[edit] Other concurring organizations

Other scientific organizations that have issued concurring position statements on climate change include the following.

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." [16]

American Geophysical Union, also endorsed by the American Institute of Physics [17] and the American Astronomical Society [18]: "Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century." [19]

Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London: "We find that the evidence for human-induced climate change is now persuasive, and the need for direct action compelling." [20]

Geological Society of America: "The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries. Furthermore, the potential implications of global climate change and the time scale over which such changes will likely occur require active, effective, long-term planning." [21]

American Association of State Climatologists: This statement noted the difficulties with predicting impacts due to climate change, while acknowledging that human activities are having an effect on climate: "The AASC recognizes that human activities have an influence on the climate system. Such activities, however, are not limited to greenhouse gas forcing and include changing land use and sulfate emissions, which further complicates the issue of climate prediction... Whatever policies are promulgated with respect to energy, it is imperative that policy makers recognize that climate, its variability and change has a broad impact on society. The policy responses too should also be broad...Finally, ongoing political debate about global energy policy should not stand in the way of common sense action to reduce societal and environmental vulnerabilities to climate variability and change." [22]

Australian Medical Association: "Failure to commit to reducing greenhouse gas emissions has the potential to cause significant global public health problems... The AMA believes that an effective emissions control program could be instituted without having a negative impact on the Australian economy. This can best be achieved by combining energy conservation with new alternative technologies that would reduce dependency on fossil fuels... The AMA believes that the Federal Government should implement a National Greenhouse Policy that engages all Australians in ensuring that we meet the Kyoto target and start to dramatically cut our greenhouse pollution." [23]

American Chemical Society: "The overwhelming balance of evidence indicates that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is the prudent and responsible course of action at this time. Although vigorous climate research is certainly needed to reduce uncertainties and to identify potential adverse effects, it should not forestall prudent action now to address the issue. ACS believes that public and private efforts today are essential to protect the global climate system for the well-being of future generations." [24]

American Quaternary Association: "Few credible scientists now doubt that humans have influenced the documented rise in global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution. The first government-led U.S. Climate Change Science Program synthesis and assessment report supports the growing body of evidence that warming of the atmosphere, especially over the past 50 years, is directly impacted by human activity." [25]

Dissenting organizations

The only major scientific organization that rejects the finding of human influence on recent climate is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG), according to a statement by the Council of the American Quaternary Association.[3] The undated AAPG Policy Statement on Climate Change Policy [26] states

"Current proposals (Kyoto Protocol signed by the executive branch of the U.S. government, but not ratified by Congress) would federally tax crude oil at the rate of about $43.50 per barrel. No reduction in existing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would result from this massive transfer of wealth from the private sector into the federal government...Scientific examination of the government case for such draconian taxation does not support the supposition of human-induced global climate change; in fact, the study resulted in recognition that the supposition is neither provable nor disprovable...Recently published research results do not support the supposition of an anthropogenic cause of global climate change...Detailed examination of current climate data strongly suggests that current observations do not correlate with the assumptions or supportable projections of human-induced greenhouse effects."

I can't help but side with the Seuss guys on this one. The work doesn't simply borrow a Seuss element, it appropriates whole sections of it. I think the artist should have tried a little harder and made up his own Seuss-like rhymey words. Then I imagine the Seuss estate wouldn't have any grounds for their position.

For a funny Dr. Seuss parody, I recommend you watch "The Dr. Seuss Bible," a sketch by Kids in the Hall. Maybe you can find it posted on YouTube, or maybe not... Anyway, they make up a pretty goofy Seussian version of the story of Jesus, which ends with Christ in "Sam Ziffle's Crucifixian Machine..."

Twirl the ga-whirl

Release the ga-wheez

And in go the nails

Just as fast as you please!

I'm all for artists being subversive, but I think grabbing other works wholesale crosses a line. I thought Negativland (and Mark Hosler) had their heads up their asses when they thought they had a right to package and release a modified version of U2's "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For," and I thought the people who defended Napster file-trading were completely nuts. (People tried to defend it by claiming the record companies had forfeited their right to profit by gouging consumers with the well-documented price-fixing of CDs, but since when do two wrongs make a right?)