Taylor McNair: An (Environmental) American In Paris

When 196 nations adopted a groundbreaking climate change accord in France on Saturday, Taylor McNair cheered.

Why not? The Emory University senior has decades of life left, in which to deal with the effects of carbon emissions, rising waters and changing weather.

But the 2012 Staples High School graduate had another reason for elation. He was right there in Paris, as an active participant in the historic conference.

Taylor McNair and a fellow Emory University student, at the Paris climate change conference.

Taylor McNair and a fellow Emory University student, at the Paris climate change conference.

Taylor comes from an environmentally conscious family. His older brother Sanders helped make Wakeman Town Farm a reality. But not until junior year — when Taylor took Mike Aitkenhead’s AP Environmental Studies class — did he get really involved in sustainability and agriculture issues.

Taylor worked at WTF: putting together chicken coops, planting and tending beds. His family signed on to the farm’s CSA (and raised chickens at their Bayberry Lane home). Taylor also volunteered at Earthplace.

He applied to Emory because of its dedication to sustainability — and its business school. Taylor has pursued both interests, as an environmental sciences and business double major.

Paris Climate conference logoLast year, Emory applied for “observer status” at the Paris talks. When they were granted spots for 10 students, the school created a cross-discipline course focused on the upcoming event. Dozens of students applied. Taylor was one of only 20 accepted.

The class spent the fall learning about climate change, preparing for the conference, building websites, writing papers, and figuring out how to bring what they learned back to Emory.

Taylor learned he was one of the 10 school representatives chosen for Paris. Each student prepared an itinerary for the 2-week long event.

As soon as they got there, Taylor tossed his out.

Emory was given 4 special passes to the “Blue Zone” — the area where the nitty-gritty work went on. The group decided to divide the passes up. Two students would use them the 1st week; another 2 the next.

Taylor McNair and fellow Emory students outside Le Bourget hall.

Taylor McNair and fellow Emory students outside Le Bourget hall.

Taylor was chosen for week 1. He spent every day — arriving at 7 a.m., leaving at 9 p.m. — focusing on climate change financing and energy funding.

In Le Bourget — a gigantic converted airport — he observed negotiations. He visited exhibition hall booths. He attended panels and workshops. He networked.

Each day had a different theme: farmers, business, youth.

Taylor took advantage of it all. He went to a discussion for young activists led by Christiana Figueres, the Costa Rican woman who led the conference.

Al Gore gave a “down-to-earth” presentation, from which the media was barred. After his opening statement, the former vice president said he just wanted to hear from the attendees. For nearly two hours, they chatted.

Taylor also sat in sessions with French president François Hollande and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon. They provided important insights — and urged the students to action.

Taylor describes being inside the Blue Zone as “lots of random, exciting, cool experiences, surrounded by super-committed, passionate people.”

The Westporter spent his 2nd week with the 30,000 or so people doing things outside of the formal events. There was a hub for bloggers and activists; art events, and exhibits where corporations showed what they’re doing to solve climate issues.

A conference sponsored by the International New York Times featured Secretary of State John Kerry, and Google and Facebook executives, in an intimate setting.

Secretary of State John Kerry (right) and the New York Times' Thomas Friedman address conference attendees.

Secretary of State John Kerry (right) and the New York Times’ Thomas Friedman address conference attendees.

Taylor was impressed and motivated. He’s also realistic.

“No international agreement is perfect,” he says of the final document. “But this is powerful, and as strong as it could be. It’s the 1st-ever universal climate agreement. It won’t save the world from 2-degree change. But it signals a world market shift, and a new way of how we address climate change.”

There were plenty of opinions in Paris. These protesters gathered otuside Notre Dame.

There were plenty of opinions in Paris. These protesters gathered otuside Notre Dame.

Taylor returned to campus on Sunday. The next step is figuring out how to bring specific change to the university.

That’s a tall order. And Taylor still has finals to study for.

With all his classwork — and preparing for Paris — he’s had little time to think about a different kind of future: his own.

“I recognize the role of business. I’d like to be involved in the renewable energy sector,” he says. “It’s the most promising transformation, and it will continue to boom in the US.” He’d also like to work on policy.

When he’s home for winter break, he’ll start interviewing — and narrowing down his options.

With the wind at his back from Paris, he should have many to choose from.

44 responses to “Taylor McNair: An (Environmental) American In Paris

  1. Taylor was one of my interns at Sherwood Island Nature Center. He was great. What a terrific experience attending the summit must have been!

  2. Congratulations to Taylor, and how wonderful the Town Farm was such an inspiration to him!

  3. Good for him.
    It really spooks me that Trump, Carson, and Cruz all deny climate change.
    What a weird country.
    ADW Staples 1956

    • There is ample evidence the climate has been changing since there has been a climate. There is absolutely no evidence than humans can control the amount of change or the direction. We should be deploying our resources in anticipation of the changes that are inevitable instead on efforts that will amount to nothing,

      What spooks me is a President who denies terrorism exists and its source.

      • Have you checked out the newly formed Connecticut CIRCA?

      • You’re certainly right in that the climate has been changing long before humans arrived. There is, despite what you think, a preponderance of evidence to suggest that recent climate change impacts are largely (with 99% certainty) contributed to human induced impacts. The IPCC, a body composed of the worlds most published and peer-reviewed scientists, indicated this certainty in their most recent report (https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/index.shtml). The UCS provides a good explanation of human-induced emission contributions (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/human-contribution-to-gw-faq.html#.VnBCgt-rS1s).
        While you’re right in suggesting we should be deploying resources in anticipation of the inevitable changes (it’s why the COP21 agreement includes both mitigation and adaptation efforts, plus provisions on loss and damage for nations that will inevitably see the worst impacts of climate change almost immediately), there are efforts to pursue that will amount to something significant. A global agreement to limit carbon emissions signals a significant change in how we evaluate the benefits and risks of energy proliferation and unabated emission.
        Whether we agree or not on the causes of climate change, however, the benefits of reducing carbon pollution and increasing renewable energy penetration are more than enough to rally behind. Never thought I’d say this but Arnold Schwarzenegger provided probably the best insight on this: https://www.facebook.com/notes/arnold-schwarzenegger/i-dont-give-a-if-we-agree-about-climate-change/10153855713574658?fref=nf

        As for the terrorism piece, I’m not sure where you got that from.

        • If you were right about the 99% probability, I would change my mind, but you are not. The types of parametric tests that produce the 99% number are totally inappropriate given the nature of the process.

          We should use our scarce resources to prepare for the change that is inevitable.

          • The 99% refers to a repeated statement in the IPCC 5th Assessment Report. According to the document “It is virtually certain that this is caused by human activities, primarily by the increase in CO2 concentrations. There is very high confidence that natural forcing contributes only a small fraction to this imbalance.” The IPCC uses the designation virtually certain to indicate over 99% probability. The document also mentions “It is extremely likely [95 percent confidence] more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.” I encourage you to read the entire report, which includes empirical based evidence of many of the worlds leading scientists (http://www.climatechange2013.org/). I imagine no one has time to read all the peer-reviewed literature (or the 1500 page IPCC report), however, Skeptical Science sums it up nicely (http://www.skepticalscience.com/Senator-Inhofe-attempt-to-distract-from-scientific-realities-of-global-warming.html).
            The process you mention is actually thousands of peer-reviewed articles that are analyzed and synthesized by a UN working group. The articles all link to empirical studies, all of which include levels of significance (many that evaluate the anthropogenic causes of climate change note a 95% confidence factor). This is indeed science. And scientific theories are supported by consensus, and stand until proven wrong…something that has not happened with regards to human-induced climate change. The relation between human fossil fuel emissions and rising temperatures is well documented in the scientific community at this point.
            Again, I think we should put our resources to continuing developing a transforming energy system and phasing out outdated fossil fuels.

            • I am familiar with much of the literature. The math is faulty. If you pay people enough, they will agree to anything. Climate change is a big business. The process driving climate change is a complex nonlinear process. A model of the process will not produce accurate forecasts.

              The MMGW cult claims it has over 600,000 years of data, but the first 599,800 don’t count.

              In the end, all of the ideologically driven research will not matter.

              “The fact is that even if every single American citizen biked to work, carpooled to school, used only solar panels to power their homes – if we each planted a dozen trees – if we somehow eliminated all of our domestic greenhouse gas emissions – guess what? That still wouldn’t be enough to offset the carbon pollution coming from the rest of the world. If all the industrialized nations went down to zero emissions – remember what I just said – all the industrial nations went down to zero emissions, it wouldn’t be enough – not when more than 65 percent of the world’s carbon pollution comes from the developing world. Now, we’re not pointing fingers. This isn’t a question of blame. This is something that reflects practices that began in the Industrial Revolution that everybody’s adopted, but we’re here to change it. No matter how much half the world does to clean up its act, if similar steps aren’t taken by the rest of the world, Earth still has a problem.”

              Good luck with that John. All we need is for every country in the world to reduce their rate of growth. Easy for John to say. He has his yacht.

              We had better put our resources into an effort to deal with the change that is coming rather than trying to wish it away.

            • Nancy Hunter Wilson

              Well done, well said.

        • Taylor, keep up the good work!

      • Nancy Hunter Wilson

        What spooks me is your new “furor”.

  4. Great that we have a Westport representative via Emory at the conference. A connection begun by exposure to environmental concerns learned here in Westport. Bravo to WTF (the good meaqning)!!

    Great to see 200 countries thinking about what humans are doing to our planet- that we will leave to our children and grandchildren. And 200 countries willing to try to do something about it. A Great Start.

    I quote one of the responders to this blog as well- “There is ample evidence the climate has been changing since there has been a climate. There is absolutely no evidence than humans can control the amount of change or the direction.” Connecting the first line which is true to the second line which is not true- doesn’t make the whole statement true.

    The first line would include volcanoes spewing ash into out atmosphere and meteors hitting the Earth causing immediate catastrophic changes. We have no control over that. That kind of change is inevitable and not manmade.

    The second line is not true. Mankind is spewing fumes with CO2 from cars and power plants into the atmosphere resulting in green house effects trapping heat resulting in unprecedented melting of the polar ice caps and a rise in sea level.

    A blind person may not see garbage being dumped in his backyard but sooner or later the smell will tell him something is wrong. I suspect there are alot of proverbially blind people who don’t want to see the threat of green house gasses until at least locally downtown Westpot is underwater! –

    Thankfully there are 200 countries including the good old USA that can see the threat and are willng to try to do something about it.

    The nonsequitor and I quote “What spooks me is a President who denies terrorism exists and its source.” That statement is also not true and doesn’t deserve a response- . it is a lie if told by some often enough by a few that may be mistaken for a truth by the many.

    • I meant to say- That is a lie that if told often enough by the few may be mistaken for a truth by the many.

      • Please show us the empirical evidence establishing a cause and effect relationship between man made gases and climate changes , and the tests of statistical significance. It is science after all.

        • Nancy Hunter Wilson

          There is a new study that confirms that use of roll-on deodorant has made a significant decrease in aerosol emissions.

        • I have attached a concensus report from NAS written by 18 of the most respected scientific organizations in the world! If garbage was piling up in my backyard I would do some planning on dealing with it. Man kind has been piling garbage into our atmosphere and these are the results. We have to deal with it.

          This is science after all.

          Who should I believe- Michael Petrino or 18 scientific organizations

          NASA

          Global Climate Change

          Vital Signs of the Planet

          Scientific consensus: Earth’s climate is warming

          Temperature data from four international science institutions. All show rapid warming in the past few decades and that the last decade has been the warmest on record. Data sources: NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, NOAA National Climatic Data Center, Met Office Hadley Centre/Climatic Research Unit and the Japanese Meteorological Agency.

          Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

          AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES

          ——————————————————————————–

          Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations

          “Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.” (2009)2

          American Association for the Advancement of Science

          “The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.” (2006)3

          American Chemical Society

          “Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem.” (2004)4

          American Geophysical Union

          “Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.” (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5

          American Medical Association

          “Our AMA … supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant.” (2013)6

          American Meteorological Society

          “It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide.” (2012)7

          American Physical Society

          “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.” (2007)8

          The Geological Society of America

          “The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s.” (2006; revised 2010)9

          SCIENCE ACADEMIES

          ——————————————————————————–

          International academies: Joint statement

          “Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001).” (2005, 11 international science academies)10

          U.S. National Academy of Sciences

          “The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.” (2005)11

          U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

          ——————————————————————————–

          U.S. Global Change Research Program

          “The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human ‘fingerprints’ also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice.” (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)12

          INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODIES

          ——————————————————————————–

          Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

          “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.”13

          “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely* due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”14

          *IPCC defines ‘very likely’ as greater than 90 percent probability of occurrence.

          OTHER RESOURCES

          ——————————————————————————–

          List of worldwide scientific organizations

          The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.
          http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

          U.S. agencies

          The following page contains information on what federal agencies are doing to adapt to climate change.

          Click to access federal-agencies-adaptation.pdf

          ——————————————————————————–

          References​
          1.
          J. Cook, et al, “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature,” Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (June 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

          Quotation from page 3: “Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-cause, Global Warming], 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”

          W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.

          P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, “Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.

          N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.

          2.
          Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations (2009)

          3.
          AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change (2006)

          4.
          ACS Public Policy Statement: Climate Change (2010-2013)

          5.
          Human‐Induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action (2013)

          6.
          Global Climate Change and Human Health (2013)

          7.
          Climate Change: An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society (2012)

          8.
          APS National Policy 07.1 Climate Change (2007)

          9.
          GSA Position Statement on Climate Change (2010)

          10.
          Joint science academies’ statement: Global response to climate change (2005)

          11.
          Understanding and Responding to Climate Change (2005)

          12.
          Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States (2009)

          13.
          IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers (2007)

          14.
          IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers (2007)

          This website is produced by the Earth Science Communications Team at
          NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory | California Institute of Technology
          Site Editor: Holly Shaftel
          Site Manager: Randal Jackson
          Senior Science Editor: Laura Tenenbaum

          Site last updated: December 15, 2015

  5. Nancy Hunter Wilson

    Would someone please explain why Obama continues to deny the fact that the U.S. is, has always been, the second largest green gas emitter on the planet?

    • Again with the double statements of a truth and a mistruth! Yes- the USA is now only the second largest green house emitter- used to be number one!! Then the untruth- “explain why Obama continues to deny the fact “.

      Common- don’t let your emotions create fictions. This is too important to our kids and grandkids to be on the wrong side of history!

    • Another truth joined to an untruth. We are the number two green house emitter – used to be number one- for ages! But why would you say ” Would someone please explain why Obama continues to deny the fact !” As far as I can see it is the other team that is denying that climate change exists or has anything to do with green house gasses.

      (See Michael Petrino’s post above)

      • Nancy Hunter Wilson

        I say that he denies the fact because he continues to report that the U.S. is the “cleanest country” in the world. And yet, like China, the U.S. is still burning coal. False advertising?

        • As expected, no empirical evidence, no tests of statistical significance, no science. All that is left is blind faith on the part of the MMGW cult.

          • Hi- Just read the above

            • I did. No empirical tests for cause and effect. Would you recognize one if you saw one? Science is not done be consensus, furthermore in this case the math trumps the science.

              • Trying to be nice?? I think I would recognize science when I saw it.

                “the math trumps the science.” Great quote- you win- there is no such thing as climate change and if there is mankind has nothing to do with it!

                Bring back my coal stove!!

              • Nancy Hunter Wilson

                Heck, mathematics is not science, science is not math, there are no collective opinions in science?
                Professor Petrino, you still haven’t explained why the glaciers are melting.
                Please do.

              • Mr. Petrino: I wonder if you know how the scientific method functions. Do you have a background in the physical sciences ?
                One cannot prove that there is man made climate change by conducting a table top experiment in the laboratory any more than you can prove that the sun is at the center of the solar system by such an experiment.

                Man made climate change has been proved by the gathering of large quantities of geophysical data over extended periods of time. The evidence is overwhelming.

                If you had a sick child and brought him to 20 doctors and 19 agreed on a course of action you wouldn’t choose the opinion of the one exception. There is too much at stake.
                ADW Staples 1956

          • Nancy Hunter Wilson

            You still confuse “global warming” with “climate change”.

          • I have attached a concensus report from NAS written by 18 of the most respected scientific organizations in the world! If garbage was piling up in my backyard I would do some planning on dealing with it. Man kind has been piling garbage into our atmosphere and these are the results. We have to deal with it.

            This is science after all.

            Who should I believe- Michael Petrino or 18 scientific organizations

            NASA

            Global Climate Change

            Vital Signs of the Planet

            Scientific consensus: Earth’s climate is warming

            Temperature data from four international science institutions. All show rapid warming in the past few decades and that the last decade has been the warmest on record. Data sources: NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, NOAA National Climatic Data Center, Met Office Hadley Centre/Climatic Research Unit and the Japanese Meteorological Agency.

            Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

            AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES

            ——————————————————————————–

            Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations

            “Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.” (2009)2

            American Association for the Advancement of Science

            “The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.” (2006)3

            American Chemical Society

            “Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem.” (2004)4

            American Geophysical Union

            “Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.” (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5

            American Medical Association

            “Our AMA … supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant.” (2013)6

            American Meteorological Society

            “It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide.” (2012)7

            American Physical Society

            “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.” (2007)8

            The Geological Society of America

            “The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s.” (2006; revised 2010)9

            SCIENCE ACADEMIES

            ——————————————————————————–

            International academies: Joint statement

            “Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001).” (2005, 11 international science academies)10

            U.S. National Academy of Sciences

            “The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.” (2005)11

            U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

            ——————————————————————————–

            U.S. Global Change Research Program

            “The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human ‘fingerprints’ also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice.” (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)12

            INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODIES

            ——————————————————————————–

            Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

            “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.”13

            “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely* due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”14

            *IPCC defines ‘very likely’ as greater than 90 percent probability of occurrence.

            OTHER RESOURCES

            ——————————————————————————–

            List of worldwide scientific organizations

            The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.
            http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

            U.S. agencies

            The following page contains information on what federal agencies are doing to adapt to climate change.

            Click to access federal-agencies-adaptation.pdf

            ——————————————————————————–

            References​
            1.
            J. Cook, et al, “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature,” Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (June 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

            Quotation from page 3: “Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-cause, Global Warming], 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”

            W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.

            P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, “Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.

            N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.

            2.
            Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations (2009)

            3.
            AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change (2006)

            4.
            ACS Public Policy Statement: Climate Change (2010-2013)

            5.
            Human‐Induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action (2013)

            6.
            Global Climate Change and Human Health (2013)

            7.
            Climate Change: An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society (2012)

            8.
            APS National Policy 07.1 Climate Change (2007)

            9.
            GSA Position Statement on Climate Change (2010)

            10.
            Joint science academies’ statement: Global response to climate change (2005)

            11.
            Understanding and Responding to Climate Change (2005)

            12.
            Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States (2009)

            13.
            IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers (2007)

            14.
            IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers (2007)

            This website is produced by the Earth Science Communications Team at
            NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory | California Institute of Technology
            Site Editor: Holly Shaftel
            Site Manager: Randal Jackson
            Senior Science Editor: Laura Tenenbaum

            Site last updated: December 15, 2015

            • If science were based on consensus, neutrinos would have no mass. You have not produced any empirical tests for causality, nor have any of the scientists you you listed. I guess you do not recognize tests for causality. Perhaps you should refrain from commenting on the matter until you become less confused.

              • Sorry for the delay in responding to your suggestion- “Perhaps you should refrain from commenting on the matter until you become less confused.” I guess that was intended to be either condescending or insulting. Thank you!

                Please list your academic credentials and scientific background that help you come to the conclusion that 1) I am confused and 2) allows you to dismiss so many scientific societies (using your mathmatical basis) that have concluded we should do something about the man made contributions to climate change.

  6. The point of the story on 06880 is that an intelligent young man in our community has had the opportunity of meeting world citizens in a world capital to assess an important issue that will persist throughout his lifetime. Kudos to Taylor for taking the initiative to learn and to advance himself. IMHO, this forum is not the place to debate melting glaciers or the lack of a white Christmas.

  7. Whatever side of this debate you sit, if you look at the rest of the world and their desire tongrow their economies, more and more carbon will be added to the environment. The US thru innovations and higher MPG, had lowered its carbon footprint. But with the rest of the world (India and China leading) trying to grow their economies, our decline will have limited effect. We should stop beating up on the US and wonder how many others who polute a lot and will polute more comply to anything in the agreement:

    Given China’s importance to efforts to reduce the world’s emissions of greenhouse gases, the discrepancies remain worrying. They may, for example, doom its national carbon-trading scheme, which is scheduled for launch in 2017. Moreover, voracious coal-burning may accelerate elsewhere. Poor countries that wish to emulate China’s economic growth are likely to take a similar track. More than 1.2 billion people still lack electricity. Coal remains a cheap way to generate it. Population growth over the coming decades will drive demand further. The UN reckons about 9.7 billion people will be living, breathing, driving and cooking on the planet by 2050—up from 7.3 billion now.

    • I could not agree with you more.

      The Chinese are currently living in smog bound cities. They are getting the message coal may not be a great way to power a society long term.

      We, as a country, should be leading and looking for ways to sell the emerging markets on power alternatives that are renewable- wind, solar, hydro and tidal- to reduce the carbon footprint.

      The conference Taylor attended is a world wide efforet- an early step on the road to try to solve a problem many in the scientific communities see as a threat to our planet- unfortunately not everyone can see there is a problem- because they as confused by their math.!

      • Take a look at India and what they are saying. They feel they ‘should’ continue to be s major polluter, using the excuse of what developed nations did in the past. If they continue at their rate, and China too, what outcome can be expected? Then add in all other undeveloped nations and it’s difficult to see an end-soon.

    • Nancy Hunter Wilson

      Yes, China takes first place, U.S. takes second.
      Maurice Strong had plenty to say about the matter.