The problem with your list is --how many people in each one received money/grants for study - and how many individuals ACTUALLY read the review?
Politics and money effects too many opinions in organizations.
mss
Let me see if I understand this correctly.
You do not trust the validity of scientific studies if some government funding helps support conduct of the studies, but research funded by oil or coal or tobacco companies should be accepted as truth?
On the one side we have the government of the people, for the people and by the people; and On the other side we have oil/coal companies of the profit, for the profit, and screw the people. I wonder who we should believe?
I have degrees in chemistry and engineering, including a graduate degree, and my graduate research work (quite a few years ago) received financial support including some government support, and I can tell you that the government exerted absolutely no influence over the scientific measurements, data or the results of my research.
My graduate research work had nothing to do with climate science, it was on water treatment technology, but I can tell you that I trust the data of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and National Center for Atmospheric Research, and research that is subjected to rigorous, critical peer review by respected scientific organizations like the National Academy of Sciences much more than I trust research by scientists funded by oil or coal or tobacco companies that has not passed the scrutiny of rigorous, critical peer review.
By the way I worked for a Fortune 500 company many years ago shortly after getting out of graduate school, and was asked at times to fudge data to make our treatment systems look better than they were, and I observed our sales people flat out lie several times. I did not stay with that company for long, but it taught me first hand that industry is not a bastion of scientific integrity or truth.
Frankly, the overwhelming majority of peer reviewed climate science accepts that global warming/climate change is occurring and that man's activities in the way of greenhouse gas emissions and to a lesser extent, increasing population/development and loss of natural vegetation are the primary cause.
Those who get their science training from the school of Rush Limbaugh and/or oil companies may disagree, but it matters little. There are those who still believe the earth is flat, or accept tobacco industry "science" that smoking is not hazardous to your health.
Frankly, it wouuld be nice to procreate forever; develop and pave every square inch of this planet; and spew whatever we want into the atmosphere with no consequences. I would also like to drink alcohol, smoke, eat pizza, steaks and ice cream to my hearts content, and never exercise with no health consequences. However, most of us are smart enough to know that we have to have some self-control and discipline if we want to live and be healthy. The same is true for our planet. We have to exert some controls on our behavior if want to preserve the natural systems that support life on this planet.
The social, economic, environmental, agricultural, political, health and military consequences of continued failure to address climate change will lead to much worse consequences long-term than if we fail to take action to address this problem now. You can pay me now or you can me later.
Our government and military experts recognize that the military will likely need to respond to the social, economic and political instability that will result from climate change if it goes unaddressed,
http://www.securityandclimate.cna.org/ . This report produded by the Center for Naval Analyses and Institute for Public Research says:
The nature and pace of climate changes being observed today and the consequences projected by the consensus scientific opinion are grave and pose equally grave implications for our national security. Moving beyond the arguments of cause and effect, it is important that the U.S. military begin planning to address these potentially devastating effects.
The consequences of climate change can affect the organization, training, equipping, and planning of the military services. The U.S. military has a clear obligation to determine the potential impacts of climate change on its ability to execute its missions in support of national security objectives. Climate change can act as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world, and it presents significant national security challenges for the United States. Accordingly, it is appropriate to start now to help mitigate the severity of some of these emergent challenges. The decision to act should be made soon in order to plan prudently for the nation’s security. The increasing risks from climate change should be addressed now because they will almost certainly get worse if we delay.
The U.S. should commit to a stronger national and international role to help stabilize climate change at levels that will avoid significant disruption to global security and stability. Managing the security impacts of climate change requires two approaches: mitigating the effects we can control and adapting to those
we cannot. The U.S. should become a more constructive partner with the international community to help build and execute a plan to prevent destabilizing effects from climate change, including setting targets for long term reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
Conclusion: We will pay for this one way or another. We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today, and we’ll have to take an economic hit of some kind. Or, we will pay the price later in military terms. And that will involve human lives. There will be a human toll.—General Zinni
We are lucky though, the [bleeeep] won't hit the fan for several decades, and we'll likely be dead by then. Unfortunately, our children, grandchildren, greatgrandchildren... will have to live with the sad legacy we leave them.