Share this Page


UCS Asks Farm Bureau to Discuss Climate Change Position

A group of scientists has published an open letter to the American Farm Bureau asking the agriculture lobby to rethink its position on global climate change.

According to the Farm Bureau, “There is no generally agreed upon scientific assessment on the exact impact or extent of carbon emissions from human activities, their impact on past decades of warming or how they will affect future climate changes.”

Jeffrey Gaffney, Ph.D., chair of the Department of Chemistry at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock and members of the Union of Concerned Scientists, a consortium of citizens and scientists, are urging environmental solutions to global climate change.

"As scientists concerned about the grave risks that climate change poses to the world and U.S. agriculture, we are disappointed that the American Farm Bureau has chosen to officially deny the existence of human-caused climate change when the evidence of it has never been clearer," the letter said.

“The idea is to open a dialogue to discuss the issue,” said Gaffney, whose research focus includes the study of natural system interactions with pollutants in air and groundwater chemistries and health impacts of toxins and aerosols in the air.

Gaffney, lead scientist for the Department of Energy Atmospheric Science Program’s Megacity Aerosol Experiment - Mexico City (MAX-Mex), said the climate scientists recognized the concern farmers, business owners, and politicians have about the cost of strategies needed to make human activities sustainable. But ignoring the facts of how human practices since the Industrial Revolution have affected Earth’s systems puts at risk the long-term survival of human life.

“I have people say all the time, ‘I don’t believe in climate change,’” Gaffney said. “It’s not a religion that you can believe in or not. It’s a problem that we need to face.” He and his research partner and wife, Nancy Marley, Ph.D., are currently focused on the role that atmospheric aerosols play in climate – particularly the role of carbonaceous aerosols and black carbon, or soots. Gaffney has been the lead scientist for the DOE’s Atmospheric Science Program’s Megacity Aerosol Experiment - Mexico City (MAX-Mex).

The field study was part of a larger collaboration with National Science Foundation, NASA, and Mexican agencies in the Megacity Initiative: Local and Global Research Observations.

“The Earth system is dynamic and has constantly changed over its existence,” Gaffney said. “Climate change is happening and may occur at a rate that will lead to unprecedented impacts on agriculture and our environment and is the cause for concern that was stressed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. We need to address the potential problem and consider solutions for a sustainable energy economy and environment.”

Dinosaurs were at the top of the food chain for hundreds of millions of years, much longer than human beings have been around, but climate change – probably caused by a giant meteor strike that threw tons of dust into the atmosphere or from volcanic activity – caused their demise. Man’s industrial revolution began more than 100 years ago and has led to an increasing combustion of coal and oil for energy for manufacturing, transportation, and all other aspects of modern life.

“We’re burning the non-renewable fossil fuels, which took hundreds of millions of years to produce, in a very short period on geologic time scales,” Gaffney said. He said the burning of Earth’s finite resources is unsustainable and is creating changes to our ecosystems and agricultural resources that may put human existence on the planet at risk.



Comments

Tue, Jan 19, 2010 EP Professional Champaign, IL

It is obvious that everyone of you is looking at your bottom line and unwilling to admit that your wasteful activities are having an impact on our global climate. The "recent revelations of manupulating data" have proven to be inconsequential are not proof that the majority of the research is unreliable. The most significant activity that correlates to the overall rise in global termperatures is the onset of the Industrial Revolution and the use of fossil fuels in ever increasing quantities. I hope that the impact on human health will lead people to reduce the volume of pollutants emitted.

Fri, Jan 15, 2010 Berthold - Klein USA

As a follow up : when you look at the list of Universities represented by the Union of Unconscious Scientists it is obvious that each one receives Millions of dollars in research money for many aspects of "man-made" global warming. I'm sure they do not want to tell the truth and cut off there own income,or the income to their universities. As additional information look up the US-EPA report by Alan Carlin a 38 year employee of the EPA. The executive summary tells enough to know that CO2 does not cause "man-made global warming" The full report has at least 75 peer reviewed references and links to others that prove that "man-made global warming is a political fairy-tale.

Fri, Jan 15, 2010 Arizona

As usual they have it wrong. After recent revelations of manupulating data, how anyone with a scientific background can reasonably believe that what little man can do would significantly affect climate is beyond me. It seems to me that anyone with this belief has been proven to have an economic insentive and I for one refuse to believe anything more they have to say.

Thu, Jan 14, 2010 berthold Klein Cleveland, Ohio

Hello world: I have written to this web-site many times: I have been asked to submit a short piece on the Proof that I have that Man-made global warming is a political Fairy-tale. I reviewed the list of "supposed Scientists " on the letter to the Farm Bureau. only one claimed to be a physicst- I question if he has ever done an experiment to prove that the greenhouse gas effect exists. In 1909 R.W. Wood an expert in IR and UV radiation and a professor of physics at John Hopkins university from 1901 to 1955 provided an experiment that showed that the "greenhouse effect" is caused by "confined space heating " not by back radiation of IR. Confined space heating can not happen in the atmophere. Heat loss to space is 5 time greater than the amount receive from the Sun thus every 12 hr. the unheated side of the Earth losses more than enough energy to cause a return to the previous days temperature or lower.The concept of the ghg effect has been shown to violate fundamental laws of physics and thermodynamics. Under the IPCC the dreaming of Michael Mann of Penn State invented (one of the E-mail crocked scientists) "Back forcing-a concept that can not be demonstrated by experiment. The ghg effect is a fairy-tale. As Michael Mann is being investigated by the University will they "white wash" what he has done? The fact proved by the E-mails is that East Anglia and Michael Mann cooked the temperature data to get the results they wanted.Why would the Union of Unconsous Scientist support a lie- Are they all receiving grants or money to do "Global warming" reseach like the $ 546,000 by Michael Mann at Penn State. Farm Burea keep up the good work -plants need CO2 and it does not cause global warming. A few web-sites to get more good honest info are: www.iceagenow.com;icecap.us; www.status-sphere.com; SPPI,Also look up the work of Gerhard Gerlichand &Ralf Tscheuschner ;

Thu, Jan 14, 2010 Texas

There is a difference between claiming that the global climate is changing and claiming that human activities are CAUSING that change. There's pretty strong evidence that the climate is changing - as it has over the Earth's entire 4 billion year history. However, the claim that human activity is causing (not just contributing to) this change is not at all proven. Until evidence of such causitive impact is available, it would be much better to address this issue in terms of human contribution to the problem. Of course, that position is not nearly as dramatic as the claim that we're destroying the climate.

Thu, Jan 14, 2010 Dave

I don't think you can consider Gaffeney's opinon to be unbiased, after all he and his wife receive economic incentives for perpetuating the "human caused" global warming myth. Bad timing to be quoting the IPCC for reliable information, they have been exposed and we have all seen how and this same economic incentive (my job is to prove human caused global warming) has corrupted people within the IPCC. Justice is blind, Science should not be. Why does the IPCC hide all the data, if they really believed that their data proved human caused global warming they would be showing it to everyone they could find....that fact that they don't release all the data/information (or have destroyed the original data) is evidence that they can not prove human caused global warming, or they have munipulated the data so much that it can not stand up to an unbiased peer review. They like to say "the debate is over" because they know if they had to debate the issue they would be exposed as frauds. It is a sad day, politics has corrupted our scientific community. These Scienctists have lost all credibility ....throw them out and lets start all over and get it right this time. That is what a good scientist would do if he knew his lab data had been compromised, he would throw it out and start over, because there is no sense in moving forward when you know that outside factors have tainted your results.

Thu, Jan 14, 2010

Al Gore's graphs show CO2 levels following temperature. It's amazing that anyone can believe an argument that is based on the cause following the result. Spend a little time investigating and you will find that the earth's temperature DOES follow sun spot activity. This is a cause and effect that is much more logical, particularly when you consider that the earth's temperatures were higher hundreds of years before the industrial revolution than they are now. Al Gore has an agenda, and it has paid off handsomely for him. The media does not have the interest in examining his position rationally, nor do the Hollywood elite who seem to have some kind of unreasonable influence on the general public. The Cap and Trade legislative effort will seriously damage our economy for reasons unrelated to world temperatures. It's a ploy to penalize the US and create a multi national governing body that will steal our liberty and freedom. America needs to wake up!!!!!

Thu, Jan 14, 2010

"According to the Farm Bureau, “There is no generally agreed upon scientific assessment on the exact impact or extent of carbon emissions from human activities, their impact on past decades of warming or how they will affect future climate changes.”

Actually, their position is better supported by the science and 'peer-reviewed' published papers that are outside of the IPCC funded tribe. One should note that consensus is not science. I suppose one could argue that their statement "...no generally agreed upon scientific assessment..." does not hold for the IPCC contributors. But, where is the consensus outside of the IPCC-funded 'experts' in the same field?

I note that the overwhelming majority of the UCS and signatories of the letter are in fields outside of meterology or climatology. As a former meteorologist that holds an air pollution regulatory position, I have some insights into the state of the science. Unfortunately, the UCS is in a camp that, like most of us, rely on those that are 'experts' in their specialized field for an understanding of what the 'science' is.

Luckily, the recent whistle-blower release of the codes and e-mails from the CRU have laid bare some serious indications of whether our 'faith' in the select IPCC-scientists' computer generated predictions is truely warranted. Global Climate change is a given fact. Whether carbon emissions from human activities are the over riding casual factor for the observed increase in average global temperatures in recent decades is not.

The Farm Bureau's statement, IMHO, is a fair and wise position to take at this time.

Thu, Jan 14, 2010 Ken California

If the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a political group, hadn't removed scientific evidence in contradiction to their agenda and pressure scientists with contradictory conclusions to remain silent, I might be inclined to recognize the content of the report. More importantly, it should be understood that accepting the claim that global warming is occurring does NOT automatically mean that it's a direct result of human activity or that human activity is the singular cause.

Thu, Jan 14, 2010

Last week temperatures were about 40 F below average. We have had 3 major storms, and summer was very moderate. Top that with e-mails that are very suspect regarding data and also point to an effort to eliminate opposition, it really makes global warming look likea political position instead of a truly scientific one. The bottom line is it's a hoax aimed at setting up a world body with authority to penalize the US for being prosperous.

Thu, Jan 14, 2010

Climate is always changing. It is not just going to sit at the average. Yes we need to be able to handle changes but to allow governments to control CO2 emissions and to create a new market for Wall Streeters to exploit at the expense of everyone is an idea that needs to buried with the dinosaurs. I thank the Farm Bureau for their stand and I think that the majority of the people stand in the same viewpoint.

Thu, Jan 14, 2010

The Farm Bureau needs to continue to stick to the unbiased facts and not jump on the Global Warming Band Wagon, which is making some it's loudest advocates very wealthy. The Earth's climate has changed well before humans use of carbon.

Thu, Jan 14, 2010 jim Ohio

I am gald that the folks at the Farm Bureau are pointing out the Real facts..there is no global warming. All of us support this position and will fight every step of the way to make sure the rigging of the data is exposed going forward. God Bless America

Add your Comment

Your Name:(optional)
Your Email:(optional)
Your Location:(optional)
Comment:
Please type the letters/numbers you see above