{"id":570385,"date":"2010-05-19T12:54:30","date_gmt":"2010-05-19T16:54:30","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/climateprogress.org\/?p=25540"},"modified":"2010-05-19T12:54:30","modified_gmt":"2010-05-19T16:54:30","slug":"u-s-national-academy-of-sciences-labels-as-%e2%80%9csettled-facts%e2%80%9d-that-%e2%80%9cthe-earth-system-is-warming-and-that-much-of-this-warming-is-very-likely-due-to-human-activities%e2%80%9d-ne","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/570385","title":{"rendered":"U.S. National Academy of Sciences labels as \u201csettled facts\u201d that \u201cthe Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities\u201d – New report confirms failure to act poses “significant risks”"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems….<\/strong><\/p>\n

Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested<\/a>, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small<\/strong>. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

The National Academy released three reports today on \u201cAmerica\u2019s Climate Choices<\/a>.”<\/p>\n

Today I’ll focus on their review of climate science, Advancing the Science of Climate Change<\/em> (news release here<\/a>, Report in Brief here<\/a>, Read\/purchase full report here<\/a>).<\/p>\n

The report is a typical NAS product, which means it is uber-conservative from a scientific perspective, much like the IPCC.\u00a0 So that means whenever it actual makes a strong assertion, like the ones above, it is doubly impressive.\u00a0 Those who continue to attack what are essentially ’settled facts’ deserve the label that I and others have been using — ‘anti-scientific’.
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

The report has same fatal failing as the IPCC report: It fails to spell out clearly to policymakers, the public, and the media what the likely impacts are if we stay anywhere near our current emissions path, including both business-as-usual and plausible worst-case scenarios.<\/p>\n

<\/span>The report does note, “A separate NRC report, expected in summer 2010, provides an analysis of impacts at different magnitudes of future climate change.”\u00a0 So that presumably will be the report to watch for.\u00a0 It also notes:<\/p>\n

\n

Some of the greatest risks posed by climate change are associated with these abrupt changes and other climate \u201csurprises\u201d (unexpected changes or impacts), yet the likelihood of such events is not well known. Moreover, there has been comparatively little research on the impacts that might be associated with \u201cextreme\u201d climate change\u2014for example, the impacts that could be expected if global temperatures rise by 10 \u00b0F (6 \u00b0C) or more over the next century.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Well, 10F might be “extreme” climate change to scientists who can’t imagine why the world basically keeps ignoring their calls to action — but right now, it isn’t close to the plausible, “extreme,” worst case:<\/p>\n