Climate change: 2015 will be the hottest year on record 'by a mile', experts say

[threegoofs]

They've been holding those positions for years now. Have we seen any great upheaval in the scientific societies from the membership in disagreement? No.

You're not reading the thread again.. Or you are and your head's sprung another factual leak...

Didya read the poll for AMSociety I posted?? Behind that front office endorsement of GlobalBaloney -- 53% of the MEMBERSHIP thinks there is division on the topic WITHIN the society. And 29% don't think the science is good enough yet to QUANTIFY man's share of blame for your little temperature blip...

Also forgot that 5 YEAR DEBATE and capitulation from the Aussie Geophysical Union ---- didya? That was just a couple pages back and the 4TH time you've seen it..

I can't help you man.. You have cognitive issues.. And probably need reprogramming.. I'm back up this month. Call someone else..

As I posted...read the conclusion of the study.

They've been holding those positions for years now. Have we seen any great upheaval in the scientific societies from the membership in disagreement? No.

You're not reading the thread again.. Or you are and your head's sprung another factual leak...

Didya read the poll for AMSociety I posted?? Behind that front office endorsement of GlobalBaloney -- 53% of the MEMBERSHIP thinks there is division on the topic WITHIN the society. And 29% don't think the science is good enough yet to QUANTIFY man's share of blame for your little temperature blip...

Also forgot that 5 YEAR DEBATE and capitulation from the Aussie Geophysical Union ---- didya? That was just a couple pages back and the 4TH time you've seen it..

I can't help you man.. You have cognitive issues.. And probably need reprogramming.. I'm back up this month. Call someone else..

As I posted...read the conclusion of the study.

I GAVE YOU the MEANINGFUL conclusions of the AMS Poll right there. Doesn't matter that 88% agree on shit that YOU BELIEVE defines Global Warming debate.. Because it doesn't. NO ONE, not even me would deny the little warming blip that everyones panicked over.. And I don't deny that man probably has some small effect on that that. The only reason this issue makes headlines is because of the tales of GRAVE danger and MASS Destruction that this settled science is gonna cause.. ----- But only about 40% of AMS members believe that crap.. So the endorsement of these societies don't MEAN that the members are all in lock step.. There IS NO CONSENSUS on the details of GW --- And the science is not settled.. But the ability to push this as a POLITICAL movement -- is all but over..

You posted a summary. I posted the reference. I also published the first paragraph of the discussion.

It's primary conclusion was that if you know science, you are more likely to understand AGW.

Or conversely, in terms you may understand better and are amply demonstrating here, the more ignorant you are, the more likely you'll be a denier.

Read it yourself and lessen your ignorance:

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

No -- see --- this is why your confused.. Lemme recap.. AMS publishes "policy statement" on Global Warming that you THINK is an endorsement of a CRISIS related to GW and a consensus amongst all the members.

Then they commission an actual poll done thru George Mason Univ ---- which I REFERENCED along with all the all the RAW questions and data.. Then YOU come up with the EXCUSES by AMS for the embarrassing results of said poll without PROVIDING the actual polling responses and data. They simply MASSAGE said data to EXCLUDE any scientists in AMS that are "non-publishing".. I see that as desperation. If they are worthy of putting the AMS notation on their biz cards --- they should be worthy of an opinion on policy statements MADE by said org.. Otherwise, we'd have to disqualify the Prez and the complicit media and a whole lot of other high wattage voices with opinions on the topic. The actual George Mason RAW poll results are at ::


http://www.ametsoc.org/boardpges/cw...02-AMS-Member-Survey-Preliminary-Findings.pdf

You seem to have a major issue separating spin and propaganda from science this morning..

This is the published study.

Sorry you're too clueless to understand that.

 

[threegoofs]

[/B][/COLOR]

TOM HARRIS: Global warming: Deceptive temperature record claims - Washington Times

I ask for a scientific reference, and you give me The Washington Times.

Tell me how this simple scientific 'fact' that NOAA and NASA are missing only happens to be discovered by a wildly right wing paper and the rest of the scientific community missed this error?

?? and you say your a scientist?? I am laughing my ass off...

Anyone that can interpret data knows what is coming and quickly...

Well, then I guess you can interpret this as well.

View attachment 49464

And this:

View attachment 49465

And as an example of consequences:

View attachment 49466

Every one of your references is from a model, from Pro-AGW sites.. How about you get some real Data and quit playing with broken models!

LOL.

No. They are actual data plots from the people who monitor temperature and ice coverage on the planet.

Not surprised you can't tell the difference, yet 'know' the vast majority of scientists are wrong.

 

[Old Rocks]

The vast majority of the members of the AMS are not scientists. A BS in meteorology is about as tough to get as a associates in lawn care.

And how is it that a poll of the AMS is "MEANINGFUL" but multiple polls of published climate scientists get rejected out of hand by you fools?

Well let's just say I agreed with your pile of BS there. What would be the value of a Global Warming endorsement from an institution that "are not scientists" and are specialists in lawn care..

Don't think you thought that quite through... Typical.. I KNOW AMS is in your list of "consensus" institutions.. Because I actually read your crap occasionally.. And I don't forget what I read..

But you failed to research the poll -- which qualified the education, experience, etc of folks being polled at AMS --- Again --- you show you are not following the program..

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

DISCUSSION. Our findings regarding the degree of consensus about human-caused climate change among the most expert meteorologists are similar to those of Doran and Zimmerman (2009): 93% of actively publishing climate scientists indicated they are convinced that humans have contributed to global warming. Our findings also revealed that majorities of experts view human activity as the primary cause of recent climate change: 78% of climate experts actively publishing on climate change, 73% of all people actively publishing on climate change, and
62% of active publishers who mostly do not publish on climate change. These results, together with those of other similar studies, suggest high levels of expert consensus about human-caused climate change
(Farnsworth and Lichter 2012; Bray 2010).

Hmmmmm...........

 

[Old Rocks]

They've been holding those positions for years now. Have we seen any great upheaval in the scientific societies from the membership in disagreement? No.

You're not reading the thread again.. Or you are and your head's sprung another factual leak...

Didya read the poll for AMSociety I posted?? Behind that front office endorsement of GlobalBaloney -- 53% of the MEMBERSHIP thinks there is division on the topic WITHIN the society. And 29% don't think the science is good enough yet to QUANTIFY man's share of blame for your little temperature blip...

Also forgot that 5 YEAR DEBATE and capitulation from the Aussie Geophysical Union ---- didya? That was just a couple pages back and the 4TH time you've seen it..

I can't help you man.. You have cognitive issues.. And probably need reprogramming.. I'm back up this month. Call someone else..

As I posted...read the conclusion of the study.

They've been holding those positions for years now. Have we seen any great upheaval in the scientific societies from the membership in disagreement? No.

You're not reading the thread again.. Or you are and your head's sprung another factual leak...

Didya read the poll for AMSociety I posted?? Behind that front office endorsement of GlobalBaloney -- 53% of the MEMBERSHIP thinks there is division on the topic WITHIN the society. And 29% don't think the science is good enough yet to QUANTIFY man's share of blame for your little temperature blip...

Also forgot that 5 YEAR DEBATE and capitulation from the Aussie Geophysical Union ---- didya? That was just a couple pages back and the 4TH time you've seen it..

I can't help you man.. You have cognitive issues.. And probably need reprogramming.. I'm back up this month. Call someone else..

As I posted...read the conclusion of the study.

I GAVE YOU the MEANINGFUL conclusions of the AMS Poll right there. Doesn't matter that 88% agree on shit that YOU BELIEVE defines Global Warming debate.. Because it doesn't. NO ONE, not even me would deny the little warming blip that everyones panicked over.. And I don't deny that man probably has some small effect on that that. The only reason this issue makes headlines is because of the tales of GRAVE danger and MASS Destruction that this settled science is gonna cause.. ----- But only about 40% of AMS members believe that crap.. So the endorsement of these societies don't MEAN that the members are all in lock step.. There IS NO CONSENSUS on the details of GW --- And the science is not settled.. But the ability to push this as a POLITICAL movement -- is all but over..

You posted a summary. I posted the reference. I also published the first paragraph of the discussion.

It's primary conclusion was that if you know science, you are more likely to understand AGW.

Or conversely, in terms you may understand better and are amply demonstrating here, the more ignorant you are, the more likely you'll be a denier.

Read it yourself and lessen your ignorance:

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

No -- see --- this is why your confused.. Lemme recap.. AMS publishes "policy statement" on Global Warming that you THINK is an endorsement of a CRISIS related to GW and a consensus amongst all the members.

Then they commission an actual poll done thru George Mason Univ ---- which I REFERENCED along with all the all the RAW questions and data.. Then YOU come up with the EXCUSES by AMS for the embarrassing results of said poll without PROVIDING the actual polling responses and data. They simply MASSAGE said data to EXCLUDE any scientists in AMS that are "non-publishing".. I see that as desperation. If they are worthy of putting the AMS notation on their biz cards --- they should be worthy of an opinion on policy statements MADE by said org.. Otherwise, we'd have to disqualify the Prez and the complicit media and a whole lot of other high wattage voices with opinions on the topic. The actual George Mason RAW poll results are at ::


http://www.ametsoc.org/boardpges/cw...02-AMS-Member-Survey-Preliminary-Findings.pdf

You seem to have a major issue separating spin and propaganda from science this morning..

http://www.ametsoc.org/boardpges/cw...02-AMS-Member-Survey-Preliminary-Findings.pdf

A very large majority of respondents (89%) indicated that global warming is happening; in contrast few indicated it isn’t happening (4%), or that they
“don’t know” (7%). Respondents who indicated that global warming is
happening were asked their views about its primary causes; a large majority indicted that human activity (59%), or human activity and natural causes in more or less equal amounts (11%), were the primary causes. Relatively few respondents indicated that the warning is caused primarily by natural causes (6%), although a substantial minority (23%) indicated they don’t believe enough is yet know to determine the degree of human or natural causation.

So, 59% believe that we are the primary cause of the warming, and 11% believe it may be equal parts natural and anthropogenic. That is 70% that believe we have a major part in it.

4. Over the next 100 years, how harmful or beneficial do you think global
warming will be to people and society, if nothing is done to address it?
[Asked if answer to Question 1 is “Yes”]
Very harmful 38%
Somewhat harmful 38%
The harms and benefits will be more
or less equal 12%
Somewhat beneficial 2%
Very beneficial 0.4%
Don't know 10%

 

[Billy_Bob]

You're not reading the thread again.. Or you are and your head's sprung another factual leak...

Didya read the poll for AMSociety I posted?? Behind that front office endorsement of GlobalBaloney -- 53% of the MEMBERSHIP thinks there is division on the topic WITHIN the society. And 29% don't think the science is good enough yet to QUANTIFY man's share of blame for your little temperature blip...

Also forgot that 5 YEAR DEBATE and capitulation from the Aussie Geophysical Union ---- didya? That was just a couple pages back and the 4TH time you've seen it..

I can't help you man.. You have cognitive issues.. And probably need reprogramming.. I'm back up this month. Call someone else..

As I posted...read the conclusion of the study.

You're not reading the thread again.. Or you are and your head's sprung another factual leak...

Didya read the poll for AMSociety I posted?? Behind that front office endorsement of GlobalBaloney -- 53% of the MEMBERSHIP thinks there is division on the topic WITHIN the society. And 29% don't think the science is good enough yet to QUANTIFY man's share of blame for your little temperature blip...

Also forgot that 5 YEAR DEBATE and capitulation from the Aussie Geophysical Union ---- didya? That was just a couple pages back and the 4TH time you've seen it..

I can't help you man.. You have cognitive issues.. And probably need reprogramming.. I'm back up this month. Call someone else..

As I posted...read the conclusion of the study.

I GAVE YOU the MEANINGFUL conclusions of the AMS Poll right there. Doesn't matter that 88% agree on shit that YOU BELIEVE defines Global Warming debate.. Because it doesn't. NO ONE, not even me would deny the little warming blip that everyones panicked over.. And I don't deny that man probably has some small effect on that that. The only reason this issue makes headlines is because of the tales of GRAVE danger and MASS Destruction that this settled science is gonna cause.. ----- But only about 40% of AMS members believe that crap.. So the endorsement of these societies don't MEAN that the members are all in lock step.. There IS NO CONSENSUS on the details of GW --- And the science is not settled.. But the ability to push this as a POLITICAL movement -- is all but over..

You posted a summary. I posted the reference. I also published the first paragraph of the discussion.

It's primary conclusion was that if you know science, you are more likely to understand AGW.

Or conversely, in terms you may understand better and are amply demonstrating here, the more ignorant you are, the more likely you'll be a denier.

Read it yourself and lessen your ignorance:

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

No -- see --- this is why your confused.. Lemme recap.. AMS publishes "policy statement" on Global Warming that you THINK is an endorsement of a CRISIS related to GW and a consensus amongst all the members.

Then they commission an actual poll done thru George Mason Univ ---- which I REFERENCED along with all the all the RAW questions and data.. Then YOU come up with the EXCUSES by AMS for the embarrassing results of said poll without PROVIDING the actual polling responses and data. They simply MASSAGE said data to EXCLUDE any scientists in AMS that are "non-publishing".. I see that as desperation. If they are worthy of putting the AMS notation on their biz cards --- they should be worthy of an opinion on policy statements MADE by said org.. Otherwise, we'd have to disqualify the Prez and the complicit media and a whole lot of other high wattage voices with opinions on the topic. The actual George Mason RAW poll results are at ::


http://www.ametsoc.org/boardpges/cw...02-AMS-Member-Survey-Preliminary-Findings.pdf

You seem to have a major issue separating spin and propaganda from science this morning..

http://www.ametsoc.org/boardpges/cw...02-AMS-Member-Survey-Preliminary-Findings.pdf

A very large majority of respondents (89%) indicated that global warming is happening; in contrast few indicated it isn’t happening (4%), or that they
“don’t know” (7%). Respondents who indicated that global warming is
happening were asked their views about its primary causes; a large majority indicted that human activity (59%), or human activity and natural causes in more or less equal amounts (11%), were the primary causes. Relatively few respondents indicated that the warning is caused primarily by natural causes (6%), although a substantial minority (23%) indicated they don’t believe enough is yet know to determine the degree of human or natural causation.

So, 59% believe that we are the primary cause of the warming, and 11% believe it may be equal parts natural and anthropogenic. That is 70% that believe we have a major part in it.

4. Over the next 100 years, how harmful or beneficial do you think global
warming will be to people and society, if nothing is done to address it?
[Asked if answer to Question 1 is “Yes”]
Very harmful 38%
Somewhat harmful 38%
The harms and benefits will be more
or less equal 12%
Somewhat beneficial 2%
Very beneficial 0.4%
Don't know 10%

Cool Dueling papers... One only asked questions to known warming apologists and the other took a balanced sample... who to believe..

 

[mamooth]

OK -- jig is up.. You are no scientist if I have to explain to you what a 38% confidence in a statistics statement means.

Hilariously, you're actually trying to claim it means "retraction". Wow.

So, are you saying something crazy out of stupidity, or is that your desperation talking?

Nonsense like that does explain why the scientific community ignores denier crazy talk.

 

[flacaltenn]

You're not reading the thread again.. Or you are and your head's sprung another factual leak...

Didya read the poll for AMSociety I posted?? Behind that front office endorsement of GlobalBaloney -- 53% of the MEMBERSHIP thinks there is division on the topic WITHIN the society. And 29% don't think the science is good enough yet to QUANTIFY man's share of blame for your little temperature blip...

Also forgot that 5 YEAR DEBATE and capitulation from the Aussie Geophysical Union ---- didya? That was just a couple pages back and the 4TH time you've seen it..

I can't help you man.. You have cognitive issues.. And probably need reprogramming.. I'm back up this month. Call someone else..

As I posted...read the conclusion of the study.

You're not reading the thread again.. Or you are and your head's sprung another factual leak...

Didya read the poll for AMSociety I posted?? Behind that front office endorsement of GlobalBaloney -- 53% of the MEMBERSHIP thinks there is division on the topic WITHIN the society. And 29% don't think the science is good enough yet to QUANTIFY man's share of blame for your little temperature blip...

Also forgot that 5 YEAR DEBATE and capitulation from the Aussie Geophysical Union ---- didya? That was just a couple pages back and the 4TH time you've seen it..

I can't help you man.. You have cognitive issues.. And probably need reprogramming.. I'm back up this month. Call someone else..

As I posted...read the conclusion of the study.

I GAVE YOU the MEANINGFUL conclusions of the AMS Poll right there. Doesn't matter that 88% agree on shit that YOU BELIEVE defines Global Warming debate.. Because it doesn't. NO ONE, not even me would deny the little warming blip that everyones panicked over.. And I don't deny that man probably has some small effect on that that. The only reason this issue makes headlines is because of the tales of GRAVE danger and MASS Destruction that this settled science is gonna cause.. ----- But only about 40% of AMS members believe that crap.. So the endorsement of these societies don't MEAN that the members are all in lock step.. There IS NO CONSENSUS on the details of GW --- And the science is not settled.. But the ability to push this as a POLITICAL movement -- is all but over..

You posted a summary. I posted the reference. I also published the first paragraph of the discussion.

It's primary conclusion was that if you know science, you are more likely to understand AGW.

Or conversely, in terms you may understand better and are amply demonstrating here, the more ignorant you are, the more likely you'll be a denier.

Read it yourself and lessen your ignorance:

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

No -- see --- this is why your confused.. Lemme recap.. AMS publishes "policy statement" on Global Warming that you THINK is an endorsement of a CRISIS related to GW and a consensus amongst all the members.

Then they commission an actual poll done thru George Mason Univ ---- which I REFERENCED along with all the all the RAW questions and data.. Then YOU come up with the EXCUSES by AMS for the embarrassing results of said poll without PROVIDING the actual polling responses and data. They simply MASSAGE said data to EXCLUDE any scientists in AMS that are "non-publishing".. I see that as desperation. If they are worthy of putting the AMS notation on their biz cards --- they should be worthy of an opinion on policy statements MADE by said org.. Otherwise, we'd have to disqualify the Prez and the complicit media and a whole lot of other high wattage voices with opinions on the topic. The actual George Mason RAW poll results are at ::


http://www.ametsoc.org/boardpges/cw...02-AMS-Member-Survey-Preliminary-Findings.pdf

You seem to have a major issue separating spin and propaganda from science this morning..

http://www.ametsoc.org/boardpges/cw...02-AMS-Member-Survey-Preliminary-Findings.pdf

A very large majority of respondents (89%) indicated that global warming is happening; in contrast few indicated it isn’t happening (4%), or that they
“don’t know” (7%). Respondents who indicated that global warming is
happening were asked their views about its primary causes; a large majority indicted that human activity (59%), or human activity and natural causes in more or less equal amounts (11%), were the primary causes. Relatively few respondents indicated that the warning is caused primarily by natural causes (6%), although a substantial minority (23%) indicated they don’t believe enough is yet know to determine the degree of human or natural causation.

So, 59% believe that we are the primary cause of the warming, and 11% believe it may be equal parts natural and anthropogenic. That is 70% that believe we have a major part in it.

4. Over the next 100 years, how harmful or beneficial do you think global
warming will be to people and society, if nothing is done to address it?
[Asked if answer to Question 1 is “Yes”]
Very harmful 38%
Somewhat harmful 38%
The harms and benefits will be more
or less equal 12%
Somewhat beneficial 2%
Very beneficial 0.4%
Don't know 10%

Yeah Rocks -- so only 40% consider it a crisis.. That's NOT why this topic SMOTHERS any other enviro actions and hogs so much media attention.. That's 38% that view the likely potential of flooding cities, killer storms and 1000s of others punishments of the gods..

And only 60% said human activity was the Primary cause.. Whatever primary means. And if you read FURTHER, you'll find about 30% that say the science isn't good enough yet to tell the proportion between human and natural..


I'd say --- AMS would be in for a dose of Aussie Rugby over any "position paper" they put up to the membership -- wouldn't you?? The front office statements that you arm yourself with don't mean crap as evidence of "consensus"...

 

[depotoo]

From a 2010 study of (convinced)ce vs (unconvinced)ue researchers, stating 97% agree, of 1372, that they widdled down to 908, they included 2% of ue researchers in that research, coming to that 97%.
From that study, they admit, it is less than scientific-
Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change(ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researcher, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions

And another poll, article from Forbes-
Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.

So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.

That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)

The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation?

 

[depotoo]

Whose desperation??

OK -- jig is up.. You are no scientist if I have to explain to you what a 38% confidence in a statistics statement means.

Hilariously, you're actually trying to claim it means "retraction". Wow.

So, are you saying something crazy out of stupidity, or is that your desperation talking?

Nonsense like that does explain why the scientific community ignores denier crazy talk.

 

[Old Rocks]

n the professional field of climate science, the consensus is unequivocal: human activities are causing climate change and additional anthropogenic CO2may cause great disruption to the climate.

32,000 Sounds Like A Lot
In fact, OISM signatories represent a tiny fraction (~0.3%) of all US science graduates (petition cards were only sent to individuals within the U.S)

According to figures from the US Department of Education Digest of Education Statistics: 2008, 10.6 million science graduates have gained qualifications consistent with the OISM polling criteria since the 1970-71 school year. 32,000 out of 10 million is not a very compelling figure, but a tiny minority - approximately 0.3 per cent.

There are many issues casting doubt on the validity of this petition. On investigation, attempts to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change often appear to have ideological roots, vested business interests or political sponsors. The claims made for the OISM petition do not withstand objective scrutiny, and the assertions made in the petition are not supported by evidence, data or scientific research.

Several studies conducted independently (Oreskes 2004, Oreskes 2007, Doran and Zimmerman (2009), Anderegg et al. (2010), Cook et. al., 2013) have shown that 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are causing the climate to change, and that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are causing global changes to theclimate. These views form the scientific consensus on climate change.

Basic rebuttal written by GPWayne

Comments 1 to 33:

1. Nick Palmer at 20:26 PM on 16 April, 2010
   I've posted this before but I haven't seen the point understood yet.
   
   The actual wording of a major part of the petition is so constructed that even fully legit climatologists - even James Hansen - could happily sign it.
   
   It is this bit (the second paragraph):
   There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.
   
   The weasel wording is "is causing or will", which are 100% definitive statements (there's no probability in them). Catastrophic heating/disruption is by no means certain so the average pernicketty scientist could sign with a clear conscience.
   
   The first paragraph may have just been skated over by respondents as out of date now (by mentioning 1997...)

The OISM petition was never vetted, and many of the names are in doubt. It is the last resort of those that have nothing else, and it amounts to nothing.

 

[threegoofs]

From a 2010 study of (convinced)ce vs (unconvinced)ue researchers, stating 97% agree, of 1372, that they widdled down to 908, they included 2% of ue researchers in that research, coming to that 97%.
From that study, they admit, it is less than scientific-
Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change(ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researcher, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions

And another poll, article from Forbes-
Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.

So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.

That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)

The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation?

Nice unreferenced cut and paste.

Also totally wrong.

The original number came from a Naomi Orestes study done in about 2006. And it was confirmed a couple more times in the scientific literature.

 

[Crick]

More than a couple

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Surveys of scientists and scientific literature

Just over 97% of published climate researchers say humans are causing most global warming.[113][114][115]
Main article: Surveys of scientists' views on climate change
Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming. They have concluded that the majority of scientists support the idea of anthropogenic climate change.

In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[116] She analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Seventy-five per cent of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories (either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view); 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. None of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."

In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Societyor the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. 97% of the scientists surveyed agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years; 84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring, and 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiated its occurrence. Catastrophic effects in 50–100 years would likely be observed according to 41%, while 44% thought the effects would be moderate and about 13 percent saw relatively little danger. 5% said they thought human activity did not contribute to greenhouse warming.[117][118][119][120]

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 different countries.[121] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 373 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18.2%. No paper on climate change consensus based on this survey has been published yet (February 2010), but one on another subject has been published based on the survey.[122]

The survey was composed of 76 questions split into a number of sections. There were sections on the demographics of the respondents, their assessment of the state of climate science, how good the science is, climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation, their opinion of the IPCC, and how well climate science was being communicated to the public. Most of the answers were on a scale from 1 to 7 from 'not at all' to 'very much'.

To the question "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?", 67.1% said they very much agreed, 26.7% agreed to some large extent, 6.2% said to they agreed to some small extent (2–4), none said they did not agree at all. To the question "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" the responses were 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent, 15.1% to a small extent, and 1.35% not agreeing at all.

A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. The authors summarised the findings:

It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.[123]

A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:

(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[124]

A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers matching "global warming" or "global climate change". They found 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming, and of these 97.1% endorsed the consensus position.[125]

James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[126] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[127]

Add 112 to the entry numbers below to correlate to endnote references in the text.

1. Anderegg, William R L; Prall, James W.; Harold, Jacob; Schneider, Stephen H. (2010)."Expert credibility in climate change". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 107 (27): 12107–9.Bibcode:2010PNAS..10712107A. doi:10.1073/pnas.1003187107. PMC 2901439.PMID 20566872. Retrieved 22 August 2011.
2. Jump up^ Doran consensus article 2009
3. Jump up^ John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli, Sarah A Green, Mark Richardson, Bärbel Winkler, Rob Painting, Robert Way, Peter Jacobs. Andrew Skuce (15 May 2013). "Expert credibility in climate change". Environ. Res. Lett. 8 (2): 024024. Bibcode:2013ERL.....8b4024C.doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024.
4. Jump up^ Naomi Oreskes (December 3, 2004). "Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" (PDF). Science 306 (5702): 1686. doi:10.1126/science.1103618.PMID 15576594. (see also for an exchange of letters to Science)
5. Jump up^ Lavelle, Marianne (2008-04-23). "Survey Tracks Scientists' Growing Climate Concern". U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved 2010-01-20.
6. Jump up^ Lichter, S. Robert (2008-04-24). "Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don't Trust the Media's Coverage of Climate Change". Statistical Assessment Service, George Mason University. Retrieved 2010-01-20.
7. Jump up^ ""Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change" at Journalist's Resource.org".
8. Jump up^ Stephen J. Farnsworth, S. Robert Lichter (October 27, 2011). "The Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change". International Journal of Public Opinion Research. Retrieved December 2, 2011.
9. Jump up^ Bray, Dennis; von Storch, Hans (2009). "A Survey of the Perspectives of Climate Scientists Concerning Climate Science and Climate Change" (PDF).
10. Jump up^ Bray, D.; von Storch H. (2009). "Prediction' or 'Projection; The nomenclature of climate science". Science Communication 30 (4): 534–543. doi:10.1177/1075547009333698.
11. Jump up^ Doran, Peter T.; Maggie Kendall Zimmerman (January 20, 2009). "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" (PDF). EOS 90 (3): 22–23.Bibcode:2009EOSTr..90...22D. doi:10.1029/2009EO030002.
12. Jump up^ Anderegg, William R L; Prall, James W.; Harold, Jacob; Schneider, Stephen H. (2010)."Expert credibility in climate change" (PDF). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 107 (27): 12107–9. Bibcode:2010PNAS..10712107A. doi:10.1073/pnas.1003187107.PMC 2901439. PMID 20566872.
13. Jump up^ Cook, J.; Nuccitelli, D.; Green, S.A.; Richardson, M.; Winkler, B.; Painting, R.; Way, R.; Jacobs, P.; Skuc, A. (2013). "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature". Environ. Res. Lett. 8 (2): 024024.Bibcode:2013ERL.....8b4024C. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024.
14. Jump up^ Plait, P. (11 December 2012). "Why Climate Change Denial Is Just Hot Air". Slate. Retrieved 14 February 2014.
15. Jump up^ Plait, P. (14 January 2014). "The Very, Very Thin Wedge of Denial". Slate. Retrieved14 February 2014.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

More than a couple

Flat Earth Society agrees the Earth is Flat

 

[CrusaderFrank]

n the professional field of climate science, the consensus is unequivocal: human activities are causing climate change and additional anthropogenic CO2may cause great disruption to the climate.

32,000 Sounds Like A Lot
In fact, OISM signatories represent a tiny fraction (~0.3%) of all US science graduates (petition cards were only sent to individuals within the U.S)

According to figures from the US Department of Education Digest of Education Statistics: 2008, 10.6 million science graduates have gained qualifications consistent with the OISM polling criteria since the 1970-71 school year. 32,000 out of 10 million is not a very compelling figure, but a tiny minority - approximately 0.3 per cent.

There are many issues casting doubt on the validity of this petition. On investigation, attempts to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change often appear to have ideological roots, vested business interests or political sponsors. The claims made for the OISM petition do not withstand objective scrutiny, and the assertions made in the petition are not supported by evidence, data or scientific research.

Several studies conducted independently (Oreskes 2004, Oreskes 2007, Doran and Zimmerman (2009), Anderegg et al. (2010), Cook et. al., 2013) have shown that 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are causing the climate to change, and that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are causing global changes to theclimate. These views form the scientific consensus on climate change.

Basic rebuttal written by GPWayne

Comments 1 to 33:

1. Nick Palmer at 20:26 PM on 16 April, 2010
   I've posted this before but I haven't seen the point understood yet.
   
   The actual wording of a major part of the petition is so constructed that even fully legit climatologists - even James Hansen - could happily sign it.
   
   It is this bit (the second paragraph):
   There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.
   
   The weasel wording is "is causing or will", which are 100% definitive statements (there's no probability in them). Catastrophic heating/disruption is by no means certain so the average pernicketty scientist could sign with a clear conscience.
   
   The first paragraph may have just been skated over by respondents as out of date now (by mentioning 1997...)

The OISM petition was never vetted, and many of the names are in doubt. It is the last resort of those that have nothing else, and it amounts to nothing.

The Warmers never approved the petition...hilarious!

 

[Crick]

A lot more than a couple

Surveys of scientists' views on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1990s

• Global Environmental Change Report, 1990: GECR climate survey shows strong agreement on action, less so on warming. Global Environmental Change Report 2, No. 9, pp. 1–3
• In 1991, the Center for Science, Technology, and Media conducted a survey of 118 scientists regarding views on the climate change.[1] Analysis by the authors of the respondents projections of warming and agreement with statements about warming resulted in them categorizing response in 3 "clusters": 13 (15%) expressing skepticism of the 1990 IPCC estimate, 39 (44%) expressing uncertainty with the IPCC estimate, and 37 (42%) agreeing with the IPCC estimate.
• Stewart, T. R.,[2] Mumpower, J. L., and Reagan-Cirincione, P. (1992). Scientists' opinions about global climate change: Summary of the results of a survey. NAEP (National Association of Environmental Professionals) Newsletter, 17(2), 6-7.
• A Gallup poll of 400 members of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society along with an analysis of reporting on global warming by theCenter for Media and Public Affairs, a report on which was issued in 1992. Accounts of the results of that survey differ in their interpretation and even in the basic statistical percentages:
  • Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting states that the report said that 67% of the scientists said that human-induced global warming was occurring, with 11% disagreeing and the rest undecided.[3]
  • George Will reported "53 percent do not believe warming has occurred, and another 30 percent are uncertain." (Washington Post, September 3, 1992). In a correction Gallup stated: "Most scientists involved in research in this area believe that human-induced global warming is occurring now."[4]
• In 1996, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch undertook a survey of climate scientists on attitudes towards global warming and related matters. The results were subsequently published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.[5] The paper addressed the views of climate scientists, with a response rate of 40% from a mail survey questionnaire to 1000 scientists in Germany, the USA and Canada. Most of the scientists believed that global warming was occurring and appropriate policy action should be taken, but there was wide disagreement about the likely effects on society and almost all agreed that the predictive ability of currently existing models was limited. On a scale of 1 (highest confidence) to 7 (lowest confidence) regarding belief in the ability to make "reasonable predictions" the mean was 4.8 and 5.2 for 10- and 100-year predictions, respectively. On the question of whether global warming is occurring or will occur, the mean response was 3.3, and for future prospects of warming the mean was 2.6.
• In 1997, the conservative think tank Citizens for a Sound Economy surveyed America's 48 state climatologists on questions related to climate change.[6] Of the 36 respondents, 44% considered global warming to be a largely natural phenomenon, compared to 17% who considered warming to be largely man-made. 89% agreed that "current science is unable to isolate and measure variations in global temperatures caused ONLY by man-made factors," and 61% said that historical data do not indicate "that fluctuations in global temperatures are attributable to human influences such as burning fossil fuels", though the time scale for the next glacial period was not specified.

Early 2000s
In 2003, Bray and von Storch conducted a survey of the perspectives of climate scientists on global climate change.[7] The survey received 530 responses from 27 different countries. The 2003 survey has been strongly criticized on the grounds that it was performed on the web with no means to verify that the respondents were climate scientists or to prevent multiple submissions. The survey required entry of a username and password, but the username and password were circulated to a climate skeptics mailing list and elsewhere on the internet.[citation needed] Bray and von Storch defended their results and accused climate change skeptics of interpreting the results with bias. Bray's submission toScience on December 22, 2004 was rejected.[citation needed]

One of the questions asked in the survey was "To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes?", with a value of 1 indicating strongly agree and a value of 7 indicating strongly disagree.[8] The results showed a mean of 3.62, with 50 responses (9.4%) indicating "strongly agree" and 54 responses (9.7%) indicating "strongly disagree". The same survey indicates a 72% to 20% endorsement of the IPCC reports as accurate, and a 15% to 80% rejection of the thesis that "there is enough uncertainty about the phenomenon of global warming that there is no need for immediate policy decisions."[citation needed]

Oreskes, 2004
A 2004 article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[9] The essay concluded that there is ascientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, listed with the keywords "global climate change". Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories, thus either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change; none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."

STATS, 2007
In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. The survey found 97% agreed that global temperatures have increased during the past 100 years; 84% say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; 41% say they thought the effects of global warming would be near catastrophic over the next 50-100 years; 44% say said effects would be moderately dangerous; 13% saw relatively little danger; 56% say global climate change is a mature science; 39% say it is an emerging science. [10] [11]

Bray and von Storch, 2008
Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, of the Institute for Coastal Research at the Helmholtz Research Centre in Germany, conducted an online survey in August 2008, of 2,059 climate scientists from 34 different countries, the third survey on this topic by these authors.[12] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 375 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18%. The climate change consensus results were published by Bray,[13] and another paper has also been published based on the survey.[14]

The survey was composed of 76 questions split into a number of sections. There were sections on the demographics of the respondents, their assessment of the state of climate science, how good the science is, climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation, their opinion of the IPCC, and how well climate science was being communicated to the public. Most of the answers were on a scale from 1 to 7 from 'not at all' to 'very much'.[12]

In the section on climate change impacts, questions 20 and 21 were relevant to scientific opinion on climate change. Question 20, "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?" Answers: 67.1% very much convinced (7), 26.7% to some large extent (5–6), 6.2% said to some small extent (2–4), none said not at all. Question 21, "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" Answers: 34.6% very much convinced (7), 48.9% being convinced to a large extent (5–6), 15.1% to a small extent (2–4), and 1.35% not convinced at all (1).[12]

Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009
This paper is an abridged version of the Zimmerman 2008 MS thesis; the full methods are in the MS thesis.[15] A web-based poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman of the Earth and Environmental Sciences department, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. The survey was designed to take less than two minutes to complete. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures had generally risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. 76 out of the 79 respondents who "listed climate science as their area of expertise, and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change", thought that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. Of those 79 scientists, 75 out of the 77 answered that human activity was a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. The remaining two were not asked, because in question one they responded that temperatures had remained relatively constant. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent respectively thinking that human activity was a significant contributing factor. In summary, Doran and Zimmerman wrote:

It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.[16]

Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2010

97–98% of the most published climate researchers say humans are very likely causing most global warming.[17] In another study 97.4% of publishing specialists in climate change say that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.[16]
Anderegg et al., in a 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS), reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers, based on authorship of scientific assessment reports and membership on multisignatory statements about anthropogenic climate change. The number of climate-relevant publications authored or coauthored by each researcher was used to define their 'expertise', and the number of citations for each of the researcher's four highest-cited papers was used to define their 'prominence'. Removing researchers who had authored less than 20 climate publications reduced the database to 908 researchers but did not materially alter the results. The authors of the paper say that their database of researchers "is not comprehensive nor designed to be representative of the entire climate science community," but say that since they drew the researchers from the most high-profile reports and public statements, it is likely that it represents the "strongest and most credentialed" researchers both 'convinced by the evidence' (CE) and 'unconvinced by the evidence' (UE) on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change.[17] [18]

Anderegg et al. drew the following two conclusions:

(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[17]

The methodology of the Anderegg et al. study was challenged in PNAS by Lawrence Bodenstein for "treat[ing] publication metrics as a surrogate for expertise". He would expect the much larger side of the climate change controversy to excel in certain publication metrics as they "continue to cite each other's work in an upward spiral of self-affirmation".[19]Anderegg et al. replied that Bodenstein "raises many speculative points without offering data" and that his comment "misunderstands our study's framing and stands in direct contrast to two prominent conclusions in the paper.[20]

Another criticism of the Anderegg et al. study was that dividing the researchers into just two groups, "unconvinced" and "convinced," doesn't capture the nuances of scientific views. This "reinforces the pathological politicization of climate science," Roger Pielke Jr. wrote. Co-author Prall said that "It would be helpful to have lukewarm [as] a third category," but added that the paper provides a measure of the scientific prominence of researchers who identify with certain views.[18]

Farnsworth and Lichter, 2011
In an October 2011 paper published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, researchers from George Mason University analyzed the results of a survey of 998 scientists working in academia, government, and industry. The scientists polled were members of the American Geophysical Union or the American Meteorological Society and listed in the 23rd edition of American Men and Women of Science, a biographical reference work on leading American scientists, and 489 returned completed questionnaires. Of those who replied, 97% agreed that global temperatures have risen over the past century. 84% agreed that "human-induced greenhouse warming is now occurring," 5% disagreed, and 12% didn't know.[21][22]

When asked "What do you think is the % probability of human-induced global warming raising global average temperatures by two degrees Celsius or more during the next 50 to 100 years?’’: 19% of respondents answered less than 50% probability, 56% said over 50%, and 26% didn't know.[22]

When asked what they regard as "the likely effects of global climate change in the next 50 to 100 years," on a scale of 1 to 10, from Trivial to Catastrophic: 13% of respondents replied 1 to 3 (trivial/mild), 44% replied 4 to 7 (moderate), 41% replied 8 to 10 (severe/catastrophic), and 2% didn't know.[22]

Lefsrud and Meyer, 2012
Lefsrud and Meyer surveyed members of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA), a professional association for the petroleum industryin Alberta. The aims of the study included examining the respondents' "legitimation of themselves as experts on 'the truth', and their attitudes towards regulatory measures."[23]Writing later, the authors added, "we surveyed engineers and geologists because their professions dominate the oil industry and their views on climate change influence the positions taken by governments, think tanks and environmental groups."[24]

The authors found that 99.4% agreed that the global climate is changing but that "the debate of the causes of climate change is particularly virulent among them." Analyzing their responses, the authors labelled 36% of respondents 'comply with Kyoto', as "they express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause."[23] 'Regulation activists' (10%) "diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life." Skeptical of anthropogenic warming (sum 51%) they labelled 'nature is overwhelming' (24%), 'economic responsibility' (10%), and 'fatalists' (17%). Respondents giving these responses disagreed in various ways with mainstream scientific opinion on climate change, expressing views such as that climate change is 'natural', that its causes are unknown, that it is harmless, or that regulation such as that represented by Kyoto Protocol is in itself harmful.[23]

They found that respondents that support regulation (46%) ('comply with Kyoto' and 'regulation activists') were "significantly more likely to be lower in the organizational hierarchy, younger, female, and working in government", while those that oppose regulation ('nature is overwhelming' and 'economic responsibility') were "significantly more likely to be more senior in their organizations, male, older, geoscientists, and work in the oil and gas industry".[23] Discussing the study in 2013, the authors ask if such political divisions distract decision-makers from confronting the risk that climate change presents to businesses and the economy.[24]

John Cook et al., 2013
Cook et al. examined 11,944 abstracts from the peer-reviewed scientific literature from 1991–2011 that matched the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. They found that, while 66.4% of them expressed no position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), of those that did, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are contributing to global warming. They also invited authors to rate their own papers and found that, while 35.5% rated their paper as expressing no position on AGW, 97.2% of the rest endorsed the consensus. In both cases the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position was marginally increasing over time. They concluded that the number of papers actually rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.[25]

In their discussion of the results in 2007, the authors said that the large proportion of abstracts that state no position on AGW is as expected in a consensus situation,[26] adding that "the fundamental science of AGW is no longer controversial among the publishing science community and the remaining debate in the field has moved on to other topics."[25]

In Science & Education in August 2013 David Legates and three coauthors reviewed the corpus used by Cook et al. In their assessment, "inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1% consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3% endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic."

However, as the paper took issue in the definition of consensus, the definition of consensus was split into several levels: In the end, of all the abstracts that took a position on the subject, 22.97% and 72.50% were found to take an explicit but unquantified endorsement position or an implicit endorsement position, respectively. The 0.3% figure represents abstracts taking a position of "Actually endorsing the standard definition" of all the abstracts (1.02% of all position-taking abstracts), where the "standard definition" was juxtaposed with an "unquantified definition" drawn from the 2013 Cook et al. paper as follows:

• The unquantified definition: ‘‘The consensus position that humans are causing global warming’’
• The standard definition: As stated in their introduction, that ‘‘human activity is very likely causing most of the current warming (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW)’’

Criticism was also made to the "arbitrary" exclusion of non-position-taking abstracts as well as other issues of definitions. [27]

Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils-Axel Mörner, who question the consensus, were cited in a Wall Street Journal article by Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer disputing the 97% figure, as Climate scientists who assert that Cook misrepresented their work.[28]

Climate economist Richard Tol has also been a persistent critic of the Cook et al. paper, arguing that the authors "used an unrepresentative sample, left out much useful data, used biased observers who disagreed with the authors of the papers they were classifying nearly two-thirds of the time, and collected and analysed the data in such a way as to allow the authors to adjust their preliminary conclusions as they went along." [29] Cook et al. replied to Tol's criticisms, pointing out that "the 97% consensus has passed peer-review, while Tol's criticisms have not." [30]

A new paper [31] by Rasmus E. Benestad, Dana Nuccitelli, Stephan Lewandowsky, Katharine Hayhoe, Hans Olav Hygen, Rob van Dorland, and John Cook examined the quality of the 3% of peer-reviewed papers discovered by this work to reject the consensus view. They discovered that "replication reveals a number of methodological flaws, and a pattern of common mistakes emerges that is not visible when looking at single isolated cases".

Powell, 2013
James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[32]This was a follow-up to an analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[33]

 

[CrusaderFrank]

A lot more than a couple

1990s

• Global Environmental Change Report, 1990: GECR climate survey shows strong agreement on action, less so on warming. Global Environmental Change Report 2, No. 9, pp. 1–3
• In 1991, the Center for Science, Technology, and Media conducted a survey of 118 scientists regarding views on the climate change.[1] Analysis by the authors of the respondents projections of warming and agreement with statements about warming resulted in them categorizing response in 3 "clusters": 13 (15%) expressing skepticism of the 1990 IPCC estimate, 39 (44%) expressing uncertainty with the IPCC estimate, and 37 (42%) agreeing with the IPCC estimate.
• Stewart, T. R.,[2] Mumpower, J. L., and Reagan-Cirincione, P. (1992). Scientists' opinions about global climate change: Summary of the results of a survey. NAEP (National Association of Environmental Professionals) Newsletter, 17(2), 6-7.
• A Gallup poll of 400 members of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society along with an analysis of reporting on global warming by theCenter for Media and Public Affairs, a report on which was issued in 1992. Accounts of the results of that survey differ in their interpretation and even in the basic statistical percentages:
  • Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting states that the report said that 67% of the scientists said that human-induced global warming was occurring, with 11% disagreeing and the rest undecided.[3]
  • George Will reported "53 percent do not believe warming has occurred, and another 30 percent are uncertain." (Washington Post, September 3, 1992). In a correction Gallup stated: "Most scientists involved in research in this area believe that human-induced global warming is occurring now."[4]
• In 1996, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch undertook a survey of climate scientists on attitudes towards global warming and related matters. The results were subsequently published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.[5] The paper addressed the views of climate scientists, with a response rate of 40% from a mail survey questionnaire to 1000 scientists in Germany, the USA and Canada. Most of the scientists believed that global warming was occurring and appropriate policy action should be taken, but there was wide disagreement about the likely effects on society and almost all agreed that the predictive ability of currently existing models was limited. On a scale of 1 (highest confidence) to 7 (lowest confidence) regarding belief in the ability to make "reasonable predictions" the mean was 4.8 and 5.2 for 10- and 100-year predictions, respectively. On the question of whether global warming is occurring or will occur, the mean response was 3.3, and for future prospects of warming the mean was 2.6.
• In 1997, the conservative think tank Citizens for a Sound Economy surveyed America's 48 state climatologists on questions related to climate change.[6] Of the 36 respondents, 44% considered global warming to be a largely natural phenomenon, compared to 17% who considered warming to be largely man-made. 89% agreed that "current science is unable to isolate and measure variations in global temperatures caused ONLY by man-made factors," and 61% said that historical data do not indicate "that fluctuations in global temperatures are attributable to human influences such as burning fossil fuels", though the time scale for the next glacial period was not specified.

Early 2000s
In 2003, Bray and von Storch conducted a survey of the perspectives of climate scientists on global climate change.[7] The survey received 530 responses from 27 different countries. The 2003 survey has been strongly criticized on the grounds that it was performed on the web with no means to verify that the respondents were climate scientists or to prevent multiple submissions. The survey required entry of a username and password, but the username and password were circulated to a climate skeptics mailing list and elsewhere on the internet.[citation needed] Bray and von Storch defended their results and accused climate change skeptics of interpreting the results with bias. Bray's submission toScience on December 22, 2004 was rejected.[citation needed]

One of the questions asked in the survey was "To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes?", with a value of 1 indicating strongly agree and a value of 7 indicating strongly disagree.[8] The results showed a mean of 3.62, with 50 responses (9.4%) indicating "strongly agree" and 54 responses (9.7%) indicating "strongly disagree". The same survey indicates a 72% to 20% endorsement of the IPCC reports as accurate, and a 15% to 80% rejection of the thesis that "there is enough uncertainty about the phenomenon of global warming that there is no need for immediate policy decisions."[citation needed]

Oreskes, 2004
A 2004 article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[9] The essay concluded that there is ascientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, listed with the keywords "global climate change". Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories, thus either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change; none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."

STATS, 2007
In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. The survey found 97% agreed that global temperatures have increased during the past 100 years; 84% say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; 41% say they thought the effects of global warming would be near catastrophic over the next 50-100 years; 44% say said effects would be moderately dangerous; 13% saw relatively little danger; 56% say global climate change is a mature science; 39% say it is an emerging science. [10] [11]

Bray and von Storch, 2008
Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, of the Institute for Coastal Research at the Helmholtz Research Centre in Germany, conducted an online survey in August 2008, of 2,059 climate scientists from 34 different countries, the third survey on this topic by these authors.[12] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 375 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18%. The climate change consensus results were published by Bray,[13] and another paper has also been published based on the survey.[14]

The survey was composed of 76 questions split into a number of sections. There were sections on the demographics of the respondents, their assessment of the state of climate science, how good the science is, climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation, their opinion of the IPCC, and how well climate science was being communicated to the public. Most of the answers were on a scale from 1 to 7 from 'not at all' to 'very much'.[12]

In the section on climate change impacts, questions 20 and 21 were relevant to scientific opinion on climate change. Question 20, "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?" Answers: 67.1% very much convinced (7), 26.7% to some large extent (5–6), 6.2% said to some small extent (2–4), none said not at all. Question 21, "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" Answers: 34.6% very much convinced (7), 48.9% being convinced to a large extent (5–6), 15.1% to a small extent (2–4), and 1.35% not convinced at all (1).[12]

Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009
This paper is an abridged version of the Zimmerman 2008 MS thesis; the full methods are in the MS thesis.[15] A web-based poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman of the Earth and Environmental Sciences department, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. The survey was designed to take less than two minutes to complete. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures had generally risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. 76 out of the 79 respondents who "listed climate science as their area of expertise, and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change", thought that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. Of those 79 scientists, 75 out of the 77 answered that human activity was a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. The remaining two were not asked, because in question one they responded that temperatures had remained relatively constant. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent respectively thinking that human activity was a significant contributing factor. In summary, Doran and Zimmerman wrote:

It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.[16]

Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2010

97–98% of the most published climate researchers say humans are very likely causing most global warming.[17] In another study 97.4% of publishing specialists in climate change say that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.[16]
Anderegg et al., in a 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS), reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers, based on authorship of scientific assessment reports and membership on multisignatory statements about anthropogenic climate change. The number of climate-relevant publications authored or coauthored by each researcher was used to define their 'expertise', and the number of citations for each of the researcher's four highest-cited papers was used to define their 'prominence'. Removing researchers who had authored less than 20 climate publications reduced the database to 908 researchers but did not materially alter the results. The authors of the paper say that their database of researchers "is not comprehensive nor designed to be representative of the entire climate science community," but say that since they drew the researchers from the most high-profile reports and public statements, it is likely that it represents the "strongest and most credentialed" researchers both 'convinced by the evidence' (CE) and 'unconvinced by the evidence' (UE) on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change.[17] [18]

Anderegg et al. drew the following two conclusions:

(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[17]

The methodology of the Anderegg et al. study was challenged in PNAS by Lawrence Bodenstein for "treat[ing] publication metrics as a surrogate for expertise". He would expect the much larger side of the climate change controversy to excel in certain publication metrics as they "continue to cite each other's work in an upward spiral of self-affirmation".[19]Anderegg et al. replied that Bodenstein "raises many speculative points without offering data" and that his comment "misunderstands our study's framing and stands in direct contrast to two prominent conclusions in the paper.[20]

Another criticism of the Anderegg et al. study was that dividing the researchers into just two groups, "unconvinced" and "convinced," doesn't capture the nuances of scientific views. This "reinforces the pathological politicization of climate science," Roger Pielke Jr. wrote. Co-author Prall said that "It would be helpful to have lukewarm [as] a third category," but added that the paper provides a measure of the scientific prominence of researchers who identify with certain views.[18]

Farnsworth and Lichter, 2011
In an October 2011 paper published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, researchers from George Mason University analyzed the results of a survey of 998 scientists working in academia, government, and industry. The scientists polled were members of the American Geophysical Union or the American Meteorological Society and listed in the 23rd edition of American Men and Women of Science, a biographical reference work on leading American scientists, and 489 returned completed questionnaires. Of those who replied, 97% agreed that global temperatures have risen over the past century. 84% agreed that "human-induced greenhouse warming is now occurring," 5% disagreed, and 12% didn't know.[21][22]

When asked "What do you think is the % probability of human-induced global warming raising global average temperatures by two degrees Celsius or more during the next 50 to 100 years?’’: 19% of respondents answered less than 50% probability, 56% said over 50%, and 26% didn't know.[22]

When asked what they regard as "the likely effects of global climate change in the next 50 to 100 years," on a scale of 1 to 10, from Trivial to Catastrophic: 13% of respondents replied 1 to 3 (trivial/mild), 44% replied 4 to 7 (moderate), 41% replied 8 to 10 (severe/catastrophic), and 2% didn't know.[22]

Lefsrud and Meyer, 2012
Lefsrud and Meyer surveyed members of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA), a professional association for the petroleum industryin Alberta. The aims of the study included examining the respondents' "legitimation of themselves as experts on 'the truth', and their attitudes towards regulatory measures."[23]Writing later, the authors added, "we surveyed engineers and geologists because their professions dominate the oil industry and their views on climate change influence the positions taken by governments, think tanks and environmental groups."[24]

The authors found that 99.4% agreed that the global climate is changing but that "the debate of the causes of climate change is particularly virulent among them." Analyzing their responses, the authors labelled 36% of respondents 'comply with Kyoto', as "they express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause."[23] 'Regulation activists' (10%) "diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life." Skeptical of anthropogenic warming (sum 51%) they labelled 'nature is overwhelming' (24%), 'economic responsibility' (10%), and 'fatalists' (17%). Respondents giving these responses disagreed in various ways with mainstream scientific opinion on climate change, expressing views such as that climate change is 'natural', that its causes are unknown, that it is harmless, or that regulation such as that represented by Kyoto Protocol is in itself harmful.[23]

They found that respondents that support regulation (46%) ('comply with Kyoto' and 'regulation activists') were "significantly more likely to be lower in the organizational hierarchy, younger, female, and working in government", while those that oppose regulation ('nature is overwhelming' and 'economic responsibility') were "significantly more likely to be more senior in their organizations, male, older, geoscientists, and work in the oil and gas industry".[23] Discussing the study in 2013, the authors ask if such political divisions distract decision-makers from confronting the risk that climate change presents to businesses and the economy.[24]

John Cook et al., 2013
Cook et al. examined 11,944 abstracts from the peer-reviewed scientific literature from 1991–2011 that matched the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. They found that, while 66.4% of them expressed no position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), of those that did, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are contributing to global warming. They also invited authors to rate their own papers and found that, while 35.5% rated their paper as expressing no position on AGW, 97.2% of the rest endorsed the consensus. In both cases the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position was marginally increasing over time. They concluded that the number of papers actually rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.[25]

In their discussion of the results in 2007, the authors said that the large proportion of abstracts that state no position on AGW is as expected in a consensus situation,[26] adding that "the fundamental science of AGW is no longer controversial among the publishing science community and the remaining debate in the field has moved on to other topics."[25]

In Science & Education in August 2013 David Legates and three coauthors reviewed the corpus used by Cook et al. In their assessment, "inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1% consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3% endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic."

However, as the paper took issue in the definition of consensus, the definition of consensus was split into several levels: In the end, of all the abstracts that took a position on the subject, 22.97% and 72.50% were found to take an explicit but unquantified endorsement position or an implicit endorsement position, respectively. The 0.3% figure represents abstracts taking a position of "Actually endorsing the standard definition" of all the abstracts (1.02% of all position-taking abstracts), where the "standard definition" was juxtaposed with an "unquantified definition" drawn from the 2013 Cook et al. paper as follows:

• The unquantified definition: ‘‘The consensus position that humans are causing global warming’’
• The standard definition: As stated in their introduction, that ‘‘human activity is very likely causing most of the current warming (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW)’’

Criticism was also made to the "arbitrary" exclusion of non-position-taking abstracts as well as other issues of definitions. [27]

Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils-Axel Mörner, who question the consensus, were cited in a Wall Street Journal article by Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer disputing the 97% figure, as Climate scientists who assert that Cook misrepresented their work.[28]

Climate economist Richard Tol has also been a persistent critic of the Cook et al. paper, arguing that the authors "used an unrepresentative sample, left out much useful data, used biased observers who disagreed with the authors of the papers they were classifying nearly two-thirds of the time, and collected and analysed the data in such a way as to allow the authors to adjust their preliminary conclusions as they went along." [29] Cook et al. replied to Tol's criticisms, pointing out that "the 97% consensus has passed peer-review, while Tol's criticisms have not." [30]

A new paper [31] by Rasmus E. Benestad, Dana Nuccitelli, Stephan Lewandowsky, Katharine Hayhoe, Hans Olav Hygen, Rob van Dorland, and John Cook examined the quality of the 3% of peer-reviewed papers discovered by this work to reject the consensus view. They discovered that "replication reveals a number of methodological flaws, and a pattern of common mistakes emerges that is not visible when looking at single isolated cases".

Powell, 2013
James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[32]This was a follow-up to an analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[33]

Flat Earth Society agrees the Earth is Flat

 

[Crick]

The Warmers never approved the petition...hilarious!

The Oregon petition is worthless crap.

Show us a SURVEY or POLL demonstrating that anything less than an overwhelming majority of climate scientists accept AGW.

I've made this request of you all a dozen times. You have no response because you have no such poll or survey. You have no such poll or survey because an overwhelming majority of climate scientists accept AGW.

Read it and weep, bitches.

 

[westwall]

The Warmers never approved the petition...hilarious!

The Oregon petition is worthless crap.

Show us a SURVEY or POLL demonstrating that anything less than an overwhelming majority of climate scientists accept AGW.

I've made this request of you all a dozen times. You have no response because you have no such poll or survey. You have no such poll or survey because an overwhelming majority of climate scientists accept AGW.

Read it and weep, bitches.

So is everything you posted. Cook? Get real. The guys a clown who cooked his numbers so bad an infant can see it. So....why can't you? Oh, yeah. You're a propagandist, you'll spew whatever you masters tell you too.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Warmers never approved the petition...hilarious!

The Oregon petition is worthless crap.

Show us a SURVEY or POLL demonstrating that anything less than an overwhelming majority of climate scientists accept AGW.

I've made this request of you all a dozen times. You have no response because you have no such poll or survey. You have no such poll or survey because an overwhelming majority of climate scientists accept AGW.

Read it and weep, bitches.

Climate science is a defacto misnomer. Pointing at the Weather Channel and shrieking "CLIMATE CHANGE, DENIER!! OFF THE DENIERS!!!" is not science

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We all know that Climate "Science" is EnviroMarism and a scheme to redistribute wealth. The IPCC said so right out in the open and that's one of the few AGW statement where I can concur

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore..."- See more at: UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy'