Gulf Stream

[autigeremt 6,753]

21 hours ago, homersapien said:

When was the last polar shift emt?

Where did you get the idea it was associated with global warming?

There are several academics who have suggested such things. Google is your friend (if physics isn’t) 

[johnnyAU 3,668]

11 hours ago, homersapien said:

The ones who have been presented in this discussion as examples are. 

 

Prove it. And then prove the scientists you have quoted/cited aren't continually funded by green $$ as long as they produce "acceptable" results.

[johnnyAU 3,668]

12 hours ago, homersapien said:

When we post something to back up what we're saying, all you say is "wrong," but you don't even try to back up your arguments.

No you don't. You make unsubstantiated claims like I pointed out earlier. You have no argument.

[homersapien 11,488]

On 5/15/2024 at 10:58 PM, johnnyAU said:

Prove it. And then prove the scientists you have quoted/cited aren't continually funded by green $$ as long as they produce "acceptable" results.

Do your own research. Just search their names and follow up.

And I don't recall citing any single researcher by name. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)  I have cited primarily sites that compile research as in Academic societies and government sites like NASA and NOAA.

But what's the point?  You clearly believe the entire subject is a global hoax or scam:   97+% of all climatologists and related scientists in geology, meteorology, biology, chemistry, etc. in the world are all participates in this hoax.

How can anyone argue with that? 

It's a fool's errand.   

 

Edited May 17 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,488]

12 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

No you don't. You make unsubstantiated claims like I pointed out earlier. You have no argument.

Yep.  You're right.  It's all a massive hoax involving a financial scam.

[homersapien 11,488]

Interesting analysis of the climate change denial "community". (emphasis mine)

https://www.asanet.org/footnotes-article/structure-and-culture-climate-change-denial/

 

The Structure and Culture of Climate Change Denial

Jeremiah Bohr, Assistant Professor of Sociology, University of Wisconsin Oshkosh

 

As someone who has spent over a decade studying the climate change denial movement, many of the political tactics mainstreamed by Donald Trump and the populist right around 2015–2016 seemed familiar. Attack the experts. Launch personal attacks on opponents. Frame an email scandal to maximize political gain. Delegitimize mainstream media sources. Cast yourself as the savior of traditional American life. Climate change deniers practiced these tactics years before the Republican Party transformed from a Reagan coalition of social conservatives and small-government libertarians to a party of the populist right. While arguing against scientific consensus will always present an uphill battle, the organizers of climate change denial repeatedly prove their ability to strategically adapt to their political environment, seamlessly shifting between narratives of “climate change is not happening,” “climate change is happening but humans are not driving it,” and “climate change is happening but it is nothing to worry about.”

Considering the economic incentives of continued fossil fuel development, I expect that climate change deniers will adapt to shifting political winds for years to come and will continue to employ political tactics. In this article, I review a few facts and events to illustrate this point. For a more comprehensive overview of the players involved in obstructing action on climate change, read “From Denial to Obstruction: A Sociological View of the Effort to Obstruction Action on Climate Change” by Robert Brulle and Riley Dunlap in this issue. Ultimately, members of the climate change denial movement do not concern themselves with building fact-based objections to mainstream scientific consensus. Rather, they are focused on how to coordinate political reactions to any sort of mitigation policy effort that detracts from fossil fuel-based economic growth strategies. Thus, in my view, the tactics used to frame scientists as corrupt, activists as antiprogress, corporations as “woke,” or journalists as liars, represent a crucial element of the contemporary climate change denial movement.

The Economic Incentives of Denial

Looking at the organization of climate change denial, we quickly recognize a familiar story of corporate actors pursuing private gain, hiding information from the public, and pushing negative externalities onto society. To do this successfully, industry actors coordinate public relations campaigns and prop up their own set of experts to deny their industries have contributed to harming public health. The playbook used by climate change deniers often parallels that used by the tobacco industry to deny carcinogenic links to their product, sometimes employing the very same people who had defended Big Tobacco to protect the fossil fuel industry. Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway documented this network of iconoclastic and politically connected scientists who promote uncertainty around climate science (and other environmental and public health issues) in their book Merchants of Doubt (Bloomsbury Press, 2010).

A mixture of corporations in the fossil fuel industry (e.g., ExxonMobil), trade associations (e.g., National Association of Manufacturers), conservative philanthropists (e.g., The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation), and conservative think tanks make up the coalition of organized climate change denial. As part of this coalition, think tanks serve a key function in using funds from corporations and philanthropists to produce the narrative work of denial in the form of research reports, newsletters, podcasts, social media posts, and op-eds. These include widely recognized names such as The Heritage Foundation, but also smaller think tanks such as The Heartland Institute that have made climate change denial their niche. Ideologically, these think tanks unite through their libertarian commitment to free markets, low taxes, and opposition to “big government,” leading various corporate funders to view them as useful vehicles for obstructing proactive climate legislation. Indeed, organizations within the climate change countermovement that have received corporate funding produce more polarizing media than those without corporate funding, and they place greater emphasis on specific themes such as the purported benefits of increased CO₂ concentrations.

Various politicians representing constituents whose economic livelihoods rely on fossil fuel development and access to cheap energy also have incentives to engage in climate change denial. Treadmill of production theory in environmental sociology anticipates these types of alliances, wherein a coalition of corporations, labor, politicians, and (sometimes) consumers come together through mutual benefits realized at the cost of environmental degradation. Consistent with what my research shows, congressional representatives discuss environmental issues on their social media accounts along the political-economic lines that characterize their districts. Additionally, and unsurprisingly, legislators tend to vote against pro-environmental bills as they receive more money from industries associated with the climate change countermovement. Clearly, the alignment of near-term economic incentives with conventional fossil fuel economic development creates a receptive context for deniers’ attacks on climate science and efforts to mitigate global climate change.

The Political Culture of Denial

In my view, it is a mistake to assume that a principled commitment to libertarian principles in defense of free markets drives the climate change denial movement. Beneath the surface of the libertarian rhetoric that infused the early years of the denial discourse lay the forerunners of the modern right’s turn from libertarian-conservatism to right-wing populism. In my estimation, the mutual hatred of “the expert”—disdained as a tool of central planning in a Hayekian-inspired libertarian tradition as well as a symbol of educated elites that animates modern right-wing populism—allows these camps to find common ground in the field of climate change politics.

Years before “fake news” became a regular phrase in our political vocabulary, deniers used a variety of now-familiar tactics to shape public discourse around climate change. At the outset of my interest in studying climate change denial, I attended a well-known conference organized by The Heartland Institute in 2010, part of an annual series set up as the denial movement’s version of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Upon arrival, I entered a large conference space where hundreds of attendees gathered for dinner and to hear a keynote speaker. Having spent months consuming climate change denial content at that point, I possessed a sense of what to expect at this conference, but the scene I walked into took me aback: hundreds of animated climate change deniers excitedly shouting “Lock Him Up!” Many of the attendees were waving small hockey sticks emblazoned with “Mann-Made Global Warming,” aiming their chants at climatologist Michael Mann, author of the well-known “hockey stick” graph, and whom the denial movement accuses of manipulating data (as they do of nearly every prominent climate scientist or research group). Of course, not too many years later, rowdy crowds at Trump campaign rallies would shout “Lock Her Up!” about Hillary Clinton. This parallel illustrates a political culture undergirding the denial movement, premised not on good-faith disagreements about the proper role of government, but a visceral hatred directed at anyone identified as the enemy. In this case, enemies include most climate scientists, but also anyone perceived as an opponent to the lifestyle made possible by access to cheap fossil fuel. While I understand the motives of corporate actors as a desire to protect profits, I would characterize many of the rank-and-file activists I encountered at this conference (who were almost all white men) as motivated by threats to their “industrial” masculinity.

Another familiar parallel involves an email scandal. Perhaps no other event animated the climate change denial movement more than the infamous “Climategate” scandal. In 2009, ahead of the United Nations Copenhagen Climate Change Conference, hackers obtained emails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Among thousands of emails, climate change deniers took a small handful out of context and used them to insinuate that researchers manipulated data and misled the public about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-OK), a political champion of climate change denial, pounced on the scandal to call for investigations into research sponsored by the United Nations’ IPCC. Climategate dominated U.S. news coverage of climate change for months, particularly among newspapers with conservative editorial leanings. Multiple independent investigations would later verify that no malfeasance took place and that the deniers’ narrative itself manipulated the emails, though these headlines would receive scant attention by comparison. In the end, the denial movement secured a victory: public trust in climate science eroded and belief in global warming among television meteorologists declined as a result of Climategate.

Responding to Climate Change Denial

Since the manufactured Climategate controversy, which I consider the zenith of deniers’ influence over public opinion (though their policy influence would later peak under the Trump administration), parts of the denial coalition began to suffer setbacks. As their attack tactics became progressively more hostile, climate change deniers began to lose support among corporate boardrooms. One significant moment came in 2012, when The Heartland Institute put up a billboard in Chicago equating global warming activists to the terrorist “Unabomber” Ted Kaczynski. Months earlier, a climate scientist and activist leaked several internal documents that publicly exposed the funders of The Heartland Institute’s attacks on climate science. With pressure mounting from activists, corporations such as State Farm Insurance and General Motors cut ties with the small but influential think tank. Many other corporations would end up deciding they could no longer publicly associate with climate change denial (another familiar parallel with our current political moment).

Scientists have spent years fact-checking misinformation and sometimes debating contrarian pundits. While the pursuit of “inoculating” the public from misinformation may necessitate such activities, fact-checking and communicating the scientific consensus regarding climate change insufficiently counters the power of misinformation campaigns, partly because climate change denial belongs to the same polarizing trends that establish “post-truth” discursive spaces. Despite inventive suggestions for how to leverage information technology in the battle against climate misinformation, and thoughtful strategies outlined by sociologists, the COVID-19 pandemic makes clear how readily huge swaths of our population will dismiss fact-checked statements or research coming from mistrusted sources. We currently see the resistance from millions of people to taking vaccinations prescribed by public health experts. While we can argue that the denial position creeps further to the fringe of mainstream culture as it increasingly associates with anti-science attitudes, it maintains a steady home among a sizeable and committed minority.

Despite its setbacks, the denial movement does not lack teeth or influence. Prominent figures in this realm still have opportunity to exert power through their solid standing within the Republican Party. Myron Ebell of the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute, for example, shaped President Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency, an administration that withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Agreement and consistently empowered industry at the cost of environmental protection. While I did not describe a comprehensive list of the political fights engaged by climate change deniers in the U.S., these accounts illustrate how the movement itself foreshadowed the entering of fringe political elements into the conservative mainstream. Financially, a coalition incentivized by fossil fuel extraction supports the climate change denial movement. Culturally, a type of identity politics embedded within carbon-intensive lifestyles animates it. Understanding these aspects provides insight into the social forces blocking action on climate change, as well as their robust power going forward.

[homersapien 11,488]

Another recent article linking Climate change denialism to politics:

https://news.umich.edu/nearly-15-of-americans-deny-climate-change-is-real-ai-study-finds/

Nearly 15% of Americans deny climate change is real, AI study finds

Public figures such as Trump play outsized role in influencing beliefs

[homersapien 11,488]

https://www.axios.com/2024/05/16/desantis-florida-climate-change-law

DeSantis signs bill wiping climate change references from Florida law

The legislation I signed today—HB 1645, HB 7071, and HB 1331—will keep windmills off our beaches, gas in our tanks, and China out of our state. We’re restoring sanity in our approach to energy and rejecting the agenda of the radical green zealots. Furthermore, we’re going to ensure foreign adversaries like China have no foothold in our state.

 

Why it matters: The bill that would also ban offshore wind turbines and bolster natural gas expansion after taking effect on July 1 comes as climate change's effects are already impacting Florida — notably a dangerous heat wave threatening the state's south this week that's already broken temperature records.

• The heat index in Key West hit a record 115°F on Wednesday and the National Weather Service warned South Florida could expect well-above average temperatures with "hazardous" heat index values this week.
• Florida is also facing climate change-related threats from rising sea levels and ocean temperatures, hurricanes and other severe storms, extreme precipitation, flooding and toxic algae blooms.

The big picture: The legislation that deletes most mentions of climate change in state law reverses much of the policies and legislation that were introduced during the administration of the then-Republican Gov. Charlie Crist, a Democrat DeSantis defeated in the 2022 gubernatorial race.

• Now, the focus is on "an adequate, reliable and cost-effective supply of energy for the state in a manner that promotes the health and welfare of the public and economic growth," per a legislative analysis.

• Critics say DeSantis is using climate change as part of a broader culture wars drive and environmental group Sierra Club's Florida chapter issued a statement saying the law "jeopardizes" the health and safety of all Floridians.

Yes, but: The law is largely symbolic as it doesn't prevent lawmakers from addressing climate change in energy policy.

• Florida is a U.S. leader in solar power and the legislation doesn't impact this burgeoning industry.

• And the state has no operational wind farms due to hurricanes and insufficient wind power.

[johnnyAU 3,668]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

97+% of all climatologists and related scientists in geology, meteorology, biology, chemistry, etc. in the world are all participates in this hoax.

Again, citing the bogus consensus. It's all you have. 

[jj3jordan 2,078]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

Another recent article linking Climate change denialism to politics:

https://news.umich.edu/nearly-15-of-americans-deny-climate-change-is-real-ai-study-finds/

Nearly 15% of Americans deny climate change is real, AI study finds

Public figures such as Trump play outsized role in influencing beliefs

All of us deniers denied before trump was a gleam in your eye. And we don’t deny climate change. That’s what we call weather. It’s the bogus blame we deny. Your side apparently are “sun deniers”. You deny that the sun makes it hot.

[Leftfield 2,684]

1 hour ago, jj3jordan said:

All of us deniers denied before trump was a gleam in your eye. And we don’t deny climate change. That’s what we call weather. It’s the bogus blame we deny. Your side apparently are “sun deniers”. You deny that the sun makes it hot.

Great Scott.

You haven't posted in days, and this is what you come up with?

I'm just going to pretend a freaked out cat ran across your keyboard and move on.

[jj3jordan 2,078]

4 hours ago, Leftfield said:

Great Scott.

You haven't posted in days, and this is what you come up with?

I'm just going to pretend a freaked out cat ran across your keyboard and move on.

Well I don’t have a cat but you are welcome to pretend that throwing money and earth raping electric cars at the weather will do anything to improve whatever you think it should be.  Had an issue with getting logged in. Thus the days long leave of absence.

[autigeremt 6,753]

2 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

Well I don’t have a cat but you are welcome to pretend that throwing money and earth raping electric cars at the weather will do anything to improve whatever you think it should be.  Had an issue with getting logged in. Thus the days long leave of absence.

What are you taking about?!?!? Lithium is farmed in a grove of trees in Europe. lol 😂 

[Leftfield 2,684]

Just now, jj3jordan said:

Well I don’t have a cat but you are welcome to pretend that throwing money and earth raping electric cars at the weather will do anything to improve whatever you think it should be.  Had an issue with getting logged in. Thus the days long leave of absence.

Yeah, the fact you keep saying "weather" tells the entire story of your knowledge on the subject. 

Pretty sure your computer was trying to keep you from logging in because it felt pity for the rest of the world.

[jj3jordan 2,078]

Just now, Leftfield said:

Yeah, the fact you keep saying "weather" tells the entire story of your knowledge on the subject. 

Pretty sure your computer was trying to keep you from logging in because it felt pity for the rest of the world.

A lot of the world is pitiful. My old MacBook is definitely smarter than me.

 

[Leftfield 2,684]

8 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

Again, citing the bogus consensus. It's all you have. 

In this entire thread you've made numerous assertions without listing any corroborating articles or studies. Not one. You gave a small group of dissenting scientists, but didn't bother mentioning what studies they've published or in fact any information at all about their positions.

All the while, you claim we've given no proof that CO2 makes a significant impact on the climate. I can only assume by proof you mean that continued warming will actually have to come to pass, because we've listed a good number of graphs, charts, and articles that explain what's going on and why. You have never said why these studies (or the models that some of them are based on) are wrong, you just say they are, then usually claim that none of those scientists can be trusted because they're all desperate to keep their funding (while simultaneously claiming you're not talking about every single one, because that would be absurd, right?).

Yet you still disparage those of us that trust the majority of scientists as ignorant cultists blinded by ideology. We have freely shared the information we trust, yet you have not. We have discussed and pointed out the fallacies in the counter studies that have been posted by others that share your view, yet you've made no effort to do the same, despite claiming that you've not only read everything we have posted, but everything we could post. Surely if you've read that much on the subject, especially from both viewpoints, as you claim, you would be able to share something that explains why you think the way you do. It can't all be about corrupt scientists, can it?

 

 

[TexasTiger 13,090]

9 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

the bogus consensus. It's all you have. 

And you’ve got the bogus …what exactly do you have again?

[homersapien 11,488]

19 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

Again, citing the bogus consensus. It's all you have. 

It's been thoroughly researched and proven with data.  I'd go to the trouble of citing the studies, but again, what does it matter? 

No amount of objective evidence is going to convince a conspiracist like you. 

[homersapien 11,488]

18 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

All of us deniers denied before trump was a gleam in your eye. And we don’t deny climate change. That’s what we call weather. It’s the bogus blame we deny. Your side apparently are “sun deniers”. You deny that the sun makes it hot.

Like all deniers you are totally ignorant of what you claim.

The weather changes along with the climate.  How do you explain the undeniable warming over the last two centuries?

[johnnyAU 3,668]

16 minutes ago, homersapien said:

It's been thoroughly researched and proven with data.  I'd go to the trouble of citing the studies, but again, what does it matter? 

No amount of objective evidence is going to convince a conspiracist like you. 

No, it's been proven to be BS. It isn't objective evidence in the least. 

[homersapien 11,488]

58 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

No, it's been proven to be BS. It isn't objective evidence in the least. 

Well, that's partly true.  The evidence was derived from papers on the subject in which data supported the thesis.  It wasn't a direct poll.

But if you demand actual, objective poll numbers here's a recent one:

"Almost 80% of the respondents, all from the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), foresee at least 2.5C of global heating, while almost half anticipate at least 3C (5.4F). Only 6% thought the internationally agreed 1.5C (2.7F) limit would be met. May 8, 2024"

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/08/world-scientists-climate-failure-survey-global-temperature

So, that's 80% foresee at least 2.5 Celsius increase while 50% anticipate at least 3C (5.4F) and only 6% think we will meet the 1.5C (2.7F) internationally agreed target.

Edited May 17 by homersapien

[johnnyAU 3,668]

59 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Well, that's partly true.  The evidence was derived from papers on the subject in which data supported the thesis.  It wasn't a direct poll.

But if you demand actual, objective poll numbers here's a recent one:

"Almost 80% of the respondents, all from the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), foresee at least 2.5C of global heating, while almost half anticipate at least 3C (5.4F). Only 6% thought the internationally agreed 1.5C (2.7F) limit would be met. May 8, 2024"

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/08/world-scientists-climate-failure-survey-global-temperature

So, that's 80% foresee at least 2.5 Celsius increase while 50% anticipate at least 3C (5.4F) and only 6% think we will meet the 1.5C (2.7F) internationally agreed target.

https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/11/11/215

[johnnyAU 3,668]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Well, that's partly true.  The evidence was derived from papers on the subject in which data supported the thesis.  It wasn't a direct poll.

But if you demand actual, objective poll numbers here's a recent one:

"Almost 80% of the respondents, all from the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), foresee at least 2.5C of global heating, while almost half anticipate at least 3C (5.4F). Only 6% thought the internationally agreed 1.5C (2.7F) limit would be met. May 8, 2024"

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/08/world-scientists-climate-failure-survey-global-temperature

So, that's 80% foresee at least 2.5 Celsius increase while 50% anticipate at least 3C (5.4F) and only 6% think we will meet the 1.5C (2.7F) internationally agreed target.

LOL. The IPCC again? Good lord.

[homersapien 11,488]

28 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

LOL. The IPCC again? Good lord.

What's the matter?  I suppose you believe they are one of the major hoax coordinators. Well, along with literally every scientific organization involved in the field - world wide:

1. Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
2. Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
3. Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
4. Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
5. Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
6. Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
7. Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
8. Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
9. Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
10. Académie des Sciences, France
11. Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
12. Academy of Athens
13. Academy of Science of Mozambique
14. Academy of Science of South Africa
15. Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
16. Academy of Sciences Malaysia
17. Academy of Sciences of Moldova
18. Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
19. Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
20. Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
21. Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
22. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
23. Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
24. African Academy of Sciences
25. Albanian Academy of Sciences
26. Amazon Environmental Research Institute
27. American Academy of Pediatrics
28. American Anthropological Association
29. American Association for the Advancement of Science
30. American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
31. American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
32. American Astronomical Society
33. American Chemical Society
34. American College of Preventive Medicine
35. American Fisheries Society
36. American Geophysical Union
37. American Institute of Biological Sciences
38. American Institute of Physics
39. American Meteorological Society
40. American Physical Society
41. American Public Health Association
42. American Quaternary Association
43. American Society for Microbiology
44. American Society of Agronomy
45. American Society of Civil Engineers
46. American Society of Plant Biologists
47. American Statistical Association
48. Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
49. Australian Academy of Science
50. Australian Bureau of Meteorology
51. Australian Coral Reef Society
52. Australian Institute of Marine Science
53. Australian Institute of Physics
54. Australian Marine Sciences Association
55. Australian Medical Association
56. Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society  
57. Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
58. Botanical Society of America
59. Brazilian Academy of Sciences
60. British Antarctic Survey
61. Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
62. California Academy of Sciences
63. Cameroon Academy of Sciences
64. Canadian Association of Physicists
65. Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
66. Canadian Geophysical Union
67. Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
68. Canadian Society of Soil Science
69. Canadian Society of Zoologists
70. Caribbean Academy of Sciences views
71. Center for International Forestry Research
72. Chinese Academy of Sciences
73. Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
74. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia)
75. Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
76. Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
77. Crop Science Society of America
78. Cuban Academy of Sciences
79. Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
80. Ecological Society of America
81. Ecological Society of Australia
82. Environmental Protection Agency
83. European Academy of Sciences and Arts
84. European Federation of Geologists
85. European Geosciences Union
86. European Physical Society
87. European Science Foundation
88. Federation of American Scientists
89. French Academy of Sciences
90. Geological Society of America
91. Geological Society of Australia
92. Geological Society of London
93. Georgian Academy of Sciences
94. German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina  
95. Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
96. Indian National Science Academy
97. Indonesian Academy of Sciences  
98. Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
99. Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology
100. Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
101. Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
102. InterAcademy Council
103. International Alliance of Research Universities
104. International Arctic Science Committee
105. International Association for Great Lakes Research
106. International Council for Science
107. International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
108. International Research Institute for Climate and Society
109. International Union for Quaternary Research
110. International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
111. International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
112. Islamic World Academy of Sciences
113. Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
114. Kenya National Academy of Sciences
115. Korean Academy of Science and Technology
116. Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
117. l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
118. Latin American Academy of Sciences
119. Latvian Academy of Sciences
120. Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
121. Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences
122. Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
123. Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
124. National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
125. National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
126. National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
127. National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
128. National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
129. National Aeronautics and Space Administration  
130. National Association of Geoscience Teachers
131. National Association of State Foresters
132. National Center for Atmospheric Research  
133. National Council of Engineers Australia
134. National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
135. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
136. National Research Council
137. National Science Foundation
138. Natural England
139. Natural Environment Research Council, UK
140. Natural Science Collections Alliance
141. Network of African Science Academies
142. New York Academy of Sciences
143. Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
144. Nigerian Academy of Sciences
145. Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
146. Oklahoma Climatological Survey
147. Organization of Biological Field Stations
148. Pakistan Academy of Sciences
149. Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
150. Pew Center on Global Climate Change
151. Polish Academy of Sciences
152. Romanian Academy
153. Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
154. Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
155. Royal Astronomical Society, UK
156. Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
157. Royal Irish Academy
158. Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
159. Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
160. Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
161. Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
162. Royal Society of Canada
163. Royal Society of Chemistry, UK
164. Royal Society of the United Kingdom
165. Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
166. Russian Academy of Sciences
167. Science and Technology, Australia  
168. Science Council of Japan
169. Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
170. Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
171. Scripps Institution of Oceanography
172. Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
173. Slovak Academy of Sciences
174. Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
175. Society for Ecological Restoration International
176. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
177. Society of American Foresters   
178. Society of Biology (UK)   
179. Society of Systematic Biologists
180. Soil Science Society of America
181. Sudan Academy of Sciences
182. Sudanese National Academy of Science
183. Tanzania Academy of Sciences
184. The Wildlife Society (international)
185. Turkish Academy of Sciences
186. Uganda National Academy of Sciences
187. Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
188. United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
189. University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
190. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
191. Woods Hole Research Center
192. World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
193. World Federation of Public Health Associations
194. World Forestry Congress
195. World Health Organization
196. World Meteorological Organization
197. Zambia Academy of Sciences
198. Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences

 

[I_M4_AU 8,033]