Can 375 Great Scientists Correct Donald Trump on Climate Change?

Of course not.

But still, yesterday 375 members of the National Academy of Science published a letter saying

Human-caused climate change is not a belief, a hoax, or a conspiracy. It is a physical reality. Fossil fuels powered the Industrial Revolution. But the burning of oil, coal, and gas also caused most of the historical increase in atmospheric levels of heat-trapping greenhouse gases. This increase in greenhouse gases is changing Earth’s climate.

...During the Presidential primary campaign, claims were made that the Earth is not warming, or that warming is due to purely natural causes outside of human control. Such claims are inconsistent with reality.

That's a good, strong phrase -- "inconsistent with reality."

The letter isn't addressed to anyone specific, but it's said to be directed at Donald Trump.

Unfortunately, Trump shows little interest in knowledge, and I doubt this is going to change his climate idiocy, even if he is elected.

I doubt Trump has the guts to do this, but a few of these scientists should get together and offer to go to Trump and, in one hour, present him the evidence behind manmade climate change. Like those brave scientists did for the governor of Florida. Publicize the hell out of the offer, and, if it happens, of the followup.

As it is, I wonder if a single debate moderator -- who think they are "journalists" -- is going to ask a single question of either presidential candidate about the most important topic of the 21st century.

Unfortunately, the moderators of the first debate have announced their topics, and it looks to be the usual network fluff that makes intelligent people want to vomit.

Anyway, so who do we know? Well, for me, a lot of scientists I know and/or have interviewed and/or recognize and respect a great deal. (I'm always surprised at how many great scientists I don't know, like when it comes to the Nobel Prize announcements or NAS inductions):

Benjamin D. Santer, Member, National Academy of Sciences^

Kerry A. Emanuel, Massachusetts Institute of Technology^

Phillip W. Anderson, Princeton University

Sir Michael Atiyah, University of Edinburgh

David Baltimore, California Institute of Technology

Wallace Broecker, Columbia University

Steven Chu, Stanford University

Ralph Cicerone, Professor Emeritus, University of California

Claude Cohen-Tannoudji, Laboratoire Kastler Brossel

James Cronin, University of Chicago

Paul J. Crutzen, Max Planck Institute for Chemistry

Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University

Howard Georgi, Harvard University

Sheldon Glashow, Boston University

Roy Glauber, Harvard University

Peter H. Gleick, Pacific Institute

David Gross, University of California Santa Barbara

Jim Hansen, Columbia University

Stephen Hawking, Cambridge University

Donald Kennedy, Stanford University

Wolfgang Ketterle, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Margaret Kivelson, University of California Los Angeles

Daniel Kleppner, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Jane Lubchenco, Oregon State University

Mario Molina, University of California San Diego

Jim Peebles, Princeton University

Peter H. Raven, Missouri Botanical Garden

Maureen E. Raymo, Columbia University

Martin Rees, Cambridge University

Adam Riess, Johns Hopkins University

Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research

James Simons, Chairman, Simons Foundation

Susan Solomon, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Kip Thorne, Member, National Academy of Sciences

Rainer Weiss, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Edward O. Wilson, Harvard University

Robert W. Wilson, Member, National Academy of Sciences

Personally I think Adam Riess ought to run for President. He's young, well spoken, and really smart. Just what the American people are looking for, right?

Right?