic debate on climate change, I recently resigned my tenured faculty position at Georgia Tech, the UN framework on climate change convention framed the too narrowly.”
Dr. John Christy
Professor and Director, Earth System Science Center, NSSTC, University of Alabama at Huntsville; State Climatologist, Alabama
When these trends are formally tested, the scientific consensus is that the consensus of the climate models, the red line, fails to represent reality of the actual changes in the atmosphere. And that’s a foundational climate measure.
Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.
Professor, Environmental Studies Department, University of Colorado
There’s little scientific basis in support of claims that extreme weather events, and specifically hurricanes, floods, drought, and tornadoes, and their economic damage, has increased in recent decades due to the emission of greenhouse gases.
Such processes work best when they are populated by a diversity of experts, including those who may hold minority or even unpopular perspectives.
Sometimes, debates over science serve as a proxy for debates about policy preference, or political orientation.
When members of Congress and scientists participate in such proxy debates, it contributes to the pathological politicization of science.