So many misinformed people believing so many things they don't understand. Oxygen is deadly too, especially to people. Oddly enough whenever there has been a increase in CO2 there has been a mass increase in plant, and animal life.

I'll happily give the current environmentalist-doomsday-global warming/etc bit another 20yrs until common sense clicks back in, and the scientists actually get control back of scientific organizations. While booting the politicians out, that includes the vaunted 'IPCC'.

Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a theory (hypothesis). It is an unproven theory. What you do with theories is put them to the test with scientific observations. Let’s see what data points we now have:

1) Average annual temperatures have not surpassed 1998 (NOAA) (University of Alabama)

2) Average annual temperatures are now trending downward since 1998 (NOAA) (University of Alabama)

3) Ocean temperatures have not risen since 2000 when the 3000 Argo buoys were launched. The buoys even show a slight decrease in ocean temperatures

4) The Arctic ice froze to February levels by December 07, there are 1mm more sq km than before (previous was 13mm sq km)

5) The Arctic ice is 20cm thicker than “normal” (whatever that is)

6) All polar bear pods are stable or growing (NOAA/PBS)

7) Mount Kilimanjaro is not melting because of global warming, rather “sublimation”

The Antarctic is not “melting”, it is growing in most places, the sloughing off at the edges is normal as the ice mass grows

9) The majority of the Antarctic is 8 degrees below “normal” (again, whatever that is)

10) The coveted .7 degree rise in temperatures over the last 100 years has been wiped out with last years below “normal” temperatures (NOAA coolest winter since 2001)

11) Al Gore's film was deemed “propaganda” in a court of law in the UK as many points could not be substantiated by scientists

12) It was also just revealed that some of the footage in Al's film was CGI. The ice shelf collapse was from the movie The Day After Tomorrow (ABC)

13) One of the scientists that originally thought that CO2 preceded the warming has now found with new data that the CO2 rise follows the warming (Dr David Evans)

14) August 2008 was the first time since 1913 there were no sun spots.

15) The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the 20th century (no SUVs)

16) Many scientists are now predicting 30 years of cooling.

17) The greenhouse effect is real, our small contribution to it cannot even be measured

18) Several publications, including those that are warmist have recently written that the natural cycles of the earth may mask AGW. Give me a break.

19) 31,000 scientist have signed a petition against AGW!

---------------------------

More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims


“I am a skeptic...Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly. As a scientist I remain skeptical.” -

Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history...When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

A one year blip in a thirty year history does not constitute "proof" of anything. There will always be fluctuations from year to year.

Yes, I'm aware of the 500 climate-change skeptics. Well the IPCC represents the combined efforts of thousands of scientists.

The commenter monoape at Dailytech says it best:

Ah, the tired, old 1970s ice age story... http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11643

Also, you are aware that the USA is not the only country with a functioning scientific community?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Provide evidence that they are all lying in a massive global conspiracy or that they are all wrong. Just a tiny scrap of *real* evidence that thousands of scientists in dozens of countries are all colluding in the biggest con trick in human history. Evidence that they've all been manufacturing data for decades to fool the rest of the planet - just so they can get funding to do the salaried job they were employed for anyway.

Come on - you must have *something*....

Stick to trolling, BillO. It's what you do best.

So, you do not believe that any of the things I pointed have pointed out so far are “logically defensible?” The DOE report is wrong. It is based on faulty pricing assumptions and talks about profitability of expansion under those conditions. The assumption that there is not enough oil to make a difference in this country is false as well. The surveys of some of the areas that we could drill that were conducted in the 80’s used outdated equipment and faulty methods. Their estimations have been proven completely wrong by enormous amounts. You do not think we reached a common ground by agreeing that the current situation will promote conservation and exploration of alternatives? I have said much more than “I disagree.” I have cited factual information and discussed the reports you have posted.

Do I think drilling will bring back $1.50/gal gasoline? This is a loaded question considering prices have *never* been rock steady. We have built up an anti-oil mentality in this country over many years, blocked expansion, and brought a majority of the price increase on ourselves. I most definitely believe that drilling coupled with releasing a small portion of our reserves to the market will drop prices. You may not immediately drop to a solid $1.50/gal, but gas prices always have been and always will be in flux. Newer estimates are placing the number of barrels in the OCS conservatively at 86 billion. That will definitely make a difference in our domestic supply vs. imports. Don’t forget there are even more untapped oil reserves throughout this country besides the OCS that can be drilled as well. This is even excluding all the oil shale resources which the US has in abundance. As I see it, the only reason to oppose drilling comes from beliefs that it will destroy the environment which is a myth.

As for global warming, I’ve discussed it many times here before. The last I can remember was in Fedquip’s sift talk post claiming the debate is over here:
http://nature.videosift.com/talk/The-Decade-long-Conversation-to-nowhere
I’m tired of rewriting the same information over and over again. If you want to pick a category off of Wikipedia to pigeonhole me I would say I can fall under:
Global warming is not occurring or has ceased
Believe accuracy of IPCC climate projections is inadequate
Believe global warming is primarily caused by natural processes.
Those all cover my general beliefs. Warming trends ended nearly a decade ago. I think global warming is based in fear and is used to push particular agendas through the threat of a coming apocalypse. I also believe our understanding of the Earth and its complex climate patterns is still very limited. As more evidence is uncovered of warming periods prior to the industrial revolution which were even more intense than the one experienced at the height of the global warming frenzy, I think we begin to see just how little we really know. Talk is even beginning now of global cooling as the fears of a coming ice age are about to be recycled.

http://www.mms.gov/offshore/
http://www.johncornyn.com/posts/345

To believe drilling would've kept gas at $1.50/gal or so you have to believe:

1. The amount of oil to be gained both makes up for all currently imported oil, and future U.S. demand.
2. The amount of oil to be gained either makes up for increasing global demand (e.g. that of China and India) in addition to US demand, or that we will ban/limit oil exports with legislation to ensure low domestic prices.
3. The price of gas is set by actual supply/demand curves, not speculative ones.
4. The declining value of the dollar is not or would not be a factor in the price increase.
5. Refining and transportation of oil/gas would not be limiting factors.

I'm also assuming you think that the above, even if all true, would only hold true for a finite period of time, and not indefinitely. In other words, I'm assuming you believe oil is a finite, non-renewable resource.

At which point, you pretty much have to agree that it wouldn't have prevented a spike in gas price, just delayed it.

As for global warming, why do you think it's not happening? Is it an issue with the science in the IPCC report? Do you disagree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or do you think the ecosystem can absorb the volume we're emitting?

More to the point, which camp of these guys do you fall into?

Or is your disbelief rooted in something more basic, like 2008 is cooler than 2007, so therefore global warming is bunk?

Despite your contention, the consensus is solidifying around its reality, both the overall warming trend, and the fact that it's caused by human activity. Even the Republican party representatives have generally shifted away from trying to deny that, and just argue against all attempts to do anything about it on a cost/benefit analysis basis.

I'm quite puzzled by your resistance to the thought that drilling isn't the magical solution. Then again, you started from the position that the Republicans talking about drilling reduced the price of oil, which puts you solidly into dittohead territory.

If you're one of these diehard Fox News-watching, Limbaugh-worshiping conservatives, just say so, and I'll stop wasting my time.

Well, in regards to global warming, yes they can. Especially since the global warming side has taken some serious blows recently. Being faced with evidence that contradicts warming trends, the retraction of the IPCC report that started the whole thing by some of its authors, record increases in Arctic sea ice, discovery of deep sea volcanic vents causing ice melting in the caps, and an increasing number of climatologists bailing on the idea, global warming has hit the back burner. It also no longer seems to be proper to call it global warming since we stopped warming about a decade ago. So, now it's proper to refer to it as climate change to cover all your bases. I sat on the fence reading up on global warming for a few years. I've come to the conclusion that it is false, although we should definitely still strive to clean up after ourselves since it is entirely possible to make your immediate area an absolute crap hole. I see the constant pushing of global warming and climate change in the face of contradictory evidence to be another excuse for extensions of government control and regulation. People can buy as many hybrids as they want for all I care, as long as we don't hit lows of government intereference like in England where people are being fined for having too much garbage. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1041098/Families-break-bin-rules-overfill-110-fine--drunken-yob-receive.html Although the forced change to the mercury filled bulbs are a start towards making an unnecessary shift just for the sake of feeling environmentally responsible.

Also, I agree it was a completely avoidable situation, but probably not for the same reasons as you. If we never started blocking domestic oil expansion in the first place we could already of had many of these areas up and producing already.

I posted it the last time this came up in sift talk and its still relevant. So, here is the copy paste to save me the re-write:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html

"Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth stillwarming?"

She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."

Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"

Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant."

I think the ultimate point of this article is that the scientific debate is not over. Conclusions have been reached that are not supported by data being collected over the past few years. This includes not only the general hold on rising temperatures, but the record increase in sea ice levels in Antarctica. My favorite part is the end:

"Well-meaning intellectual movements, from communism to post-structuralism, have a poor history of absorbing inconvenient fact or challenges to fundamental precepts. We should not ignore or suppress good indicators on the environment, though they have become extremely rare now. It is tempting to the layman to embrace with enthusiasm the latest bleak scenario because it fits the darkness of our soul, the prevailing cultural pessimism. The imagination, as Wallace Stevens once said, is always at the end of an era. But we should be asking, or expecting others to ask, for the provenance of the data, the assumptions fed into the computer model, the response of the peer review community, and so on. Pessimism is intellectually delicious, even thrilling, but the matter before us is too serious for mere self-pleasuring. It would be self-defeating if the environmental movement degenerated into a religion of gloomy faith. (Faith, ungrounded certainty, is no virtue.)

"Fighting" climate change makes you *feel* good because you're taking action with good intentions. Working towards cleaner industry and a generally more environmentally friendly society is a great goal. Throwing trillions of dollars at something that scientists do not even agree is a real problem is just a poor idea. Costs are fine, if you can prove you are actually going to fix something. Don't forget that regulation is a business. Apply the same skepticism to handing them trillions of dollars that you do to anything else. It's almost become fashionable to be environmentally conscious today with the government regulating us damn near into oblivion. You can't drill for oil here, you can't build power plants here, you have protected habitats springing up all the time, initiatives to change all light bulbs to the mercury filled energy savers are in place, and the list goes on. Basically, the planet's weather and climate systems are incredibly complex, and the data/support from the scientific community is just falling away from global warming. What I think will be even funnier is when we reach the point where the doomsday prediction deadlines have faded into history, there will still be people preaching environmental doom just over the horizon, and the failed predictions will be explained as being narrowly avoided by whatever feel-good eviro fad we're currently into. Of course by then we'll most likely be fearing death by another ice age if the historic trends keep up.

Here is a final bit for you from the Royal Society's talk on the future of science and the distaste for global warming junk science.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Future-of-science-talk-at-the-Royal-Society
(1 minute mark)

That's because the Kyoto protocol is a complete waste of time and resources, providing an almost statistically insignificant change over time. It serves only to make you feel like you're doing something, and has about the same effect as putting a ribbon on your bumper. Throwing money at everything with good intentions without first having a concrete scientfic basis for your decisions isn't productive.

http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-pm072998.html

"This analysis assumes the IPCC’s "consensus" estimate of 2.0°C of warming by the year 2100 in the absence of substantial emissions stabilization. Please note that my testimony indicates this is a considerable overestimation.

The Kyoto Protocol requires that the United States reduce its overall greenhouse gas emissions by a remarkable 43% for the 2008-2012 average, compared to where they would have been if we continue on the trajectory established in the last two decades. The economic costs are enormous, they are but not the subject of this hearing. What are the climate benefits?

Wigley (1998) recently calculated the "saved" warming, under the assumptions noted above, that would accrue if every nation met its obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. According to him, the earth’s temperature in 2050 will be 0.07°C lower as a result. My own calculations produced a similar answer. Wigley is a Senior Scientist at the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research.

0.07°C is an amount so small that it cannot be reliably measured by ground-based thermometers. If one assumes the more likely scenario that warming to the year 2100 will be approximately half of the IPCC estimate, the saved warming drops to 0.04°C over the next fifty years.

This is no benefit at an enormous cost."

I'm withholding judgment for a while. I've heard plenty of reputable scientists doubt global warming as it has been presented, including most of the Ph.D.s I work around. and Al Gore.... he's way out there. His BS doesn't even agree with the IPCC. I know of almost NO scientists who stand by Al Gore's fear tactics.

The Scientific debate is not over. It is only starting to warm up... pun intended. Ironically, though people somehow choose to ignore it, the number of reputable climatologists expressing doubt over human-caused global warming is increasing, not decreasing, and very rapidly.

I don't know who is right, but those who say the debate is over are misinformed. In fact hundreds of the IPCC members have since retracted their support of the document. MANY papers have been published refuting it's conclusion and MANY reputable climatologists have also refuted it. Those public figures who say there are none are lying, plain and simple. They know, and they are lying.

Nevertheless, we should be taking care of our environment anyway. It just remains to be seen if we should worry about CO2. We should probably be much more worried about destroying rain-forests and rare habitats.

My solution, put more money into technology research and the whole thing will work itself out on its own. We'll get cleaner cars, cleaner power, and cleaner industry without having to fire millions of workers in a panic over a company's "carbon footprint." Make me an electric car and I will freakin buy it NOW.

P.S. UhOhZombies is the best handle evar.

From the article I posted above:
"Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth stillwarming?"

She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."

Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"

Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant."

I think the ultimate point of this article is that the scientific debate is not over. Conclusions have been reached that are not supported by data being collected over the past few years. This includes not only the general hold on rising temperatures, but the record increase in sea ice levels in Antarctica. My favorite part is the end:

"Well-meaning intellectual movements, from communism to post-structuralism, have a poor history of absorbing inconvenient fact or challenges to fundamental precepts. We should not ignore or suppress good indicators on the environment, though they have become extremely rare now. It is tempting to the layman to embrace with enthusiasm the latest bleak scenario because it fits the darkness of our soul, the prevailing cultural pessimism. The imagination, as Wallace Stevens once said, is always at the end of an era. But we should be asking, or expecting others to ask, for the provenance of the data, the assumptions fed into the computer model, the response of the peer review community, and so on. Pessimism is intellectually delicious, even thrilling, but the matter before us is too serious for mere self-pleasuring. It would be self-defeating if the environmental movement degenerated into a religion of gloomy faith. (Faith, ungrounded certainty, is no virtue.)"

Everything you want to know about climate change but were afraid to ask is right here. Here is the actual report that they (the IPCC) issued (pdf), the same one that Big Oil said they would pay any scientist big bucks if they could refute its findings. To date, I have not heard of a single reputable scientist who has been able to cast doubt on the findings.

Human influence on climate change is a fact. The scientific debate is over. Unfortunately the political debate is not.

The consensus is that some amount of global warming is human-caused, so for now at least, it's safer for us to try and do something about it than it is to do nothing. I mostly disagree with the methods being employed atm, but whatever, they're not going to collapse our economy. Anyway, having said that I currently side with the warmingists, here are some articles counter to that opinion, since finding articles "for" is too easy; you just throw a dart at a newspaper stand and voila. Anyway, since a good number of IPCC members have since backed off of their conclusions, we still ought to consider that we might be bums-up wrong. Doing something too self-destructive to "fix" it might be unwise.
I will say though, Al Gore grossly misrepresented the IPCC report and the data in general. His bits about polar bears and Katrina were blatantly unsupported by reality, and the graphs he used were deceptive. I wish he wouldn't have spun it so badly, the truth would have been enough for us.

Read this one at least. It is informative and shows some serious mistakes that have been made in prediction:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml


http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59319
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/global_warming_or_cooling/2008/02/19/73798.html?s=al&promo_code=457E-1

hmmm, assume much and know even less, kinna like the folks who believe ol' Al here..
There are voices of dissent on this issue my friend, sorry you don't like the whole truth, and the folks who throw shit at liars, and spin-addicted media sluts, like Al Gore-

BALI, Indonesia - An international team of scientists skeptical of man-made climate fears promoted by the UN and former Vice President Al Gore, descended on Bali this week to urge the world to “have the courage to do nothing” in response to UN demands.

Lord Christopher Monckton, a UK climate researcher, had a blunt message for UN climate conference participants on Monday.
“Climate change is a non problem. The right answer to a non problem is to have the courage to do nothing,” Monckton told participants.

“The UN conference is a complete waste of our time and your money and we should no longer pay the slightest attention to the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,)” Monckton added. (LINK)

Monckton also noted that the UN has not been overly welcoming to the group of skeptical scientists.

“UN organizers refused my credentials and appeared desperate that I should not come to this conference. They have also made several attempts to interfere with our public meetings,” Monckton explained.

“It is a circus here,” agreed Australian scientist Dr. David Evans. Evans is making scientific presentations to delegates and journalists at the conference revealing the latest peer-reviewed studies that refute the UN’s climate claims.

“This is the most lavish conference I have ever been to, but I am only a scientist and I actually only go to the science conferences,” Evans said, noting the luxury of the tropical resort. (Note: An analysis by Bloomberg News on December 6 found: “Government officials and activists flying to Bali, Indonesia, for the United Nations meeting on climate change will cause as much pollution as 20,000 cars in a year.” - LINK)

Evans, a mathematician who did carbon accounting for the Australian government, recently converted to a skeptical scientist about man-made global warming after reviewing the new scientific studies. (LINK)

“We now have quite a lot of evidence that carbon emissions definitely don’t cause global warming. We have the missing [human] signature [in the atmosphere], we have the IPCC models being wrong and we have the lack of a temperature going up the last 5 years,” Evans said in an interview with the Inhofe EPW Press Blog. Evans authored a November 28 2007 paper “Carbon Emissions Don’t Cause Global Warming.” (LINK)

Evans touted a new peer-reviewed study by a team of scientists appearing in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society which found “Warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence.” (LINK)

“Most of the people here have jobs that are very well paid and they depend on the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. They are not going to be very receptive to the idea that well actually the science has gone off in a different direction,” Evans explained.

Read and understand, the world is being sold a bill of goods, the real reasons, lets hope we find out-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bali

drug-induced my ass-

thank you so much for taking the time to research that and contribute such a quality post

Q

In reply to this comment by xxovercastxx:
nib, lucky for me they've got a fair amount of that PIG book available for free on Google books so I just took a quick look at it before I head to bed.

One of the things that stood out was a group of pie charts which shows carbon dioxide among a few other greenhouse gases. It's not a greenhouse gas if it has zero effect on global temperature.

The book was apparently written by a lawyer, Christopher Horner, who is a recognized expert on "global warming legislation and regulation". That's something, but he's no climatologist. Chapter 1 is dedicated to calling environmentalists "anti-American communists". The first paragraph was really all I needed to read to understand that this book has no value to me.

It's endorsed by Richard Lindzen, who is a climatologist and has worked in related fields as well. His position seems to be similar to what I said in my initial post; that the temperature is rising but we're not entirely sure why yet. He's been criticized for taking payment of $2500/day from oil/coal companies for consulting services. He's been funded and/or supported by Western Fuels and OPEC.

The book is also endorsed by a few senators, and nobody believes anything they say so I think we can just ignore that.

The following organizations have taken the stance that global warming is at least partially due to human activity:

The aforementioned IPCC
The National Science Academies of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the UK and the US
The US National Research Council
The American Meteorological Society
The American Geophysical Union
The American Institute of Physics
The American Astronomical Society
The Federal Climate Change Science Program
The American Association for the Advancement of Science
The Geological Society of London
The Geological Society of America
The American Chemical Society
The Institution of Engineers Australia
The American Association of State Climatologists
The American Association of Petroleum Geologists

The American Association of State Climatologists, by the way, is made up of state climatologists, assistant climatologists under the state climatologist and retired climatologists. They state a membership count of "approximately 150". That's 70 more than you claim exist in the country.

nib, lucky for me they've got a fair amount of that PIG book available for free on Google books so I just took a quick look at it before I head to bed.

One of the things that stood out was a group of pie charts which shows carbon dioxide among a few other greenhouse gases. It's not a greenhouse gas if it has zero effect on global temperature.

The book was apparently written by a lawyer, Christopher Horner, who is a recognized expert on "global warming legislation and regulation". That's something, but he's no climatologist. Chapter 1 is dedicated to calling environmentalists "anti-American communists". The first paragraph was really all I needed to read to understand that this book has no value to me.

It's endorsed by Richard Lindzen, who is a climatologist and has worked in related fields as well. His position seems to be similar to what I said in my initial post; that the temperature is rising but we're not entirely sure why yet. He's been criticized for taking payment of $2500/day from oil/coal companies for consulting services. He's been funded and/or supported by Western Fuels and OPEC.

The book is also endorsed by a few senators, and nobody believes anything they say so I think we can just ignore that.

The following organizations have taken the stance that global warming is at least partially due to human activity:

The aforementioned IPCC
The National Science Academies of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the UK and the US
The US National Research Council
The American Meteorological Society
The American Geophysical Union
The American Institute of Physics
The American Astronomical Society
The Federal Climate Change Science Program
The American Association for the Advancement of Science
The Geological Society of London
The Geological Society of America
The American Chemical Society
The Institution of Engineers Australia
The American Association of State Climatologists
The American Association of Petroleum Geologists

The American Association of State Climatologists, by the way, is made up of state climatologists, assistant climatologists under the state climatologist and retired climatologists. They state a membership count of "approximately 150". That's 70 more than you claim exist in the country.