Caribbean - Office Of Ocean And Coastal Resource Management: Fill & Download for Free

It isn’t about ‘supporting’ anything; it is about recognizing the SCIENCE involved, and that science and research stretches back more than a HUNDRED years. As for ‘documentation,’ perhaps you should read this:Statements by scientific organizations of national or international standing[edit]See also: Global warming controversy § Mainstream scientific position, and challenges to itThis is a list of scientific bodies of national or international standing, that have issued formal statements of opinion, classifies those organizations according to whether they concur with the IPCC view, are non-committal, or dissent from it. The California Governor's Office website lists nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.[53]Concurring[edit]Academies of science (general science)[edit]Since 2001, 34 national science academies, three regional academies, and both the international InterAcademy Council and International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences have made formal declarations confirming human induced global warming and urging nations to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The 34 national science academy statements include 33 who have signed joint science academy statements and one individual declaration by the Polish Academy of Sciences in 2007.Joint national science academy statements[edit]2001 Following the publication of the IPCC Third Assessment Report, seventeen national science academies issued a joint statement, entitled "The Science of Climate Change", explicitly acknowledging the IPCC position as representing the scientific consensus on climate change science. The statement, printed in an editorial in the journal Science on May 18, 2001,[54] was signed by the science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, Turkey, and the United Kingdom.[55]2005 The national science academies of the G8 nations, plus Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, signed a statement on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action, and explicitly endorsed the IPCC consensus. The eleven signatories were the science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.[56]2007 In preparation for the 33rd G8 summit, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a declaration referencing the position of the 2005 joint science academies' statement, and acknowledging the confirmation of their previous conclusion by recent research. Following the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, the declaration states, "It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken." The thirteen signatories were the national science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States.[57]2007 In preparation for the 33rd G8 summit, the Network of African Science Academies submitted a joint "statement on sustainability, energy efficiency, and climate change": A consensus, based on current evidence, now exists within the global scientific community that human activities are the main source of climate change and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible for driving this change. The IPCC should be congratulated for the contribution it has made to public understanding of the nexus that exists between energy, climate and sustainability.— The thirteen signatories were the science academies of Cameroon, Ghana, Kenya, Madagascar, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe, as well as the African Academy of Sciences, [58]2008 In preparation for the 34th G8 summit, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a declaration reiterating the position of the 2005 joint science academies’ statement, and reaffirming "that climate change is happening and that anthropogenic warming is influencing many physical and biological systems". Among other actions, the declaration urges all nations to "[t]ake appropriate economic and policy measures to accelerate transition to a low carbon society and to encourage and effect changes in individual and national behaviour". The thirteen signatories were the same national science academies that issued the 2007 joint statement.[59]2009 In advance of the UNFCCC negotiations to be held in Copenhagen in December 2009, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a joint statement declaring, "Climate change and sustainable energy supply are crucial challenges for the future of humanity. It is essential that world leaders agree on the emission reductions needed to combat negative consequences of anthropogenic climate change". The statement references the IPCC's Fourth Assessment of 2007, and asserts that "climate change is happening even faster than previously estimated; global CO2 emissions since 2000 have been higher than even the highest predictions, Arctic sea ice has been melting at rates much faster than predicted, and the rise in the sea level has become more rapid". The thirteen signatories were the same national science academies that issued the 2007 and 2008 joint statements.[50]Polish Academy of Sciences[edit]In December 2007, the General Assembly of the Polish Academy of Sciences (Polska Akademia Nauk), which has not been a signatory to joint national science academy statements issued a declaration endorsing the IPCC conclusions, and stating:it is the duty of Polish science and the national government to, in a thoughtful, organized and active manner, become involved in realisation of these ideas.Problems of global warming, climate change, and their various negative impacts on human life and on the functioning of entire societies are one of the most dramatic challenges of modern times.PAS General Assembly calls on the national scientific communities and the national government to actively support Polish participation in this important endeavor.[60]Additional national science academy and society statements[edit]American Association for the Advancement of Science as the world's largest general scientific society, adopted an official statement on climate change in 2006: The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society....The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.[61]Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies in 2008 published FASTS Statement on Climate Change[62] which states: Global climate change is real and measurable...To reduce the global net economic, environmental and social losses in the face of these impacts, the policy objective must remain squarely focused on returning greenhouse gas concentrations to near pre-industrial levels through the reduction of emissions. The spatial and temporal fingerprint of warming can be traced to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, which are a direct result of burning fossil fuels, broad-scale deforestation and other human activity.United States National Research Council through its Committee on the Science of Climate Change in 2001, published Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions.[63] This report explicitly endorses the IPCC view of attribution of recent climate change as representing the view of the scientific community: The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century... The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue.[63]Royal Society of New Zealand having signed onto the first joint science academy statement in 2001, released a separate statement in 2008 in order to clear up "the controversy over climate change and its causes, and possible confusion among the public": The globe is warming because of increasing greenhouse gas emissions. Measurements show that greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere are well above levels seen for many thousands of years. Further global climate changes are predicted, with impacts expected to become more costly as time progresses. Reducing future impacts of climate change will require substantial reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.[64]The Royal Society of the United Kingdom has not changed its concurring stance reflected in its participation in joint national science academies' statements on anthropogenic global warming. According to the Telegraph, "The most prestigious group of scientists in the country was forced to act after fellows complained that doubts over man made global warming were not being communicated to the public".[65] In May 2010, it announced that it "is presently drafting a new public facing document on climate change, to provide an updated status report on the science in an easily accessible form, also addressing the levels of certainty of key components."[66] The society says that it is three years since the last such document was published and that, after an extensive process of debate and review,[67][68] the new document was printed in September 2010. It summarises the current scientific evidence and highlights the areas where the science is well established, where there is still some debate, and where substantial uncertainties remain. The society has stated that "this is not the same as saying that the climate science itself is in error – no Fellows have expressed such a view to the RS".[66] The introduction includes this statement: There is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has been caused largely by human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use, including agriculture and deforestation.International science academies[edit]African Academy of Sciences in 2007 was a signatory to the "statement on sustainability, energy efficiency, and climate change". This joint statement of African science academies, was organized through the Network of African Science Academies. Its stated goal was "to convey information and spur action on the occasion of the G8 Summit in Heiligendamm, Germany, in June 2007". A consensus, based on current evidence, now exists within the global scientific community that human activities are the main source of climate change and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible for driving this change.[69]European Academy of Sciences and Arts in 2007 issued a formal declaration on climate change titled Let's Be Honest: Human activity is most likely responsible for climate warming. Most of the climatic warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Documented long-term climate changes include changes in Arctic temperatures and ice, widespread changes in precipitation amounts, ocean salinity, wind patterns and extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves and the intensity of tropical cyclones. The above development potentially has dramatic consequences for mankind's future.[70]European Science Foundation in a 2007 position paper[71] states: There is now convincing evidence that since the industrial revolution, human activities, resulting in increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases have become a major agent of climate change ... On-going and increased efforts to mitigate climate change through reduction in greenhouse gases are therefore crucial.InterAcademy Council As the representative of the world's scientific and engineering academies,[72][73] the InterAcademy Council issued a report in 2007 titled Lighting the Way: Toward a Sustainable Energy Future. Current patterns of energy resources and energy usage are proving detrimental to the long-term welfare of humanity. The integrity of essential natural systems is already at risk from climate change caused by the atmospheric emissions of greenhouse gases.[74] Concerted efforts should be mounted for improving energy efficiency and reducing the carbon intensity of the world economy.[75]International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences (CAETS) in 2007, issued a Statement on Environment and Sustainable Growth:[76]As reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), most of the observed global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human-produced emission of greenhouse gases and this warming will continue unabated if present anthropogenic emissions continue or, worse, expand without control. CAETS, therefore, endorses the many recent calls to decrease and control greenhouse gas emissions to an acceptable level as quickly as possible.Physical and chemical sciences[edit]American Chemical Society[77]American Institute of Physics[78]American Physical Society[79]Australian Institute of Physics[80]European Physical Society[81]Earth sciences[edit]American Geophysical Union[edit]The American Geophysical Union (AGU) adopted a statement on Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases in 1998.[82]A new statement, adopted by the society in 2003, revised in 2007,[83]and revised and expanded in 2013,[84]affirms that rising levels of greenhouse gases have caused and will continue to cause the global surface temperature to be warmer:Human activities are changing Earth's climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8 °C (1.5 °F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate system for millennia.While important scientific uncertainties remain as to which particular impacts will be experienced where, no uncertainties are known that could make the impacts of climate change inconsequential. Furthermore, surprise outcomes, such as the unexpectedly rapid loss of Arctic summer sea ice, may entail even more dramatic changes than anticipated.American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America[edit]In May, 2011, the American Society of Agronomy (ASA), Crop Science Society of America (CSSA), and Soil Science Society of America (SSSA) issued a joint position statement on climate change as it relates to agriculture:A comprehensive body of scientific evidence indicates beyond reasonable doubt that global climate change is now occurring and that its manifestations threaten the stability of societies as well as natural and managed ecosystems. Increases in ambient temperatures and changes in related processes are directly linked to rising anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere.Unless the emissions of GHGs are curbed significantly, their concentrations will continue to rise, leading to changes in temperature, precipitation, and other climate variables that will undoubtedly affect agriculture around the world.Climate change has the potential to increase weather variability as well as gradually increase global temperatures. Both of these impacts have the potential to negatively impact the adaptability and resilience of the world's food production capacity; current research indicates climate change is already reducing the productivity of vulnerable cropping systems.[85]European Federation of Geologists[edit]In 2008, the European Federation of Geologists[86](EFG) issued the position paper Carbon Capture and geological Storage :The EFG recognizes the work of the IPCC and other organizations, and subscribes to the major findings that climate change is happening, is predominantly caused by anthropogenic emissions of CO2, and poses a significant threat to human civilization.It is clear that major efforts are necessary to quickly and strongly reduce CO2 emissions. The EFG strongly advocates renewable and sustainable energy production, including geothermal energy, as well as the need for increasing energy efficiency.CCS [Carbon Capture and geological Storage] should also be regarded as a bridging technology, facilitating the move towards a carbon free economy.[87]European Geosciences Union[edit]In 2005, the Divisions of Atmospheric and Climate Sciences of the European Geosciences Union (EGU) issued a position statement in support of the joint science academies’ statement on global response to climate change. The statement refers to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as "the main representative of the global scientific community", and asserts that the IPCCrepresents the state-of-the-art of climate science supported by the major science academies around the world and by the vast majority of science researchers and investigators as documented by the peer-reviewed scientific literature.[88]Additionally, in 2008, the EGU issued a position statement on ocean acidification which states, "Ocean acidification is already occurring today and will continue to intensify, closely tracking atmospheric CO 2 increase. Given the potential threat to marine ecosystems and its ensuing impact on human society and economy, especially as it acts in conjunction with anthropogenic global warming, there is an urgent need for immediate action." The statement then advocates for strategies "to limit future release of CO2 to the atmosphere and/or enhance removal of excess CO2 from the atmosphere".[89]And, in 2018 the EGU issued a statement concurring with the findings of the Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C, with Jonathan Bamber, president of the organisation, noting: “EGU concurs with, and supports, the findings of the SR15 that action to curb the most dangerous consequences of human-induced climate change is urgent, of the utmost importance and the window of opportunity extremely limited.”[90]Geological Society of America[edit]In 2006, the Geological Society of America adopted a position statement on global climate change. It amended this position on April 20, 2010, with more explicit comments on need for CO2 reduction.Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. 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. If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twenty first century will result in large impacts on humans and other species. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2emissions from anthropogenic sources.[91]Geological Society of London[edit]In November 2010, the Geological Society of London issued the position statement Climate change: evidence from the geological record:The last century has seen a rapidly growing global population and much more intensive use of resources, leading to greatly increased emissions of gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane, from the burning of fossil fuels (oil, gas and coal), and from agriculture, cement production and deforestation. Evidence from the geological record is consistent with the physics that shows that adding large amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere warms the world and may lead to: higher sea levels and flooding of low-lying coasts; greatly changed patterns of rainfall; increased acidity of the oceans; and decreased oxygen levels in seawater.There is now widespread concern that the Earth's climate will warm further, not only because of the lingering effects of the added carbon already in the system, but also because of further additions as human population continues to grow. Life on Earth has survived large climate changes in the past, but extinctions and major redistribution of species have been associated with many of them. When the human population was small and nomadic, a rise in sea level of a few metres would have had very little effect on Homo sapiens. With the current and growing global population, much of which is concentrated in coastal cities, such a rise in sea level would have a drastic effect on our complex society, especially if the climate were to change as suddenly as it has at times in the past. Equally, it seems likely that as warming continues some areas may experience less precipitation leading to drought. With both rising seas and increasing drought, pressure for human migration could result on a large scale.[92]International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics[edit]In July 2007, the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics (IUGG) adopted a resolution titled "The Urgency of Addressing Climate Change". In it, the IUGG concurs with the "comprehensive and widely accepted and endorsed scientific assessments carried out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and regional and national bodies, which have firmly established, on the basis of scientific evidence, that human activities are the primary cause of recent climate change". They state further that the "continuing reliance on combustion of fossil fuels as the world's primary source of energy will lead to much higher atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, which will, in turn, cause significant increases in surface temperature, sea level, ocean acidification, and their related consequences to the environment and society".[93]National Association of Geoscience Teachers[edit]In July 2009, the National Association of Geoscience Teachers[94](NAGT) adopted a position statement on climate change in which they assert that "Earth's climate is changing [and] "that present warming trends are largely the result of human activities":NAGT strongly supports and will work to promote education in the science of climate change, the causes and effects of current global warming, and the immediate need for policies and actions that reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.[95]Meteorology and oceanography[edit]American Meteorological Society[edit]The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2012 concluded:There is unequivocal evidence that Earth's lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities. This scientific finding is based on a large and persuasive body of research. The observed warming will be irreversible for many years into the future, and even larger temperature increases will occur as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere. Avoiding this future warming will require a large and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. The ongoing warming will increase risks and stresses to human societies, economies, ecosystems, and wildlife through the 21st century and beyond, making it imperative that society respond to a changing climate. To inform decisions on adaptation and mitigation, it is critical that we improve our understanding of the global climate system and our ability to project future climate through continued and improved monitoring and research. This is especially true for smaller (seasonal and regional) scales and weather and climate extremes, and for important hydroclimatic variables such as precipitation and water availability.Technological, economic, and policy choices in the near future will determine the extent of future impacts of climate change. Science-based decisions are seldom made in a context of absolute certainty. National and international policy discussions should include consideration of the best ways to both adapt to and mitigate climate change. Mitigation will reduce the amount of future climate change and the risk of impacts that are potentially large and dangerous. At the same time, some continued climate change is inevitable, and policy responses should include adaptation to climate change. Prudence dictates extreme care in accounting for our relationship with the only planet known to be capable of sustaining human life.[96]A 2016 survey found that two-thirds of AMS members think that all or most of climate change is caused by human activity.[97]Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society[edit]The Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society has issued a Statement on Climate Change, wherein they conclude:Global climate change and global warming are real and observable ... It is highly likely that those human activities that have increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have been largely responsible for the observed warming since 1950. The warming associated with increases in greenhouse gases originating from human activity is called the enhanced greenhouse effect. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased by more than 30% since the start of the industrial age and is higher now than at any time in at least the past 650,000 years. This increase is a direct result of burning fossil fuels, broad-scale deforestation and other human activity.[98]Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences[edit]In November 2005, the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences (CFCAS) issued a letter to the Prime Minister of Canada stating thatWe concur with the climate science assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001 ... We endorse the conclusions of the IPCC assessment that 'There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities'. ... There is increasingly unambiguous evidence of changing climate in Canada and around the world. There will be increasing impacts of climate change on Canada's natural ecosystems and on our socio-economic activities. Advances in climate science since the 2001 IPCC Assessment have provided more evidence supporting the need for action and development of a strategy for adaptation to projected changes.[99]Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society[edit]In November 2009, a letter to the Canadian Parliament by The Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society states:Rigorous international research, including work carried out and supported by the Government of Canada, reveals that greenhouse gases resulting from human activities contribute to the warming of the atmosphere and the oceans and constitute a serious risk to the health and safety of our society, as well as having an impact on all life.[100]Royal Meteorological Society (UK)[edit]In February 2007, after the release of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, the Royal Meteorological Society issued an endorsement of the report. In addition to referring to the IPCC as "[the] world's best climate scientists", they stated that climate change is happening as "the result of emissions since industrialization and we have already set in motion the next 50 years of global warming – what we do from now on will determine how worse it will get."[101]World Meteorological Organization[edit]In its Statement at the Twelfth Session of the Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change presented on November 15, 2006, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) confirms the need to "prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system". The WMO concurs that "scientific assessments have increasingly reaffirmed that human activities are indeed changing the composition of the atmosphere, in particular through the burning of fossil fuels for energy production and transportation". The WMO concurs that "the present atmospheric concentration of CO2 was never exceeded over the past 420,000 years"; and that the IPCC "assessments provide the most authoritative, up-to-date scientific advice".[102]American Quaternary Association[edit]The American Quaternary Association (AMQUA) has statedFew 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.[103]International Union for Quaternary Research[edit]The statement on climate change issued by the International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA) reiterates the conclusions of the IPCC, and urges all nations to take prompt action in line with the UNFCCC principles.Human activities are now causing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases—including carbon dioxide, methane, tropospheric ozone, and nitrous oxide—to rise well above pre-industrial levels ... Increases in greenhouse gases are causing temperatures to rise ... The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action ... Minimizing the amount of this carbon dioxide reaching the atmosphere presents a huge challenge but must be a global priority.[104]Biology and life sciences[edit]Life science organizations have outlined the dangers climate change pose to wildlife.American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians[105]American Institute of Biological Sciences. In October 2009, the leaders of 18 US scientific societies and organizations sent an open letter to the United States Senatereaffirming the scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and is primarily caused by human activities. The American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) adopted this letter as their official position statement.[106][107] The letter goes on to warn of predicted impacts on the United States such as sea level rise and increases in extreme weather events, water scarcity, heat waves, wildfires, and the disturbance of biological systems. It then advocates for a dramatic reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases.[108]American Society for Microbiology[109]Australian Coral Reef Society[110]Institute of Biology (UK)[111]Society of American Foresters issued two position statements pertaining to climate change in which they cite the IPCC[112] and the UNFCCC.[113]The Wildlife Society (international)[114]Human health[edit]A number of health organizations have warned about the numerous negative health effects of global warmingAmerican Academy of Pediatrics[115]American College of Preventive Medicine[116]American Medical Association[117]American Public Health Association[118]Australian Medical Association in 2004[119] and in 2008[120]World Federation of Public Health Associations[121]World Health Organization[122]There is now widespread agreement that the Earth is warming, due to emissions of greenhouse gases caused by human activity. It is also clear that current trends in energy use, development, and population growth will lead to continuing – and more severe – climate change.The changing climate will inevitably affect the basic requirements for maintaining health: clean air and water, sufficient food and adequate shelter. Each year, about 800,000 people die from causes attributable to urban air pollution, 1.8 million from diarrhoea resulting from lack of access to clean water supply, sanitation, and poor hygiene, 3.5 million from malnutrition and approximately 60,000 in natural disasters. A warmer and more variable climate threatens to lead to higher levels of some air pollutants, increase transmission of diseases through unclean water and through contaminated food, to compromise agricultural production in some of the least developed countries, and increase the hazards of extreme weather.Miscellaneous[edit]A number of other national scientific societies have also endorsed the opinion of the IPCC:American Astronomical Society[123]American Statistical Association[124]Canadian Council of Professional Engineers [125]The Institution of Engineers Australia[126]International Association for Great Lakes Research[127]Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand[128]The World Federation of Engineering Organizations (WFEO)Non-committal[edit]American Association of Petroleum Geologists[edit]As of June 2007, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) Position Statement on climate change stated:the AAPG membership is divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has on recent and potential global temperature increases ... Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming trend will continue, as reported through NAS, AGU, AAAS and AMS. AAPG respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data. These data do not necessarily support the maximum case scenarios forecast in some models.[129]Prior to the adoption of this statement, the AAPG was the only major scientific organization that rejected the finding of significant human influence on recent climate, according to a statement by the Council of the American Quaternary Association.[29]Explaining the plan for a revision, AAPG president Lee Billingsly wrote in March 2007:Members have threatened to not renew their memberships ... if AAPG does not alter its position on global climate change ... And I have been told of members who already have resigned in previous years because of our current global climate change position ... The current policy statement is not supported by a significant number of our members and prospective members.[130]AAPG President John Lorenz announced the "sunsetting" of AAPG's Global Climate Change Committee in January 2010. The AAPG Executive Committee determined:Climate change is peripheral at best to our science ... AAPG does not have credibility in that field ... and as a group we have no particular knowledge of global atmospheric geophysics.[131]American Institute of Professional Geologists (AIPG)[edit]The official position statement from AIPG on the Environment states that "combustion of fossil fuel include and the generation of GHGs [greenhouse gases] including carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4). Emissions of GHGs are perceived by some to be one of the largest, global environmental concerns related to energy production due to potential effects on the global energy system and possibly global climate. Fossil fuel use is the primary source of the increased atmospheric concentration of GHGs since industrialization".[132]In March 2010, AIPG's Executive Director issued a statement regarding polarization of opinions on climate change within the membership and announced that the AIPG Executive had made a decision to cease publication of articles and opinion pieces concerning climate change in AIPG's news journal, The Professional Geologist.[133]Opposing[edit]Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[30]no national or international scientific body any longer rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.[29][31]Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

When will accept that science doesn’t have a ‘political agenda,’ nor is involved in any national politics or political parties? Here’s a HINT; these are all of the scientific organizations that back me up:‘This is a list of scientific bodies of national or international standing, that have issued formal statements of opinion, classifies those organizations according to whether they concur with the IPCC view, are non-committal, or dissent from it. The California Governor's Office website lists nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.[54]ConcurringAcademies of science (general science)Since 2001, 34 national science academies, three regional academies, and both the international InterAcademy Council and International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences have made formal declarations confirming human induced global warming and urging nations to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The 34 national science academy statements include 33 who have signed joint science academy statements and one individual declaration by the Polish Academy of Sciences in 2007.Joint national science academy statements2001 Following the publication of the IPCC Third Assessment Report, seventeen national science academies issued a joint statement, entitled "The Science of Climate Change", explicitly acknowledging the IPCC position as representing the scientific consensus on climate change science. The statement, printed in an editorial in the journal Science on May 18, 2001,[55] was signed by the science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, Turkey, and the United Kingdom.[56]2005 The national science academies of the G8 nations, plus Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, signed a statement on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action, and explicitly endorsed the IPCC consensus. The eleven signatories were the science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.[57]2007 In preparation for the 33rd G8 summit, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a declaration referencing the position of the 2005 joint science academies' statement, and acknowledging the confirmation of their previous conclusion by recent research. Following the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, the declaration states, "It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken." The thirteen signatories were the national science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States.[58]2007 In preparation for the 33rd G8 summit, the Network of African Science Academies submitted a joint "statement on sustainability, energy efficiency, and climate change": A consensus, based on current evidence, now exists within the global scientific community that human activities are the main source of climate change and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible for driving this change. The IPCC should be congratulated for the contribution it has made to public understanding of the nexus that exists between energy, climate and sustainability. — The thirteen signatories were the science academies of Cameroon, Ghana, Kenya, Madagascar, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe, as well as the African Academy of Sciences, [59]2008 In preparation for the 34th G8 summit, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a declaration reiterating the position of the 2005 joint science academies’ statement, and reaffirming "that climate change is happening and that anthropogenic warming is influencing many physical and biological systems". Among other actions, the declaration urges all nations to "[t]ake appropriate economic and policy measures to accelerate transition to a low carbon society and to encourage and effect changes in individual and national behaviour". The thirteen signatories were the same national science academies that issued the 2007 joint statement.[60]2009 In advance of the UNFCCC negotiations to be held in Copenhagen in December 2009, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a joint statement declaring, "Climate change and sustainable energy supply are crucial challenges for the future of humanity. It is essential that world leaders agree on the emission reductions needed to combat negative consequences of anthropogenic climate change". The statement references the IPCC's Fourth Assessment of 2007, and asserts that "climate change is happening even faster than previously estimated; global CO2emissions since 2000 have been higher than even the highest predictions, Arctic sea ice has been melting at rates much faster than predicted, and the rise in the sea level has become more rapid". The thirteen signatories were the same national science academies that issued the 2007 and 2008 joint statements.[51]Polish Academy of SciencesIn December 2007, the General Assembly of the Polish Academy of Sciences (Polska Akademia Nauk), which has not been a signatory to joint national science academy statements issued a declaration endorsing the IPCC conclusions, and stating:it is the duty of Polish science and the national government to, in a thoughtful, organized and active manner, become involved in realisation of these ideas.Problems of global warming, climate change, and their various negative impacts on human life and on the functioning of entire societies are one of the most dramatic challenges of modern times.PAS General Assembly calls on the national scientific communities and the national government to actively support Polish participation in this important endeavor.[61]Additional national science academy and society statementsAmerican Association for the Advancement of Science as the world's largest general scientific society, adopted an official statement on climate change in 2006: The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society....The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.[62]Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies in 2008 published FASTS Statement on Climate Change[63] which states: Global climate change is real and measurable...To reduce the global net economic, environmental and social losses in the face of these impacts, the policy objective must remain squarely focused on returning greenhouse gas concentrations to near pre-industrial levels through the reduction of emissions. The spatial and temporal fingerprint of warming can be traced to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, which are a direct result of burning fossil fuels, broad-scale deforestation and other human activity.United States National Research Council through its Committee on the Science of Climate Change in 2001, published Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions.[64] This report explicitly endorses the IPCC view of attribution of recent climate change as representing the view of the scientific community: The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century... The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue.[64]Royal Society of New Zealand having signed onto the first joint science academy statement in 2001, released a separate statement in 2008 in order to clear up "the controversy over climate change and its causes, and possible confusion among the public": The globe is warming because of increasing greenhouse gas emissions. Measurements show that greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere are well above levels seen for many thousands of years. Further global climate changes are predicted, with impacts expected to become more costly as time progresses. Reducing future impacts of climate change will require substantial reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.[65]The Royal Society of the United Kingdom has not changed its concurring stance reflected in its participation in joint national science academies' statements on anthropogenic global warming. According to the Telegraph, "The most prestigious group of scientists in the country was forced to act after fellows complained that doubts over man made global warming were not being communicated to the public".[66] In May 2010, it announced that it "is presently drafting a new public facing document on climate change, to provide an updated status report on the science in an easily accessible form, also addressing the levels of certainty of key components."[67] The society says that it is three years since the last such document was published and that, after an extensive process of debate and review,[68][69] the new document was printed in September 2010. It summarises the current scientific evidence and highlights the areas where the science is well established, where there is still some debate, and where substantial uncertainties remain. The society has stated that "this is not the same as saying that the climate science itself is in error – no Fellows have expressed such a view to the RS".[67] The introduction includes this statement: There is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has been caused largely by human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use, including agriculture and deforestation.International science academiesAfrican Academy of Sciences in 2007 was a signatory to the "statement on sustainability, energy efficiency, and climate change". This joint statement of African science academies, was organized through the Network of African Science Academies. Its stated goal was "to convey information and spur action on the occasion of the G8 Summit in Heiligendamm, Germany, in June 2007". A consensus, based on current evidence, now exists within the global scientific community that human activities are the main source of climate change and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible for driving this change.[70]European Academy of Sciences and Arts in 2007 issued a formal declaration on climate change titled Let's Be Honest: Human activity is most likely responsible for climate warming. Most of the climatic warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Documented long-term climate changes include changes in Arctic temperatures and ice, widespread changes in precipitation amounts, ocean salinity, wind patterns and extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves and the intensity of tropical cyclones. The above development potentially has dramatic consequences for mankind's future.[71]European Science Foundation in a 2007 position paper[72] states: There is now convincing evidence that since the industrial revolution, human activities, resulting in increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases have become a major agent of climate change ... On-going and increased efforts to mitigate climate change through reduction in greenhouse gases are therefore crucial.InterAcademy Council As the representative of the world's scientific and engineering academies,[73][74] the InterAcademy Council issued a report in 2007 titled Lighting the Way: Toward a Sustainable Energy Future. Current patterns of energy resources and energy usage are proving detrimental to the long-term welfare of humanity. The integrity of essential natural systems is already at risk from climate change caused by the atmospheric emissions of greenhouse gases.[75] Concerted efforts should be mounted for improving energy efficiency and reducing the carbon intensity of the world economy.[76]International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences (CAETS) in 2007, issued a Statement on Environment and Sustainable Growth:[77]As reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), most of the observed global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human-produced emission of greenhouse gases and this warming will continue unabated if present anthropogenic emissions continue or, worse, expand without control. CAETS, therefore, endorses the many recent calls to decrease and control greenhouse gas emissions to an acceptable level as quickly as possible.Physical and chemical sciencesAmerican Chemical Society[78]American Institute of Physics[79]American Physical Society[80]Australian Institute of Physics[81]European Physical Society[82]Earth sciencesAmerican Geophysical UnionThe American Geophysical Union (AGU) adopted a statement on Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases in 1998.[83] A new statement, adopted by the society in 2003, revised in 2007,[84] and revised and expanded in 2013,[85] affirms that rising levels of greenhouse gases have caused and will continue to cause the global surface temperature to be warmer:Human activities are changing Earth's climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8 °C (1.5 °F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate system for millennia. While important scientific uncertainties remain as to which particular impacts will be experienced where, no uncertainties are known that could make the impacts of climate change inconsequential. Furthermore, surprise outcomes, such as the unexpectedly rapid loss of Arctic summer sea ice, may entail even more dramatic changes than anticipated.American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of AmericaIn May, 2011, the American Society of Agronomy (ASA), Crop Science Society of America (CSSA), and Soil Science Society of America (SSSA) issued a joint position statement on climate change as it relates to agriculture:A comprehensive body of scientific evidence indicates beyond reasonable doubt that global climate change is now occurring and that its manifestations threaten the stability of societies as well as natural and managed ecosystems. Increases in ambient temperatures and changes in related processes are directly linked to rising anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere.Unless the emissions of GHGs are curbed significantly, their concentrations will continue to rise, leading to changes in temperature, precipitation, and other climate variables that will undoubtedly affect agriculture around the world.Climate change has the potential to increase weather variability as well as gradually increase global temperatures. Both of these impacts have the potential to negatively impact the adaptability and resilience of the world's food production capacity; current research indicates climate change is already reducing the productivity of vulnerable cropping systems.[86]European Federation of GeologistsIn 2008, the European Federation of Geologists[87] (EFG) issued the position paper Carbon Capture and geological Storage :The EFG recognizes the work of the IPCC and other organizations, and subscribes to the major findings that climate change is happening, is predominantly caused by anthropogenic emissions of CO2, and poses a significant threat to human civilization.It is clear that major efforts are necessary to quickly and strongly reduce CO2 emissions. The EFG strongly advocates renewable and sustainable energy production, including geothermal energy, as well as the need for increasing energy efficiency.CCS [Carbon Capture and geological Storage] should also be regarded as a bridging technology, facilitating the move towards a carbon free economy.[88]European Geosciences UnionIn 2005, the Divisions of Atmospheric and Climate Sciences of the European Geosciences Union (EGU) issued a position statement in support of the joint science academies’ statement on global response to climate change. The statement refers to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as "the main representative of the global scientific community", and asserts that the IPCCrepresents the state-of-the-art of climate science supported by the major science academies around the world and by the vast majority of science researchers and investigators as documented by the peer-reviewed scientific literature.[89]Additionally, in 2008, the EGU issued a position statement on ocean acidification which states, "Ocean acidification is already occurring today and will continue to intensify, closely tracking atmospheric CO 2 increase. Given the potential threat to marine ecosystems and its ensuing impact on human society and economy, especially as it acts in conjunction with anthropogenic global warming, there is an urgent need for immediate action." The statement then advocates for strategies "to limit future release of CO2 to the atmosphere and/or enhance removal of excess CO2 from the atmosphere".[90] And, in 2018 the EGU issued a statement concurring with the findings of the Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C, with Jonathan Bamber, president of the organisation, noting: “EGU concurs with, and supports, the findings of the SR15 that action to curb the most dangerous consequences of human-induced climate change is urgent, of the utmost importance and the window of opportunity extremely limited.”[91]Geological Society of AmericaIn 2006, the Geological Society of America adopted a position statement on global climate change. It amended this position on April 20, 2010, with more explicit comments on need for CO2 reduction.Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. 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. If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twenty first century will result in large impacts on humans and other species. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.[92]Geological Society of LondonIn November 2010, the Geological Society of London issued the position statement Climate change: evidence from the geological record:The last century has seen a rapidly growing global population and much more intensive use of resources, leading to greatly increased emissions of gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane, from the burning of fossil fuels (oil, gas and coal), and from agriculture, cement production and deforestation. Evidence from the geological record is consistent with the physics that shows that adding large amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere warms the world and may lead to: higher sea levels and flooding of low-lying coasts; greatly changed patterns of rainfall; increased acidity of the oceans; and decreased oxygen levels in seawater. There is now widespread concern that the Earth's climate will warm further, not only because of the lingering effects of the added carbon already in the system, but also because of further additions as human population continues to grow. Life on Earth has survived large climate changes in the past, but extinctions and major redistribution of species have been associated with many of them. When the human population was small and nomadic, a rise in sea level of a few metres would have had very little effect on Homo sapiens. With the current and growing global population, much of which is concentrated in coastal cities, such a rise in sea level would have a drastic effect on our complex society, especially if the climate were to change as suddenly as it has at times in the past. Equally, it seems likely that as warming continues some areas may experience less precipitation leading to drought. With both rising seas and increasing drought, pressure for human migration could result on a large scale.[93]International Union of Geodesy and GeophysicsIn July 2007, the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics (IUGG) adopted a resolution titled "The Urgency of Addressing Climate Change". In it, the IUGG concurs with the "comprehensive and widely accepted and endorsed scientific assessments carried out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and regional and national bodies, which have firmly established, on the basis of scientific evidence, that human activities are the primary cause of recent climate change". They state further that the "continuing reliance on combustion of fossil fuels as the world's primary source of energy will lead to much higher atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, which will, in turn, cause significant increases in surface temperature, sea level, ocean acidification, and their related consequences to the environment and society".[94]National Association of Geoscience TeachersIn July 2009, the National Association of Geoscience Teachers[95] (NAGT) adopted a position statement on climate change in which they assert that "Earth's climate is changing [and] "that present warming trends are largely the result of human activities":NAGT strongly supports and will work to promote education in the science of climate change, the causes and effects of current global warming, and the immediate need for policies and actions that reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.[96]Meteorology and oceanographyAmerican Meteorological SocietyThe American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2012 concluded:There is unequivocal evidence that Earth's lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities. This scientific finding is based on a large and persuasive body of research. The observed warming will be irreversible for many years into the future, and even larger temperature increases will occur as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere. Avoiding this future warming will require a large and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. The ongoing warming will increase risks and stresses to human societies, economies, ecosystems, and wildlife through the 21st century and beyond, making it imperative that society respond to a changing climate. To inform decisions on adaptation and mitigation, it is critical that we improve our understanding of the global climate system and our ability to project future climate through continued and improved monitoring and research. This is especially true for smaller (seasonal and regional) scales and weather and climate extremes, and for important hydroclimatic variables such as precipitation and water availability. Technological, economic, and policy choices in the near future will determine the extent of future impacts of climate change. Science-based decisions are seldom made in a context of absolute certainty. National and international policy discussions should include consideration of the best ways to both adapt to and mitigate climate change. Mitigation will reduce the amount of future climate change and the risk of impacts that are potentially large and dangerous. At the same time, some continued climate change is inevitable, and policy responses should include adaptation to climate change. Prudence dictates extreme care in accounting for our relationship with the only planet known to be capable of sustaining human life.[97]A 2016 survey found that two-thirds of AMS members think that all or most of climate change is caused by human activity.[98]Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic SocietyThe Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society has issued a Statement on Climate Change, wherein they conclude:Global climate change and global warming are real and observable ... It is highly likely that those human activities that have increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have been largely responsible for the observed warming since 1950. The warming associated with increases in greenhouse gases originating from human activity is called the enhanced greenhouse effect. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased by more than 30% since the start of the industrial age and is higher now than at any time in at least the past 650,000 years. This increase is a direct result of burning fossil fuels, broad-scale deforestation and other human activity.[99]Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric SciencesIn November 2005, the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences (CFCAS) issued a letter to the Prime Minister of Canada stating thatWe concur with the climate science assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001 ... We endorse the conclusions of the IPCC assessment that 'There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities'. ... There is increasingly unambiguous evidence of changing climate in Canada and around the world. There will be increasing impacts of climate change on Canada's natural ecosystems and on our socio-economic activities. Advances in climate science since the 2001 IPCC Assessment have provided more evidence supporting the need for action and development of a strategy for adaptation to projected changes.[100]Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic SocietyIn November 2009, a letter to the Canadian Parliament by The Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society states:Rigorous international research, including work carried out and supported by the Government of Canada, reveals that greenhouse gases resulting from human activities contribute to the warming of the atmosphere and the oceans and constitute a serious risk to the health and safety of our society, as well as having an impact on all life.[101]Royal Meteorological Society (UK)In February 2007, after the release of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, the Royal Meteorological Society issued an endorsement of the report. In addition to referring to the IPCC as "[the] world's best climate scientists", they stated that climate change is happening as "the result of emissions since industrialization and we have already set in motion the next 50 years of global warming – what we do from now on will determine how worse it will get."[102]World Meteorological OrganizationIn its Statement at the Twelfth Session of the Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change presented on November 15, 2006, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) confirms the need to "prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system". The WMO concurs that "scientific assessments have increasingly reaffirmed that human activities are indeed changing the composition of the atmosphere, in particular through the burning of fossil fuels for energy production and transportation". The WMO concurs that "the present atmospheric concentration of CO2 was never exceeded over the past 420,000 years"; and that the IPCC "assessments provide the most authoritative, up-to-date scientific advice". [103]American Quaternary AssociationThe American Quaternary Association (AMQUA) has statedFew 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.[104]International Union for Quaternary ResearchThe statement on climate change issued by the International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA) reiterates the conclusions of the IPCC, and urges all nations to take prompt action in line with the UNFCCC principles.Human activities are now causing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases—including carbon dioxide, methane, tropospheric ozone, and nitrous oxide—to rise well above pre-industrial levels ... Increases in greenhouse gases are causing temperatures to rise ... The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action ... Minimizing the amount of this carbon dioxide reaching the atmosphere presents a huge challenge but must be a global priority.[105]Biology and life sciencesLife science organizations have outlined the dangers climate change pose to wildlife.American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians[106]American Institute of Biological Sciences. In October 2009, the leaders of 18 US scientific societies and organizations sent an open letter to the United States Senate reaffirming the scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and is primarily caused by human activities. The American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) adopted this letter as their official position statement.[107][108] The letter goes on to warn of predicted impacts on the United States such as sea level rise and increases in extreme weather events, water scarcity, heat waves, wildfires, and the disturbance of biological systems. It then advocates for a dramatic reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases.[109]American Society for Microbiology[110]Australian Coral Reef Society[111]Institute of Biology (UK)[112]Society of American Foresters issued two position statements pertaining to climate change in which they cite the IPCC[113] and the UNFCCC.[114]The Wildlife Society (international)[115]Human healthA number of health organizations have warned about the numerous negative health effects of global warmingAmerican Academy of Pediatrics[116]American College of Preventive Medicine[117]American Medical Association[118]American Public Health Association[119]Australian Medical Association in 2004[120] and in 2008[121]World Federation of Public Health Associations[122]World Health Organization[123]There is now widespread agreement that the Earth is warming, due to emissions of greenhouse gases caused by human activity. It is also clear that current trends in energy use, development, and population growth will lead to continuing – and more severe – climate change.The changing climate will inevitably affect the basic requirements for maintaining health: clean air and water, sufficient food and adequate shelter. Each year, about 800,000 people die from causes attributable to urban air pollution, 1.8 million from diarrhoea resulting from lack of access to clean water supply, sanitation, and poor hygiene, 3.5 million from malnutrition and approximately 60,000 in natural disasters. A warmer and more variable climate threatens to lead to higher levels of some air pollutants, increase transmission of diseases through unclean water and through contaminated food, to compromise agricultural production in some of the least developed countries, and increase the hazards of extreme weather.The Bulletin of the Atomic scientists and "Doomsday clock"A group of scientists launched a project named the "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists" that contains the "Doomsday Clock" after the bombardment of Hiroshima and Nagasaky. The biggest is the danger to humanity the clock moves closer to midnight and vice versa. The target is to show the extent of danger to humanity, create awareness in public that will lead to solutions. In the beginning the organization focused on the danger of nuclear war, but in the 21th century, it has begun to deal with other issues like climate change and disinformation on the internet.On 23 January 2020 the organization moved the doomsday clock to 100 seconds before midnight, closer than ever. It explained that it did it because of 3 factors:Increasing danger of nuclear war,Increasing danger from climate change, andIncreasing danger from disinformation in the internet regarding the issues in points 1 and 2 and other "disruptive technologies".The organization, praised the climate movement of young people and called to citizens and governments to act for solving the problems.[124]MiscellaneousA number of other national scientific societies have also endorsed the opinion of the IPCC:American Astronomical Society[125]American Statistical Association[126]Canadian Council of Professional Engineers [127]The Institution of Engineers Australia[128]International Association for Great Lakes Research[129]Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand[130]http://www.wfeo.net/events/international-conclave-on-climate-change/%20%20Non-committalAmerican Association of Petroleum GeologistsAs of June 2007, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) Position Statement on climate change stated:the AAPG membership is divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has on recent and potential global temperature increases ... Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming trend will continue, as reported through NAS, AGU, AAAS and AMS. AAPG respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data. These data do not necessarily support the maximum case scenarios forecast in some models.[131]Prior to the adoption of this statement, the AAPG was the only major scientific organization that rejected the finding of significant human influence on recent climate, according to a statement by the Council of the American Quaternary Association.[30] Explaining the plan for a revision, AAPG president Lee Billingsly wrote in March 2007:Members have threatened to not renew their memberships ... if AAPG does not alter its position on global climate change ... And I have been told of members who already have resigned in previous years because of our current global climate change position ... The current policy statement is not supported by a significant number of our members and prospective members.[132]AAPG President John Lorenz announced the "sunsetting" of AAPG's Global Climate Change Committee in January 2010. The AAPG Executive Committee determined:Climate change is peripheral at best to our science ... AAPG does not have credibility in that field ... and as a group we have no particular knowledge of global atmospheric geophysics.[133]American Institute of Professional Geologists (AIPG)The official position statement from AIPG on the Environment states that "combustion of fossil fuel include and the generation of GHGs [greenhouse gases] including carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4). Emissions of GHGs are perceived by some to be one of the largest, global environmental concerns related to energy production due to potential effects on the global energy system and possibly global climate. Fossil fuel use is the primary source of the increased atmospheric concentration of GHGs since industrialization".[134]In March 2010, AIPG's Executive Director issued a statement regarding polarization of opinions on climate change within the membership and announced that the AIPG Executive had made a decision to cease publication of articles and opinion pieces concerning climate change in AIPG's news journal, The Professional Geologist.[135]OpposingSince 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[31] no longer does any national or international scientific body reject the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.[30][32]Scientific consensus on climate change - WikipediaEvaluation of climate change by the scientific community There is a strong scientific consensus that the Earth is warming and that this warming is mainly caused by human activities. This consensus is supported by various studies of scientists' opinions and by position statements of scientific organizations, many of which explicitly agree with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) synthesis reports. Nearly all actively publishing climate scientists (97–98% [3] ) support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change, [4] [5] and the remaining 2% of contrarian studies either cannot be replicated or contain errors. [6] A 2019 study found scientific consensus to be at 100%. [2] Consensus points The current scientific consensus is that: Several studies of the consensus have been undertaken. [8] Among the most cited is a 2013 study of nearly 12,000 abstracts of peer-reviewed papers on climate science published since 1990, of which just over 4,000 papers expressed an opinion on the cause of recent global warming. Of these, 97% agree, explicitly or implicitly, that global warming is happening and is human-caused. [9] [10] It is "extremely likely" [11] that this warming arises from "human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases " [11] in the atmosphere . [12] Natural change alone would have had a slight cooling effect rather than a warming effect. [13] [14] [15] [16] This scientific opinion is expressed in synthesis reports , by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists . Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications , and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these respected reports and surveys. [17] The IPCC 's Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) was completed in 2014. [18] Its conclusions are summarized below: "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia." [19] "Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years." [20] Human influence on the climate system is clear. [21] It is extremely likely (95–100% probability) [22] that human influence was the dominant cause of global warming between 1951 and 2010. [21] "Increasing magnitudes of [global] warming increase the likelihood of severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts." [23] "A first step towards adaptation to future climate change is reducing vulnerability and exposure to present climate variability." [24] "The overall risks of climate change impacts can be reduced by limiting the rate and magnitude of climate change" [23] Without new policies to mitigate climate change , projections suggest an increase in global mean temperature in 2100 of 3.7 to 4.8 °C , relative to pre-industrial levels ( median vahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change

Here’s a Wikipedia article. My point is that this information can be easily found by either google or just typing the question.Britain had incurred a large national debt fighting the Seven Years' War, during which the armies' establishment strength had been increased to an unprecedented size. With the ascension of peace in 1763 the army was dramatically reduced to a peacetime home establishment of just over 11,000 men, with a further 10,000 for the Irish establishment and 10,000 for the colonies. This meant 20 regiments of infantry totaling just over 11,000 men were stationed in England, 21 regiments were stationed in Ireland, 18 regiments were stationed in the Americas, and 7 regiments stationed in Gibraltar. Alongside this the army could call on 16 regiments of the cavalry, a total of 6,869 men and 2,712 men in the artillery. This gave a theoretical strength of just over 45,000 men exclusive of the artillery.[2]The British government deemed this troop strength to be inadequate to prosecute an insurrection in the Americas, as well as deal with defence of the rest of its territories, so treaties with German states (mainly Hesse-Kassel and Brunswick) were negotiated for a further 18,000 men (half of which were stationed in garrisons to release regular British units from other theaters).[3]This measure brought the Army’s total establishment strength to around 55,000 men.After the losses at the Battles of Saratoga and the outbreak of hostilities with France and Spain, the existing voluntary enlistment measures were judged to be insufficient. Between 1775 and 1781, the regular army increased from 48,000 to 121,000. In 1778 the army adopted some non traditional recruiting measures to further augment its strength, a system of private subscription was established, whereby some 12 new regiments totaling 15,000 men were raised by individual towns and nobles.[4]In the same year the government passed the first of two recruiting acts which allowed a limited form of impressment in parts of England and Scotland under strict conditions, however the measure proved unpopular and both acts were repealed in May 1780, permanently discontinuing impressment in the army. The recruiting acts of 1778 and 1779 also provided greater incentives for voluntarily joining the regular army, including a bounty of £3 and the entitlement to discharge after three years unless the nation remained at war.[5]Thousands of volunteer militia battalions were raised for home defense in Ireland and England, and some of the most competent of these were embodied to the regular army. The British Government took a further step by releasing criminals and debtors from prison on the condition they joined the army. Three entire regiments were raised from this early release program.Field Marshal Jeffery Amherst served as Commander-in-Chief of the Forces from 1778-1782.In Nov 1778 the establishment was set at 121,000 men, of whom 24,000 were foreigners, along with 40,000 embodied militia. This was raised the next year to 104,000 men on the British establishment, 23,000 on the Irish establishment, 25,000 foreigners (the “Hessians”), and 42,000 embodied militia, for a total force of about 194,000 men.[6]Although a large portion of the rank and file were lower class and the officers upper class, the army recruited from a variety of social backgrounds, both among the regular and officer ranks.[7]According to Reid, the Georgian army through necessity drew its officers from a far wider base than its later Victorian counterpart and was much more open to promotion from the ranks.[8]Officers were required to be literate, but there was no formal requirement on the level of education or their social standing, and most regimental officers did not come from the landed gentry, but from middle class private individuals in search of a career.[9]Although the system of sale of commissions officially governed the selection and promotion of officers, in practice the system was considerably relaxed during wartime, with far more stringent requirements placed on promotion.[8]Many British officers were professional soldiers rather than wealthy dilettantes and showed themselves ready to discard their drill manuals and use innovative methods and tactics.[10]Great BritainSee also: British Army during the American Revolutionary War, Royal Navy, Hessian (soldier), and Loyalist (American Revolution)British redcoats at the Battle of Bunker Hill in 1775.The population of Great Britain and Ireland in 1780 was approximately 12.6 million,[562]while the Thirteen Colonies held a population of some 2.8 million, including some 500,000 slaves.[563]Theoretically, Britain had the advantage, however, many factors inhibited the procurement of a large army.Armed ForcesRecruitmentPress gang at work, British caricature of 1780In 1775, the British Army, exclusive of militia, comprised 45,123 men worldwide; 38,254 infantry and 6,869 cavalry. The Army had approximately eighteen regiments of foot stationed in North America; some 8,580 men.[564]Standing armies had played a key role in the purge of the Long Parliament in 1648,[565]the maintenance of a military dictatorship under Oliver Cromwell,[566]and the overthrow of James II.[567]As such, the Army had been deliberately kept small in peacetime to prevent abuses of power by the King.[154][568]Parliament suffered chronic difficulties in obtaining sufficient manpower,[569]and found it consistently impossible to fill the quotas they had set.[570]The Army was a deeply unpopular profession, one issue being pay. A Private infantryman was paid a wage of just 8 pence per day,[571]the same rate as for the New Model Army infantryman, 130 years earlier.[572]The rate of pay in the army was wholly insufficient to meet the rising costs of living, turning off potential recruits,[573]as service was nominally for life.[574]Due to their prior roles in overthrowing rulers, armies were not easy guests, and were regarded with scorn and contempt by the press and public of the New and Old World alike, derided as enemies of liberty. An expression ran in the Navy; "A messmate before a shipmate, a shipmate before a stranger, a stranger before a dog, a dog before a soldier".[575]To entice people to enrol, Parliament offered a bounty of one-and-a-half guineas for every recruit.[576]As the war dragged on, Parliament became desperate for manpower; criminals were offered military service to escape legal penalties, and deserters were pardoned if they re-joined their units.[577]After the disaster at Saratoga, Parliament doubled the bounty to three guineas.[578]The following year, Parliament had to increase the bounty again, to three guineas and three shillings, and expanded the age limit from 17-45 to 16-50 years of age.[579]Impressment was another recruiting method, though many began enlisting in local militias to avoid regular service.[580]Attempts were made to draft militia levies, much to the chagrin of their commanders.[581]Press gangs were unpopular; competition between naval and army gangs, and even between different regiments or ships, frequently resulted in brawls in order to secure recruits.[582]Men would maim themselves to avoid the press gangs,[583]while many deserted at the first opportunity.[584]Regiments with large numbers of pressed men were deployed to stations such as Gibraltar or the West Indies, purely to increase the difficulty in successfully deserting.[585]By 1781, the British Army numbered approximately 121,000 men globally,[31]48,000 of whom were stationed throughout the Americas.[586]Of the 171,000 sailors[35]who served in the Royal Navy through the war, around a quarter were pressed. Interestingly, this same proportion, approximately 42,000 men, deserted during the conflict.[587]At its height, the Navy had 94 ships-of-the-line,[588]104 frigates[589]and 37 sloops[590]in service.Hessian soldiers of the LeibregimentLoyalists and HessiansIn 1775, Britain unsuccessfully attempted to secure 20,000 mercenaries from Russia,[591]and the use of the Scots Brigade from the Dutch Republic,[592]such was the shortage of manpower. Parliament managed to negotiate treaties with the princes of German states for large sums of money, in exchange for mercenary troops.[155]In total, 29,875 troops were hired for British service from six German states; Brunswick (5,723), Hesse-Kassel (16,992), Hesse-Hannau (2,422), Ansbach-Bayreuth (2,353), Waldeck-Pyrmont (1,225) and Anhalt-Zerbst (1,160).[593]King George III, who also ruled Hanover as a Prince-elector of the Holy Roman Empire, was approached by Parliament to loan the government Hanoverian soldiers for service in the conflict. Hanover supplied 2,365 men in five battalions, however the lease agreement permitted them to only be used in Europe.[594]Without any major allies,[595]the manpower shortage became critical when France and Spain entered the war, forcing a major diversion of military resources from the Americas.[596][597]Recruiting adequate numbers of Loyalist militia in America proved difficult due to high Patriot activity.[598]To bolster numbers, the British promised freedom and grants of land to slaves who fought for them.[599]Approximately 25,000 Loyalists fought for the British throughout the war.[600]Loyalists provided some of the best troops in the British service;[601]the infamous British Legion, a mixed regiment of 250 dragoons and 200 infantry[602]commanded by Banastre Tarleton, gained a fearsome reputation in the colonies, especially in the South.[603][604][605]LeadershipBritain had a difficult time appointing a determined senior military leadership. Thomas Gage, commanding British troops in America at the war's start, was criticized for being too lenient on the colonists. Jeffrey Amherst, who was appointed Commander-in-Chief of the Forces, refused a direct command in America, due to unwillingness to take sides in the war.[606]Admiral Augustus Keppel refused a command, stating; "I cannot draw the sword in such a cause". The Earl of Effingham resigned his commission when his regiment was posted to America, while William Howe and John Burgoyne were opposed to military solutions to the conflict. Howe and Henry Clinton both stated they were unwilling participants, and were only following orders.[607]As was the case in many European armies (bar the Prussian Army), officers could purchase commissions to ascend the ranks.[608]Despite repeated attempts to suppress the practise, purchasing commissions was common in the Army.[609]Values of commissions varied, but were usually in line with social prestige; regiments such as the Guards commanded the highest prices.[610]High-ranking commissions were often seen to be regarded by wealthier officers as "plums for [their] consumption".[611]Wealthy individuals lacking any formal military education or practical experience often found their way into positions of high responsibility, diluting the effectiveness of a regiment.[612]Though Royal authority had forbade the practise since 1711, it was still permitted for infants to hold commissions; young boys, often orphans of wealthy officers, were taken from schooling and placed in positions of responsibility within regiments.[613]LogisticsLogistics of eighteenth century armies were chaotic at best, and the British Army was no exception. While on campaign in foreign territories such as America, horses, wagons and drivers were frequently obtained from the locals by impressment or by hire.[614]No medical corps in the modern sense existed; it was not uncommon for surgeons to have had no formal medical education whatsoever; no diploma was required, nor were they required to pass any examination. Nurses were often drafted from the women who followed the army.[615]Army surgeons and doctors were poorly paid, and were regarded as social inferiors to other officers.[616]The heavy uniform and equipment of the regular infantryman was wholly unsuitable for combat in America, and was especially ill-suited for comfort and speedy movement.[617]Soldiers of the Black Watch armed with a Brown Bess musket, c. 1790.The standard issue musket of the British Army was the Land Pattern Musket. Bayonets made firing difficult, as its cumbersome shape made it difficult to ram down the charge. Some officers preferred their troops to fire careful and measured shots, rather than rapid firing.[618]John Burgoyne criticized his troops during the Saratoga campaign for their impetuosity and subsequent inaccurate fire.[619]Among European armies, reliance upon the bayonet to drive an enemy from the field was preferred over massed volley fire;[620]a tactic Burgoyne encouraged in his subordinates.[621]While rifles were not issued to the Army until the Baker Rifle in 1801, regimental commanders eventually noted their virtues; by the close of the war, every battalion in America had organized its own rifle company.[622]Flintlocks were heavily dependent on the weather; high winds could blow the powder from the pan,[623]while heavy rain could soak cartridges, ruining the powder.[624]Furthermore, flints used in British muskets were of notoriously poor quality; they could only be fired around six times before requiring resharpening, while American flints could fire sixty. An expression was common among the redcoats; "Yankee flint was as good as a glass of grog".[625]Provisioning troops and sailors proved an immense challenge, as the majority of food stores were shipped overseas from Britain.[626]The need to maintain Loyalist support prevented the Army from "living off the land".[627]Other factors also impeded this option; the countryside was too sparsely populated and the inhabitants were largely hostile or indifferent, the network of roads and bridges were poorly developed, and the area the British controlled proper was so limited, that longer ranging foraging parties were in danger of being cut off.[628]After France entered the war, the difficulty in the transit of supplies was increased, and the little food that was purchased in America was done so at inflated prices.[629]Soldiers stationed in the West Indies arguably suffered the worst; commanders of garrisons at Tobago, Barbados and Antigua complained of the near-total lack of regular supply from Britain, and the food that could be bought was so expensive, the pay of the troops was inadequate to cover the costs.[630]Food supplies were frequently in terrible condition, infested with mould, weevils, worms and maggots.[631]Provisions were frequently destroyed by rats,[632]and the containers they were stored in were too fragile to sustain a long ocean voyage, or the rigors of campaigning.[633]Climate was also against the British; in the southern colonies and the Caribbean, the summer heat caused food supplies to sour and spoil.[634]It is little exaggeration to suggest that British troops stationed in America were sometimes on the verge of starvation.[635]Life at sea was little better. Sailors and passengers were issued a daily ration, largely consisting of hardtack and beer.[636]The former was often infested by weevils, and was so tough to chew it gave rise to the nicknames of "molar breakers" and "worm castles".[637]Hardtack sometimes had to be broken up with cannonballs. A humorous story ran among sailors that hardtack had been captured from the French during the Seven Years War, and had been stored for future use ever since. Meat supplies often spoiled on long voyages.[638]The lack of fresh fruit and vegetables gave rise to scurvy, one of the biggest killers at sea.[540]Scurvy was eradicated in 1795, after a daily ration of lemon juice and sugar was issued to sailors.[639]Rum, issued as part of a daily ration, was a popular drink among sailors and soldiers alike, often mixed with water to make grog.[640][641]DisciplineFlogging of a delinquent in Germany, 17th centuryDiscipline in the armed services was harsh; the lash was used to punish even trivial offences, nor was it applied sparingly.[642]For instance, during the Saratoga campaign, two soldiers received a thousand lashes each for robbery,[643]while another received eight hundred lashes for striking an officer.[644]During the Napoleonic Wars, one soldier was sentenced to 700 lashes for stealing a beehive, while another whom had received only 175 strikes of his 400-lash sentence spent three weeks in hospital.[645]The practise could often be a contentious source of resentment; during the Battle of Quatre Bras in 1815, the commander of the 92nd Foot was shot and killed by a soldier he had recently flogged.[646]Flogging was a common punishment in the Royal Navy, and came to be associated with the stereotypical hardiness of sailors.[647]Despite this, troops of all ranks had little self-discipline. Soldiers had an intense passion for gambling, reaching such excesses that troops would wager their own uniforms.[648]Soldiers drank heavily, and was not exclusive to the lower ranks; William Howe was said to have seen many "crapulous mornings" at New York, while John Burgoyne drank heavily on a nightly basis towards the end of the Saratoga campaign. The two generals were also reported to have found solace with the wives of subordinate officers to ease the stressful burdens of command.[649]During the Philadelphia campaign, British officers deeply offended Quaker sensibilities by entertaining their mistresses in the houses they had been quartered in.[650]Despite such issues, British troops are reported to have been generally scrupulous in their treatment of non-combatants.[651]Strategic deficienciesThe British leadership soon found it had overestimated the ability of its own troops, while underestimating the military capabilities of the colonists.[151][152]The lukewarm response of British military and civil officials to the onset of the rebellion had allowed the advantage to shift to the colonists, as British authorities rapidly lost control over every colony.[652]A microcosm of these shortcomings are evident in the Battle of Bunker Hill. It took ten hours for the British leadership to adequately respond to the sighting of the Americans on the Charlestown Peninsula, giving the colonists ample time to reinforce their defenses.[653]Rather than opt for a simple flanking attack that would have rapidly succeeded,[654]the leadership remained excessively optimistic, believing just two regiments could suppress the rebellion.[655][656]The results were telling; the British suffered 1,054 casualties of a force of around 3,000 after repeated frontal assaults.[657]Debate persists over whether defeat of Britain was guaranteed. Ferling argues the odds were so long, the defeat of Britain was nothing short of a miracle.[658]Ellis, however, states the odds favored the Americans, and questions whether a British victory by any margin was realistic. Ellis argues the British squandered their only opportunity for a decisive victory in 1777; that the decisions undertaken by William Howe underestimated the challenges posed by the Americans. Ellis concludes that, once Howe failed, the opportunity for a British victory "would never come again".[659]The United States Army's official textbook argues that, had Britain been able to commit 10,000 fresh troops to the war in 1780, a victory was within the realms of possibility.[660]William HoweA 1777 mezzotint of Sir William Howe, British Commander-in-Chief from 1775-1778Under William Howe's command, the British squandered several opportunities for victory.[661][659]Throughout the New York and Philadelphia campaigns, Howe made several strategic errors which could have resulted in a complete defeat for the Americans. At Long Island, Howe failed to even attempt an encirclement of Washington,[662]and actively restrained his subordinates from ordering a pursuit of the defeated Americans.[663]At White Plains, he refused to engage Washington's vulnerable army, and concentrated his efforts upon a hill with no strategic value.[664][665]After securing New York, Howe dispatched Henry Clinton to capture Newport, a measure which Clinton criticized, on the grounds the troops could have been of better use in pursuing Washington's beaten army.[666][667][668]Despite the bleak outlook for the Revolutionary cause[669]and the surge of Loyalist activity in the wake of Washington's defeats,[670]Howe made no attempt to attack Washington while in winter quarters, much to the surprise of the Americans.[671]During planning for the Saratoga campaign, Howe instead intended to capture Philadelphia,[672]rendering him unable to assist John Burgoyne's efforts,[673]and leaving the Americans confounded.[674]Howe may have been motivated by political opportunism; if Burgoyne was successful, he would receive the credit, not Howe.[675]The situation was compounded by the lack of explicit instructions from London.[676]When Howe launched his campaign, he took his army on a strategically deficient, time-consuming route through the Chesapeake Bay, leaving him wholly unable to assist Burgoyne. The decision so confused Parliament, that Howe was accused by some of treason.[677]During the campaign, Howe failed to pursue and destroy the defeated Americans on two occasions; once after the Battle of Brandywine,[678][679]and again after Germantown.[680]At the Battle of White Marsh, Howe completely ignored the vulnerable American rear,[681]and then inexplicably ordered a retreat to Philadelphia, astonishing both sides.[682]While the Americans suffered in winter quarters at Valley Forge, Howe again made no effort to attack, which critics argue could have ended the war.[683][684][685]Howe may have been dissuaded from pursuing aggressive action due to the memory of grievous losses suffered at the Battle of Bunker Hill.[686][687]Howe eventually resigned his commission, and was replaced by Henry Clinton on May 24 1778.[688]However, in Howe's defense, he often wrote of the scarcity of adequate provisions hampering his ability to campaign effectively.[689]Howe's tardiness in launching the invasion of New York, and his reluctance to allow Cornwallis to vigorously pursue Washington's beaten army, have both been attributed to the paucity of food supplies.[690][691]During the winter of 1776-1777, Howe split his army into scattered cantonments, allowing Washington to defeat them in detail, as happened at Trenton and Princeton.[692]While a major strategic error under any other circumstances, the food supplies in New York were so sparse that Howe had been compelled to do so, so as not to interfere with each other's foraging efforts.[693]Howe's difficulties in the Philadelphia campaign were greatly exacerbated by the poor quality and little quantity of available supplies.[694]Clinton and CornwallisGeneral Charles Cornwallis, who led British forces in the southern campaign.In 1780, overall British strategy hinged upon a southern campaign, for which Charles Cornwallis had nominal command. In 1781, Cornwallis was poised to invade North Carolina. However, Loyalist support had been effectively destroyed,[695]and the best troops in British service had been decisively defeated.[696]Subsequent to both defeats, Cornwallis was fiercely criticized for detaching a significant portion of his army without adequate support, exposing it to defeat in detail.[697]Cornwallis chose to proceed into North Carolina regardless, gambling upon Loyalist support which never materialized.[698][699]As a result, subsequent engagements cost Cornwallis valuable troops he could not replace,[394]and was steadily worn down in an exhaustive war of attrition.[700]In so doing, Cornwallis had left the Carolinas ripe for reconquest, which was largely achieved by the end of 1781.[701][702]In a last-ditch attempt to win the war in the South, Cornwallis determined to invade Virginia and cut supplies to the Americans further south. Henry Clinton, commander of the North American station, strongly opposed the plan, believing the decisive confrontations would take place in the Chesapeake region.[703]Parliament condoned Cornwallis' plan, yet Clinton was not informed, despite him being Cornwallis' superior, leading to a muddled strategic direction.[704]Cornwallis invaded Virginia without informing Clinton of his intentions.[705]For his part, however, Clinton had wholly failed to construct a coherent strategy for any campaign against the Americans,[706]largely due to the fractious relationship he shared with Marriot Arbuthnot, his naval counterpart.[707]Like Howe, Clinton's efforts suffered from chronic supply problems that plagued the army. In 1778, Clinton wrote to Germain of the lack of supplies, even after the arrival of a convoy from Cork.[708]The supply issue had deteriorated so badly by winter, that Clinton expressed considerable anxiety over how the troops could be fed.[709]Clinton's inactivity in 1779 was partly due to the shortage of provisions.[710]By 1780, the situation had not improved, and Clinton wrote a frustrated correspondence to Germain, voicing concern that a "fatal consequence will ensue" if matters did not improve. By October that year, Clinton wrote that the troops in New York had not received "an ounce" of stores from Britain.[711]While under siege in Yorktown, Cornwallis made no attempt to sally out,[712]despite the repeated urging of his subordinates.[713]Expecting relief, Cornwallis prematurely abandoned all of his outer redoubts, which were promptly occupied by the besieging Franco-American troops, hastening the British defeat.[714]These factors contributed to the surrender of Cornwallis' entire army on October 17 1781.[715]Campaign issuesSuppressing a rebellion in America presented major problems. One key issue was distance; it could take up to three months to cross the Atlantic, and, consequently, orders from London were often outdated by the time they arrived.[716]As the colonies had not been united before the war, there was no centralized area of ultimate strategic importance. Traditionally, the fall of a capital city often meant the end of the conflict,[717]yet after the fall of major settlements such as New York, Charleston and Philadelphia, the war continued unabated.[718]Britain's ability to project power overseas lay in the Royal Navy, however, it could not be brought to full effect against the colonies. Though the Navy allowed Britain to control major coastal settlements with relative ease, and enforce a powerful naval blockade, the overwhelming majority of the American population was agrarian. As a result, the American economy proved resilient enough to withstand the blockade, which had no appreciable long-term effects.[719]Black Loyalist soldiers fought alongside British regulars in the 1781 Battle of Jersey, from The Death of Major PeirsonThe need to maintain Loyalist allegiance prevented the British from using the harsh methods of suppressing revolts they had used in Scotland and Ireland.[720]During an aborted attack on Charleston, the looting the British regulars partook in enraged both Patriots and Loyalists.[721]Neutral colonists were often driven into the ranks of the Patriots when brutal combat broke out between Tories and Whigs across the Carolinas in the later stages of the war.[722]Conversely, Loyalist support was often emboldened, or Patriot sympathies curtailed, when Patriots resorted to intimidation tactics, such as destroying property or tarring and feathering.[723][724]The British could never muster enough manpower to simultaneously defeat the Americans and occupy captured territory, largely due to the vastness of the American hinterland. One British statesman described the attempt; "[it] was like trying to conquer a map".[725]Prominent Loyalists had great influence in London,[726]convincing the British that Loyalists were the majority.[727]Consequently, British planners pinned their strategy on popular uprisings of Loyalists,[728][729]which never transpired on the scale required;[730]historians have estimated that Loyalists made up only 15-20% of the population,[731]while Loyalists continued to deceive themselves on their level of support as late as 1780.[732]The British soon discovered any significant level of organized Loyalist activity would require the continued presence of British regulars,[733]presenting them with a major dilemma; the manpower available was wholly insufficient to both protect Loyalist territory and counter American advances.[734]The vulnerability of Loyalist militias when operating away from British troops reached a critical juncture at the Battle of Kings Mountain; the victory of the Patriot partisans irreversibly crippled Loyalist military capability in the South.[735]Upon the entry of France and Spain into the war, the British were forced to severely limit the number of troops and warships it sent to North America, in order to defend other key territories and the British mainland.[736][737]Subsequently, King George III abandoned any hope of subduing America militarily.[738]The lack of any major allies left Britain at a critical disadvantage; the small size of its army left it unable to concentrate primarily in one theater, as it had done in the Seven Years War.[739]As a result, the forces deployed in the Americas, Europe and India were unable to mutually assist each other, precariously exposing them to defeat in detail.[740]In the Americas, the immediate strategic focus of both sides shifted to Jamaica,[741]whose sugar exports were more valuable to the British than the economy of the Thirteen colonies combined.[742]Though Britain had lost some of her most populous colonies, the economic effects were negligible in the long-term; just thirty-two years after the end of the conflict, Britain had risen to become the foremost global superpower.[743]PatriotsMain articles: Continental Army and Minutemen1st Maryland Regiment holding the line at the Battle of GuilfordThe Americans began the war with significant disadvantages compared to the British. They had no national government, no national army or navy, no financial system, no banks, no established credit, and no functioning government departments, such as a treasury. The Congress tried to handle administrative affairs through legislative committees, which proved inefficient. The state governments were themselves brand new and officials had no administrative experience. In peacetime the colonies relied heavily on ocean travel and shipping, but that was now shut down by the British blockade and the Americans had to rely on slow overland travel.However, the Americans had multiple advantages that in the long run outweighed the initial disadvantages they faced. The Americans had a large prosperous population that depended not on imports but on local production for food and most supplies, while the British were mostly shipped in from across the ocean. The British faced a vast territory far larger than Britain or France, located at a far distance from home ports. Most of the Americans lived on farms distant from the seaports—the British could capture any port but that did not give them control over the hinterland. They were on their home ground, had a smoothly functioning, well organized system of local and state governments, newspapers and printers, and internal lines of communications. They had a long-established system of local militia, previously used to combat the French and Native Americans, with companies and an officer corps that could form the basis of local militias, and provide a training ground for the national army created by Congress.[744]Motivation was a major asset. The Patriots wanted to win; over 200,000 fought in the war; 25,000 died. The British expected the Loyalists to do much of the fighting, but they did much less than expected. The British also hired German mercenaries to do much of their fighting.[22]At the onset of the war, the Americans had no major international allies. Battles such as the Battle of Bennington, the Battles of Saratoga and even defeats such as the Battle of Germantown[745]proved decisive in gaining the attention and support of powerful European nations such as France and Spain, who moved from covertly supplying the Americans with weapons and supplies, to overtly supporting them militarily, moving the war to a global stage.[746]The new Continental Army suffered significantly from a lack of an effective training regime, and largely inexperienced officers and sergeants. The inexperience of its officers was compensated for in part by its senior officers; officers such as George Washington, Horatio Gates, Charles Lee, Richard Montgomery and Francis Marion all had military experience with the British Army during the French and Indian War. The Americans solved their training dilemma during their stint in Winter Quarters at Valley Forge, where they were relentlessly drilled and trained by General Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben, a veteran of the famed Prussian General Staff. He taught the Continental Army the essentials of military discipline, drills, tactics and strategy, and wrote the Revolutionary War Drill Manual.[747]When the Army emerged from Valley Forge, it proved its ability to equally match the British troops in battle when they fought a successful strategic action at the Battle of Monmouth.[748]Population density in the American Colonies in 1775When the war began, the 13 colonies lacked a professional army or navy. Each colony sponsored local militia. Militiamen were lightly armed, had little training, and usually did not have uniforms. Their units served for only a few weeks or months at a time, were reluctant to travel far from home and thus were unavailable for extended operations, and lacked the training and discipline of soldiers with more experience. If properly used, however, their numbers could help the Continental armies overwhelm smaller British forces, as at the battles of Concord, Bennington and Saratoga, and the siege of Boston. Both sides used partisan warfare but the Americans effectively suppressed Loyalist activity when British regulars were not in the area.[749]Seeking to coordinate military efforts, the Continental Congress established a regular army on June 14, 1775, and appointed George Washington as commander-in-chief. The development of the Continental Army was always a work in progress, and Washington used both his regulars and state militia throughout the war.The United States Marine Corps traces its institutional roots to the Continental Marines of the war, formed by a resolution of the Continental Congress on November 10, 1775, a date regarded and celebrated as the birthday of the Marine Corps. At the beginning of 1776, Washington's army had 20,000 men, with two-thirds enlisted in the Continental Army and the other third in the various state militias.[750]At the end of the American Revolution in 1783, both the Continental Navy and Continental Marines were disbanded. About 250,000 men served as regulars or as militiamen for the Revolutionary cause in the eight years of the war, but there were never more than 90,000 men under arms at one time. About 55,000 American sailors served aboard privateers during the war.[751]The American privateers had almost 1,700 ships, and they captured 2,283 enemy ships.[752]John Paul Jones became the first great American naval hero, capturing HMS Drake on April 24, 1778, the first victory for any American military vessel in British waters.[753]Armies were small by European standards of the era, largely attributable to limitations such as lack of powder and other logistical capabilities on the American side.[754]It was also difficult for Great Britain to transport troops across the Atlantic and they depended on local supplies that the Patriots tried to cut off. By comparison, Duffy notes that Frederick the Great usually commanded from 23,000 to 50,000 in battle.[citation needed]Both figures pale in comparison to the armies that were fielded in the early 19th century, where troop formations approached or exceeded 100,000 men.African Americans1780 drawing of American soldiers from the Yorktown campaign shows a black infantryman from the 1st Rhode Island Regiment.African Americans—slave and free—served on both sides during the war. The British recruited slaves belonging to Patriot masters and promised freedom to those who served by act of Lord Dunmore's Proclamation. Because of manpower shortages, George Washington lifted the ban on black enlistment in the Continental Army in January 1776. Small all-black units were formed in Rhode Island and Massachusetts; many slaves were promised freedom for serving. Some of the men promised freedom were sent back to their masters, after the war was over, out of political convenience. Another all-black unit came from Saint-Domingue with French colonial forces. At least 5,000 black soldiers fought for the Revolutionary cause.[755][756]Tens of thousands of slaves escaped during the war and joined British lines; others simply moved off in the chaos. For instance, in South Carolina, nearly 25,000 slaves (30% of the enslaved population) fled, migrated or died during the disruption of the war.[757]This greatly disrupted plantation production during and after the war. When they withdrew their forces from Savannah and Charleston, the British also evacuated 10,000 slaves belonging to Loyalists.[758]Altogether, the British evacuated nearly 20,000 blacks at the end of the war. More than 3,000 of them were freedmen and most of these were resettled in Nova Scotia; other blacks were sold in the West Indies.[759][760]Native AmericansMost Native Americans east of the Mississippi River were affected by the war, and many communities were divided over the question of how to respond to the conflict. Though a few tribes were on friendly terms with the Americans, most Native Americans opposed the United States as a potential threat to their territory. Approximately 13,000 Native Americans fought on the British side, with the largest group coming from the Iroquois tribes, who fielded around 1,500 men.[761]The powerful Iroquois Confederacy was shattered as a result of the conflict; although the Confederacy did not take sides, the Seneca, Onondaga, and Cayuga nations sided with the British. Members of the Mohawk fought on both sides. Many Tuscarora and Oneida sided with the colonists. The Continental Army sent the Sullivan Expedition on raids throughout New York to cripple the Iroquois tribes that had sided with the British. Both during and after the war friction between the Mohawk leaders Joseph Louis Cook and Joseph Brant, who had sided with the Americans and the British respectively, further exacerbated the split.A watercolor painting depicting a variety of Continental Army soldiers.Early in July 1776, a major action in the fledgling conflict occurred when the Cherokee allies of Britain attacked the western frontier areas of North Carolina. Their defeat resulted in a splintering of the Cherokee towns and people, and was directly responsible for the rise of the Chickamauga Cherokee, bitter enemies of the Colonials who carried on a frontier war for decades following the end of hostilities with Britain.[762]Creek and Seminole allies of Britain fought against Americans in Georgia and South Carolina. In 1778, a force of 800 Creeks destroyed American settlements along the Broad River in Georgia. Creek warriors also joined Thomas Brown's raids into South Carolina and assisted Britain during the Siege of Savannah.[763]Many Native Americans were involved in the fighting between Britain and Spain on the Gulf Coast and up the Mississippi River—mostly on the British side. Thousands of Creeks, Chickasaws, and Choctaws fought in or near major battles such as the Battle of Fort Charlotte, the Battle of Mobile, and the Siege of Pensacola.[764]Race and classPybus (2005) estimates that about 20,000 slaves defected to or were captured by the British, of whom about 8,000 died from disease or wounds or were recaptured by the Patriots. The British took along some 12,000 at the end of the war; of these 8000 remained in slavery. Including those who left during the war, a total of about 8000 to 10,000 ex-slaves gained freedom.[765]About 4000 freed slaves went to Nova Scotia along with about 1200 blacks who remained slaves.[766][767]Baller (2006) examines family dynamics and mobilization for the Revolution in central Massachusetts. He reports that warfare and the farming culture were sometimes incompatible. Militiamen found that living and working on the family farm had not prepared them for wartime marches and the rigors of camp life. Rugged individualism conflicted with military discipline and regimentation. A man's birth order often influenced his military recruitment, as younger sons went to war and older sons took charge of the farm. A person's family responsibilities and the prevalent patriarchy could impede mobilization. Harvesting duties and family emergencies pulled men home regardless of the sergeant's orders. Some relatives might be Loyalists, creating internal strains. On the whole, historians conclude the Revolution's effect on patriarchy and inheritance patterns favored egalitarianism.[768]McDonnell (2006) shows a grave complication in Virginia's mobilization of troops was the conflicting interests of distinct social classes, which tended to undercut a unified commitment to the Patriot cause. The Assembly balanced the competing demands of elite slave-owning planters, the middling yeomen (some owning a few slaves), and landless indentured servants, among other groups. The Assembly used deferments, taxes, military service substitute, and conscription to resolve the tensions. Unresolved class conflict, however, made these laws less effective. There were violent protests, many cases of evasion, and large-scale desertion, so that Virginia's contributions came at embarrassingly low levels. With the British invasion of the state in 1781, Virginia was mired in class division as its native son, George Washington, made desperate appeals for troops.[769]