https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/about-ams/ams-formal-letters-of-support/letter-to-epa-administrator-pruitt-on-climate-change/
If people don't fully understand my question, before Scott Pruitt became the director of the EPA, he used to send letters to the EPA that were drafted by oil company lobbyists--that's when he was Attorney General of Oklahoma.
Sagebrush
" This is a conclusion based on the comprehensive assessment of scientific evidence. It is based on multiple independent lines of evidence that have been affirmed by thousands of independent scientists and numerous scientific institutions around the world. We are not familiar with any scientific institution with relevant subject matter expertise that has reached a different conclusion."
Says this nit-wit from the AMS. Well, just where is all this scientific evidence? Come on, let us all in on it! There are 30,000 INDEPENTENT scientists who disagree with AMS. Don't they count? CONSENSUS IS NOT SCIENCE! When will you ever understand?
When AMS gets to 100% accuracy in just WEATHER predictions, then maybe we would give them 30 minutes to prove their point on the oncoming atmosphere. Until the AMS can prove 100% accuracy in their weather computers, then we might give some credence in what they are trying to say. Until then, the AMS has no more importance than Al Gore, an admitted liar.
Quote by James Spann, American Meteorological Society-certified meteorologist: "Billions of dollars of grant money [over $50 billion] are flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story."
Maybe next time the AMS should let this guy write the letter.
vulcan_alex
Not only do they add "other green house gases" so what he actually said is still correct. Not to mention they only have consensus. Now to answer your question I would not bother to answer this foolish letter and if I did someone in the EPA would do it if I did not.
Anonymous
So what? He can write his own letter to this unknown group
JimZ
I noticed those anti-science hacks had nothing to say when AGW was exaggerated to ridiculous extremes. When exaggerations help their coffers, they were silent, but when they feel their funds are being endangered, they suddenly reveal their political bias. You are a great example of one who supports all sorts of idiotic exaggerations pretending it is about science. I remember before fracking was all the rage, how you cheered on those who claimed we had already reached Peak Oil. That is a position, no geologist worth his salt would take. Your politics creates your warped view of science. Science isn't about politics. It is about trying to make the best explanation about facts. Pruitt is what happens when you are caught exaggerating way too much for way too long.
graphicconception
Perhaps he is not wrong?
If we look at the data for the last 10,000 years we see that the temperature has been falling over that period: https://marine.rutgers.edu/pubs/private/yair_2013.pdf
That agrees with the data from the Greenland ice cores: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4dySuecQ9WaSm8zT2F1V01xVzQ/view?usp=sharing
Note how CO2 is falling while temperature is increasing. Maybe if the AMS would condescend to explaining that and not just rely on an appeal to authority then I might believe them.
Would you say that CO2 was the primary contributor to temperature? Concentrating on the final up-tick on the chart is just not convincing. Some would call it cherry-picking.
As for their "multiple lines of evidence", have they ever looked at the Vostok ice core data and noticed that CO2 lags temperature by about 800 years? That is surely another case of CO2 not being a primary contributor to temperature.
Then what about the pause/hiatus/slowing down in recent decades when man-made CO2 has been emitted at the highest rates ever?
Primary contributor? I think not.
To those who will ask: "How can I know more than the AMS?" I would say:
First, that letter was probably not drafted by the AMS members who study climate. It was most likely written by the political committee who know less science that I do.
Second, I have outlined three instances where Pruitt's interpretation seems right to me. If the science is truly settled and 97% of them all agree then I expect that someone will be able to explain in simple terms where my logic fails.