Seems awful cold for the "hottest" year on record

[Crepitus]

name the scientist, link to his science, quote and comment, otherwise you just did what you posted, I am suppose to believe you, without any evidence from scientists.

kind of like, you are the rodent in your meme

 

[Crepitus]

Yes, it's so fake they had to change the name.


DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

 

[elektra]

Crapitus is incapable. It is getting very close to being placed on ignore as a troll.

I understand. He gets very emotionally embedded in his/her posts.

It is nice to show people how weak, non-factual crepitisis posts are.

 

[Matted Joybeard]

Okay crick, I will cut to the chase and play the wiki game. Where do I get my information? I am a scientist working for the solar and wind power industry. I have also worked for geothermal so you can get an education from me on geothermal as well. Nuclear power is my cup of tea. I have been requested to go to Spain four times, Argentina once, Brazil 22 times, Canada 36 times, England once. So where do I get my information. Being intelligent and working in a scientific field, I learn. As most intelligent people do.

Wikipedia is just an article. I will show how much fun it is, rubbing cricks nose in the shit.
First the article does give us references. I will check out the references until the first 6 references all prove crick does not know a damn thing.

Nice, the article starts by saying it is so. Dictating. And for reference they reference the IPCC, which crick tells us does not do any sort of research at all. Just an organization? So what good is a source that says they are using another source, the IPCC, and the IPCC will be using another source to make the claim

Crick says use Wikipedia, says use IPCC, says use....

There is a nearly unanimous scientific consensus that the Earth has been consistently warming since the start of the Industrial Revolution, that the rate of recent warming is largely unprecedented,[1]: 8 [2]: 11 
First link given to the IPCC report? Am I suppose to read the entire 100,000 page report to see what the fuck crick thinks he referenced?
Second link to the .gov site on what? https://www.globalchange.gov/our-work/fifth-national-climate-assessment
Oh, to the fifth assessment? Is this what crick refers to? And there is another link to follow to the actual fifth assessment?

More crick bullshit that crick dont read. I will ignore all these links to nowhere, okay, crick

The human activities causing this warming include fossil fuel combustion, cement production, and land use changes such as deforestation,[3]: 10–11  with a significant supporting role from the other greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide.[1]: 7  This human role in climate change is considered "unequivocal" and "incontrovertible".[1]: 4 [2]: 4 

More links? More, I say this, and you must believe, but nothing about the consensus?
This link is to another IPCC report with the 5th assessment. Already been linked to now linked again really forcefully saying, "You must believe."

Billy_Bob 's alt account spotted.

 

[elektra]

Billy_Bob 's alt account spotted.

Moron speaks

 

[elektra]

Billy_Bob 's alt account spotted.

I See you labeled my post quoting the pro green renewable i believe in global warming nuts as fake. Which is true, the post you labeled as fake claims scientist say there is global warming, all 150 of tbem out of thousands

It is fake when people claim scientist say there is global warming

 

[Crick]

Here we go through cricks slimy filthy lies. 1st the piece of shit crick starts by attacking and insulting.

"you ignorant lying ratfucks"

Fine, got that off your chest?

So, you agree that you're ignorant lying ratfucks? Ooooo....

Now, I say, "survey says this not that"

That is NOT what you said, ie, ANOTHER elektra lie. You said

The other surveys were based on the previous surveys.

That is completely and demonstrably false, ie ANOTHER elektra lie, and the proof of that may be found at the provided link

This is where crick is suppose to provide the survey that crick obviously read, which is the only way crick cam disagree.

crick links to an article in wikipedia?

quote and link to the survey crick!

The Wikipedia article contains links to dozens of surveys, studies and polls.

wikipedia is not the survey!!!!!

See how this works, democrats make claims based on hersey.

HAHAHAHAaaahahahaaa....god are you a fucking IDIOT!

 

[Crick]

Billy_Bob 's alt account spotted.

Are you suggesting that elektra is Billy Bob or are you joking??

 

[elektra]

The Wikipedia article contains links to dozens of surveys, studies and polls.

HAHAHAHAaaahahahaaa....god are you a fucking IDIOT!

I quoted only your source crick, the wikipedia article. How is your source wrong?

Crick is a raving lunatic, now crick disagrees with the source crick gave?
This is from Crick's source. Only 153 scientist agree that there is man made global warming
Out of a group of 153 independently confirmed climate experts, 98.7% of those scientists indicated that the Earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels.

 

[Crick]

97%, have never been asked. A small team of researchers applied a question, criteria to published papers and based on how the title fit they used statistics to claim, 97% agree

Your propaganda is sunk. You dont think so, ask crick for the link to the article describing the report.

I will tear it apart, again. Been here dozens of times.

97% of scientist never been asked

Let's have a look at what has actually been done in the way of surveys of scientists views on global warming.

From Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

Surveys of scientists' views on climate change​

See also: History of climate change science

1970s​

The Fourth National Climate Assessment ("NCA4", USGCRP, 2017) includes charts[42] illustrating how human factors, especially accumulation in the atmosphere of greenhouse gases, are the predominant cause of observed global warming.[43] In the 1970s, these factors were less well-understood, and some scientists thought volcanic activity would have a stronger cooling effect than what we know now.

In 1978, the National Defense University of the United States had surveyed 24 experts about the near-term climate change and its effects on agriculture. The majority of respondents had expected some warming to occur between 1970 and 2000, and described human emissions of carbon dioxide as the primary cause, but there was a disagreement on the extent, and a few had thought that an increase in volcanic activity would offset carbon dioxide emissions by elevating atmospheric sulfate concentrations (which have a reflective effect, also associated with global dimming, and with some solar geoengineering proposals) and result in overall cooling. When NDU had combined their predictions, they estimated a 10% likelihood of large (~0.6 °C (1.1 °F)) cooling occurring by 2000, a 25% likelihood of smaller cooling around 0.15 °C (0.27 °F), a 30% likelihood of limited change, with around 0.1 °C (0.18 °F) warming, a 25% likelihood of "moderate" warming of ~0.4 °C (0.72 °F), and a 10% likelihood of large warming of around 1 °C (1.8 °F).[20] Subsequently, about 0.5 °C (0.90 °F) had occurred between 1950 and 2000, with about 0.4 °C (0.72 °F) since 1970,[44] largely matching the survey's "moderate global warming" scenario.

1980s​

In 1989, David H. Slade had surveyed 21 climate scientists, of whom 17 had expressed "a strong belief" in "the reality of a significant climate change".[45][21]

1990s​

In March 1990, Cutter Information Corporation (now known as Cutter Consortium) had had sent questionnaires to 1500 researchers which had been on the attendance lists of climate change conferences and received 331 responses from 41 countries. The survey revealed widespread agreement that global warming is already happening, that it will result in negative impacts such as sea level rise, and that reducing carbon dioxide emissions and halting deforestation is an appropriate response to it. Only 1.9% of respondents predicted that there would be an overall cooling across the next 100 years. There was more disagreement on the strength of future warming: i.e. around 30% believed that there was a less than 50% chance that the warming would reach or exceed 2 °C (3.6 °F) over the next 100 years, while a larger fraction (almost 40%) thought such temperatures were at least 75% likely.[46][21]

In 1991, the Center for Science, Technology, and Media sent a survey of 6 questions to around 4000 ocean and atmospheric scientists from 45 countries, and received 118 responses by January 1992, with 91% from North America. Out of those 118 scientists, 73 have either agreed or "strongly" agreed with the statement "There is little doubt among scientists that global mean temperature will increase", while 27 had disagreed and only 9 had "strongly disagreed", with the remaining 9 "neutral". 58 scientists had agreed that the effects of climate change are expected to be "substantial" by the scientific community as a whole, with 36 disagreeing and 21 staying neutral. Finally, when asked about the 1990 IPCC estimate of warming proceeding at 0.3 °F (0.17 °C) per decade throughout the 21st century under the business-as-usual climate change scenario, 13 (15%) expressed skepticism, 39 (44%) had emphasized uncertainty, and 37 (42%) had agreed. 52% thought the rate of warming would likely be lower, and 8% thought it would be higher.[21] As of 2023, the rate of warming had been 0.2 °F (0.11 °C) or less.[47]

In 1996, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, a pair of researchers at the Helmholtz Research Centre's Institute for Coastal Research, sent a questionnaire over mail to 1000 climate scientists in Germany, the United States and Canada. 40% responded, and the results subsequently published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society in 1999. On a scale of 1 out of 7, where higher numbers indicated greater disagreement, "global warming is already underway" had a mean rating of 3.4, and "global warming will occur in the future" had an even greater agreement of 2.6 Surveyed scientists had less confidence in the accuracy of contemporary climate models, rating their ability to make "reasonable predictions" 10 years out at 4.8, and 5.2 for 100-year predictions: however, they consistently rejected the notion that there was too much uncertainty to justify taking immediate action, with a mean 5.6 out of 7 rating. In fact, they usually agreed there was substantial uncertainty about how strongly the impacts will affect society, and that many changes would likely be necessary to adapt.[22]

2000–2004​

In 2003, Bray and von Storch repeated their 1996 survey, using the same response structure with ratings on a 1–7 scale, and including all of the original questions. Further, new questions were added, which were devoted to climate change adaptation and media coverage of climate change. This second survey received 530 responses from 27 different countries, but it 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. While the survey required entry of a username and password, its critics alleged that both were circulated to non-scientists, including to a climate change denial mailing list. Bray and von Storch defended their results, claiming that a statistical analysis with a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and a Wald–Wolfowitz runs test revealed no significant irregularities.[48]

In general, the second survey had demonstrated an increase in scientific confidence relative to the first. One of the greatest increases was for the statement "We can say for certain that global warming is a process already underway", where 1 represented strong agreement and 7 strong disagreement: the mean response went from 3.39 to 2.41. In response to the question, "To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes?", it went from 4.17 to 3.62.[48] Notably, the percentage of respondents "strongly disagreeing" stayed the same, at 10%, and a similar percentage stayed neutral (14% in 1996 and 13% in 2003): yet, the overall split went from 41% agreement and 45% disagreement in 1996 to 56% agreement and 30% disagreement in 2003, as there was both a substantial increase in agreement and a decline percentage of those disagreeing less strongly.[49] Similarly, there was a 72% to 20% split in favour of describing 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."[48]

In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes analyzed the abstracts of 928 scientific papers on "global climate change" published between 1993 and 2003. 75% had either explicitly expressed support for the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change, or had accepted it as a given and were focused on evaluating its impacts or proposing approaches for climate change mitigation, while the remaining 25% were devoted to methods of current climate change research or paleoclimate analysis. No abstract had explicitly rejected the scientific consensus.[50]

2005–2009​

A graphic representing the combined result of surveys taken throughout 2000s.

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, publishing the results in April 2008. 97% of the scientists surveyed agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years, and only 5% believed that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming. 84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring, and 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiated its occurrence. 56% described the study of global climate change as a mature science and 39% as an emerging science. When asked about the likely severity of effects of climate change over the next 50–100 years, 41% said they could be described as catastrophic; 44% thought the effects would be moderately dangerous while about 13% thought there was relatively little danger.[51][52][53][54]

The third Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch survey was also conducted in 2008, with the results published in 2010. It used the same methodology as their two previous surveys, with a similar number of sections and also asking to rate responses on a 1-to-7 scale (i.e. from 'not at all' to 'very much'), but it had also introduced web links with respondent-specific unique identifiers to eliminate multiple responses. 2058 climate scientists from 34 countries were surveyed, and a total of 373 responses were received (response rate of 18.2%).

To the question "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?", 67.1% said they very much agreed (7), 26.7% agreed to some large extent (6), 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. Similarly, 34.6% had very much agreed that climate change "poses a very serious and dangerous threat to humanity" and 27.6% agreed to a large extent, while only 1.1% did not agree at all.

At the same time, the respondents had strongly rejected the concept of intentionally presenting the most extreme possibilities in the hope of mobilizing the public, with around 73% disagreeing (1–3), 12.5% unsure and 14.5% agreeing in any way (5–7). Only 1.6% had agreed very much, while 27.2% did not agree at all, even as they overwhelmingly agreed (84% vs. 4%) that the scientists who do this are the most likely to be listened to by journalists. The respondents have generally expressed high confidence in the IPCC reports, with 63.5% agreeing that they estimated the impacts of temperature change exactly right (4 on the scale), and only 1.4% responding that they had strongly underestimated and 2.5% that they had strongly overestimated those impacts (1 and 7 on a scale.) On sea level rise, 51.4% thought the reports were exactly right, and only about 16% thought it was overestimated in any way (5–7), while the remaining third believed it was underestimated (1–3).[55][56][57] Subsequent IPCC reports had been forced to regularly increase their estimates of future sea level rise, largely in response to newer research on the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica.[58][59][60][61]

In 2009, Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago polled 10,257 earth scientists from various specialities and received replies from 3,146. 79 respondents were climatologists who had published over half of their peer-reviewed research on the subject of climate change, and 76 of them agreed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels, with 75 describing human activity as a significant factor. 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. In summary, Doran and Zimmerman wrote:[62]

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.

2010–2014​

A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers, 908 of whom had authored 20 or more publications on climate, and found that

(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.[63][64]

In October 2011, researchers from George Mason University analyzed the results of a survey of 998 actively working scientists from the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society, or listed in the 23rd edition of American Men and Women of Science, 489 of whom had returned completed questionnaires. 97% of respondents had 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.[65][66] 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.[66]

In 2012, James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board, 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 (<0.2%) rejected anthropogenic global warming.[67][68][69][70] This was a follow-up to an analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013, which revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[71][72][73]

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch had conducted their fourth survey in 2013, publishing its results the following year. 283 scientists had responded: 185 (65.4%) had been working in climate science for over 15 years, and only 19 (6.7%) had 0 to 5 years of experience. It had the same methodology as the third survey, ranking responses on a 1-to-7 scale and similar responses to the same questions: i.e., when asked, "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?", 74.7% said they very much agreed (7), 2.9% were "neutral" (4), and only 2.1% were 1–3 on the scale. 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?", 43% had very much agreed, 28.5% agreeing to a large extent (6), 16.6% to a small extent (2–4), and 2.5% did not agree at all (1). 41.8% had very much agreed that climate change "poses a very serious and dangerous threat to humanity" and 23.2% agreed to a large extent, while 3.5% did not agree at all. A new question asked respondents to attribute a percentage of recent warming to anthropogenic causes: 73.3% of scientists attributed 70–100%, while only 1.5% said there was zero human role.[74]

In 2013, it had been quantified that the vast majority of published scientific literature had agreed with the human role in climate change since the 1990s.[75]

In 2013, another scientist, John Cook, examined 11,944 abstracts from the peer-reviewed scientific literature from 1991 to 2011 that matched the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'.[75] He and his co-authors 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 (known to be expected in a consensus situation[76]) 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, and 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."[75]

In 2014, researchers from the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency surveyed 1,868 climate scientists. They found that, consistent with other research, the level of agreement on anthropogenic causation correlated with expertise – 90% of those surveyed with more than 10 peer-reviewed papers related to climate (just under half of survey respondents) explicitly agreed that greenhouse gases were the main cause of global warming.[77] They included researchers on mitigation and adaptation in their surveys in addition to physical climate scientists, leading to a slightly lower level of consensus compared to previous studies.[78]

2015–2019​

The consensus on anthropogenic global warming among the peer-reviewed studies published between 1991 and 2015.[79]

A 2016 study titled Learning from mistakes in climate research followed up on John Cook's 2013 paper by examining the quality of the 3% of peer-reviewed papers which had rejected 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".[80] That same year, Cook's paper was criticized by Richard Tol,[81] but strongly defended by a companion paper in the same volume.[82]

The 5th International Survey of Climate Scientists by Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch took place over December 2015 and January 2016. Unlike the past surveys, the scientists were no longer questioned on their opinion of the IPCC, and there was much more focus on extreme event attribution. In other ways, it had replicated the methodology of the previous surveys, with most responses ranked on a 1-to-7 scale. There were over 600 complete responses: 291 (45.2%) had been working in climate science for over 15 years, while 79 (12.3%) had 0 to 5 years of experience. When asked "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?", 79.3% said they very much agreed (7), 1.2% were "neutral" (4), and only 2.1% were 1–3 on the scale. 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?", 47.7% had very much agreed, 26% agreeing to a large extent (6), 9.8% to a small extent (2–4), and 1.9% did not agree at all (1). 46% had very much agreed that climate change "poses a very serious and dangerous threat to humanity" and 26% agreed to a large extent, while 2.2% did not agree at all. 75.8% said that the level of uncertainty in climate science had decreased since 1996, while 13.6% said it had increased. 75.7% said that the level of risk associated with climate change had increased considerably since 1996, while 5% said it had decreased.[83]

In 2017, James L. Powell analyzed five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, and found that they amounted to a combined 54,195 articles, few of which had outright rejected anthropogenic climate change, resulting in an average consensus of 99.94%.[79] In November 2019, his survey of over 11,600 peer-reviewed articles published in the first seven months of 2019 showed that the consensus had reached 100%.[6]

2020s​

Scientific consensus on causation: Academic studies of scientific agreement on human-caused global warming among climate experts (2010–2015) reflect that the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science.[84] A 2019 study found scientific consensus to be at 100%,[6] and a 2021 study concluded that consensus exceeded 99%.[7] Another 2021 study found that 98.7% of climate experts indicated that the Earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activity.[4]

In a 2024 survey, 76.3% of responding IPCC lead authors and review editors projected at least 2.5 °C of global warming by 2100; only 5.79% forecast warming of 1.5 °C or less.[85] Separately, then-current climate policies indicate the world will have warmed by about 2.7 °C.[85]

In 2021, Krista Myers led a paper which surveyed 2780 Earth scientists. Depending on expertise, between 91% (all scientists) to 100% (climate scientists with high levels of expertise, 20+ papers published) agreed human activity is causing climate change. Among the total group of climate scientists, 98.7% agreed. The agreement was lowest among scientists who chose Economic Geology as one of their fields of research (84%).[4]

Also in 2021, a team led by Mark Lynas had found 80,000 climate-related studies published between 2012 and 2020, and chose to analyse a random subset of 3000. Four of these were skeptical of the human cause of climate change, 845 were endorsing the human cause perspective at different levels, and 1869 were indifferent to the question. The authors estimated the proportion of papers not skeptical of the human cause as 99.85% (95% confidence limit 99.62%–99.96%). Excluding papers which took no position on the human cause led to an estimate of the proportion of consensus papers as 99.53% (95% confidence limit 98.80%–99.87%). They confirmed their numbers by explicitly looking for alternative hypotheses in the entire dataset, which resulted in 28 papers.[7][86]

I will post the references noted in this text in the next post.

 

[Crick]

References​

1. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o IPCC, 2021: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M. I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J. B. R. Matthews, T. K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York City, US, pp. 3–32, doi:10.1017/9781009157896.001.
2. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h i j k l m Marvel, K., W. Su, R. Delgado, S. Aarons, A. Chatterjee, M.E. Garcia, Z. Hausfather, K. Hayhoe, D.A. Hence, E.B. Jewett, A. Robel, D. Singh, A. Tripati, and R.S. Vose, 2023: Chapter 2. Climate trends. In: Fifth National Climate Assessment. Crimmins, A.R., C.W. Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock, Eds. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA. doi:10.7930/NCA5.2023.CH2
3. ^ "Total radiative forcing is positive and has led to an uptake of energy by the climate system. The largest contribution to total radiative forcing is caused by the increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 since 1750." and "From 1750 to 2011, CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion and cement production have released 375 [345 to 405] GtC to the atmosphere, while deforestation and other land-use change are estimated to have released 180 [100 to 260] GtC." In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
4. ^ Jump up to:a b c Myers, Krista F.; Doran, Peter T.; Cook, John; Kotcher, John E.; Myers, Teresa A. (20 October 2021). "Consensus revisited: quantifying scientific agreement on climate change and climate expertise among Earth scientists 10 years later". Environmental Research Letters. 16 (10): 104030. Bibcode:2021ERL....16j4030M. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ac2774. S2CID 239047650.
5. ^ John Cook; et al. (April 2016). "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming". Environmental Research Letters. 11 (4): 048002. Bibcode:2016ERL....11d8002C. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002.
6. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Powell, James Lawrence (20 November 2019). "Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 37 (4): 183–184. doi:10.1177/0270467619886266. S2CID 213454806. Retrieved 15 November 2020.
7. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Lynas, Mark; Houlton, Benjamin Z.; Perry, Simon (19 October 2021). "Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature". Environmental Research Letters. 16 (11): 114005. Bibcode:2021ERL....16k4005L. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966. S2CID 239032360.
8. ^ Benestad, Rasmus E.; Nuccitelli, Dana; Lewandowsky, Stephan; Hayhoe, Katharine; Hygen, Hans Olav; van Dorland, Rob; Cook, John (1 November 2016). "Learning from mistakes in climate research". Theoretical and Applied Climatology. 126 (3): 699–703. Bibcode:2016ThApC.126..699B. doi:10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5. ISSN 1434-4483.
9. ^ "Joint Science Academies' Statement" (PDF). 2005. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-09-09. Retrieved 2014-04-20. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001). This warming has already led to changes in the Earth's climate.
10. ^ "'Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis.' IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, Working Group I, Summary for Policymakers. 'The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.'" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 22 October 2018. Retrieved 26 December 2018.
11. ^ Julie Brigham-Grette; et al. (September 2006). "Petroleum Geologists' Award to Novelist Crichton Is Inappropriate". Eos. 87 (36): 364. Bibcode:2006EOSTr..87..364B. doi:10.1029/2006EO360008. The AAPG stands alone among scientific societies in its denial of human-induced effects on global warming.
12. ^ DiMento, Joseph F. C.; Doughman, Pamela M. (2007). Climate Change: What It Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren. The MIT Press. p. 68. ISBN 978-0-262-54193-0.
13. ^ Stoddard, Isak; Anderson, Kevin; Capstick, Stuart; Carton, Wim; Depledge, Joanna; Facer, Keri; Gough, Clair; Hache, Frederic; Hoolohan, Claire; Hultman, Martin; Hällström, Niclas; Kartha, Sivan; Klinsky, Sonja; Kuchler, Magdalena; Lövbrand, Eva; Nasiritousi, Naghmeh; Newell, Peter; Peters, Glen P.; Sokona, Youba; Stirling, Andy; Stilwell, Matthew; Spash, Clive L.; Williams, Mariama; et al. (18 October 2021). "Three Decades of Climate Mitigation: Why Haven't We Bent the Global Emissions Curve?". Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 46 (1): 653–689. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-012220-011104. hdl:1983/93c742bc-4895-42ac-be81-535f36c5039d. ISSN 1543-5938. S2CID 233815004. Retrieved 31 August 2022.
14. ^ Mann, Michael E.; Toles, Tom (2016). The Madhouse Effect. New York Chichester, West Sussex: Columbia University Press. doi:10.7312/mann17786. ISBN 978-0231541817.
15. ^ Oreskes, Naomi; Conway, Erik (2012). Merchants of doubt : how a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. Bloomsbury. ISBN 978-1408824832. OCLC 934374946.
16. ^ "Public perceptions on climate change" (PDF). PERITIA Trust EU – The Policy Institute of King's College London. June 2022. p. 4. Archived (PDF) from the original on 15 July 2022.
17. ^ Powell, James (20 November 2019). "Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 37 (4): 183–184. doi:10.1177/0270467619886266. S2CID 213454806.
18. ^ Lynas, Mark; Houlton, Benjamin Z.; Perry, Simon (19 October 2021). "Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature". Environmental Research Letters. 16 (11): 114005. Bibcode:2021ERL....16k4005L. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966. S2CID 239032360.
19. ^ Myers, Krista F.; Doran, Peter T.; Cook, John; Kotcher, John E.; Myers, Teresa A. (20 October 2021). "Consensus revisited: quantifying scientific agreement on climate change and climate expertise among Earth scientists 10 years later". Environmental Research Letters. 16 (10): 104030. Bibcode:2021ERL....16j4030M. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ac2774. S2CID 239047650.
20. ^ Jump up to:a b c Climate Change to the Year 2000: A Survey of Expert Opinion (PDF) (Report). February 1978.
21. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e Stewart, Thomas R.; Mumpower, Jeryl L.; Reagan-Cirincione, Patricia (April 1992). Scientists' Agreement and Disagreement about Global Climate Change: Evidence from Surveys (PDF) (Report).
22. ^ Jump up to:a b Bray, Dennis; Hans von Storch (1999). "Climate Science: An Empirical Example of Postnormal Science" (PDF). Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. 80 (3): 439–455. Bibcode:1999BAMS...80..439B. doi:10.1175/1520-0477(1999)080<0439:CSAEEO>2.0.CO;2. ISSN 1520-0477.
23. ^ Cook, John; Oreskes, Naomi; Doran, Peter T.; Anderegg, William R. L.; Verheggen, Bart; Maibach, Ed W.; Carlton, J. Stuart; Lewandowsky, Stephan; Skuce, Andrew G.; Green, Sarah A.; Nuccitelli, Dana; Jacobs, Peter; Richardson, Mark; Winkler, Bärbel; Painting, Rob; Rice, Ken (2016). "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming". Environmental Research Letters. 11 (4): 048002. Bibcode:2016ERL....11d8002C. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002. ISSN 1748-9326.
24. ^ Oreskes, Naomi (2007). "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change: How Do We Know We're Not Wrong?". In DiMento, Joseph F. C.; Doughman, Pamela M. (eds.). Climate Change: What It Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren. MIT Press. pp. 65–66. ISBN 978-0-262-54193-0.
25. ^ "ACIA Display". Amap.no. Archived from the original on 14 December 2010. Retrieved 30 July 2012.
26. ^ "Impacts of a Warming Arctic: Arctic Climate Impact Assessment New Scientific Consensus: Arctic Is Warming Rapidly". UNEP/GRID-Arendal. 8 November 2004. Retrieved 20 January 2010.
27. ^ "US Government Agencies Participating in the USGCRP". Agencies. USGCRP. 20 October 2008. Retrieved November 23, 2018.
28. ^ Christensen, Jen; Nedelman, Michael (November 23, 2018). "Climate change will shrink US economy and kill thousands, government report warns". CNN. Retrieved November 23, 2018.
29. ^ "About the IPCC". Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved 22 February 2019.
30. ^ "UN General Assembly Resolution 43/53 "Protection of global climate for present and future generations of mankind"" (PDF). UN General Assembly Resolutions 43rd Session 1988–1989. United Nations.
31. ^ "Annex C to Appendix C to the Principles Governing IPCC Work". IPCC Procedures. IPCC.
32. ^ "The IPCC: Who Are They and Why Do Their Climate Reports Matter?". Union of Concerned Scientists: Reports & Multimedia - Activist Resources: Explainers. Union of Concerned Scientists. 11 October 2018.
33. ^ Australian Academy of Sciences; Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts; Brazilian Academy of Sciences; Royal Society of Canada; Caribbean Academy of Sciences; Chinese Academy of Sciences; French Academy of Sciences; German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina; Indian National Science Academy; Indonesian Academy of Sciences; Royal Irish Academy; Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy); Academy of Sciences Malaysia; Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand; Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences; Turkish Academy of Sciences; Royal Society (UK) (18 May 2001). "The Science of Climate Change". Science. 292 (5520). Science Magazine: 1261. doi:10.1126/science.292.5520.1261. PMID 11360966.
34. ^ "Joint Science Academies' Statement" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-09-09. Retrieved 2006-08-30.
35. ^ "Joint statement by the Network of African Science Academies (NASAC) to the G8 on sustainability, energy efficiency and climate change". Network of African Science Academies. 2007. Archived from the original (PDF) on 9 June 2017. Retrieved 28 August 2012.
36. ^ "INQUA Statement On Climate Change" (PDF).
37. ^ Cook, John; Nuccitelli, Dana; Green, Sarah A.; Richardson, Mark; Winkler, Bärbel; Painting, Rob; Way, Robert; Jacobs, Peter; Skuce, Andrew (15 May 2013). "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature". Environ. Res. Lett. 8 (2). IOP Publishing Ltd.: 024024. Bibcode:2013ERL.....8b4024C. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024.
38. ^ "Scientific and Public Perspectives on Climate Change / Scientists' vs. Public Understanding of Human-Caused Global Warming". climatecommunication.yale.edu. Yale University. 29 May 2013. Archived from the original on 17 April 2019.
39. ^ Cook, John; Oreskes, Naomi; Doran, Peter T.; Anderegg, William R. L.; Verheggen, Bart; Maibach, Ed W.; Carlton, J. Stuart; Lewandowsky, Stephan; Skuce, Andrew G.; Green, Sarah A. (2016), "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming", Environmental Research Letters, 11 (44): 048002, Bibcode:2016ERL....11d8002C, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002048002
40. ^ "The NOAA Annual Greenhouse Gas Index (AGGI)". NOAA.gov. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Spring 2023. Archived from the original on 24 May 2023.
41. ^ "List of Worldwide Scientific Organizations That Hold the Position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action". Archived from the original on 7 August 2017. Retrieved 7 August 2017.
42. ^ "Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I – Chapter 3: Detection and Attribution of Climate Change". science2017.globalchange.gov. U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP): 1–470. 2017. Archived from the original on 23 September 2019. Adapted directly from Fig. 3.3.
43. ^ Wuebbles, D.J.; Fahey, D.W.; Hibbard, K.A.; Deangelo, B.; Doherty, S.; Hayhoe, K.; Horton, R.; Kossin, J.P.; Taylor, P.C.; Waple, A.M.; Yohe, C.P. (23 November 2018). "Climate Science Special Report / Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4), Volume I /Executive Summary / Highlights of the Findings of the U.S. Global Change Research Program Climate Science Special Report". globalchange.gov. U.S. Global Change Research Program: 1–470. doi:10.7930/J0DJ5CTG. Archived from the original on 14 June 2019.
44. ^ Roper, Willem (25 January 2021). "Global Warming Chart – Here's How Temperatures Have Risen Since 1950". World Economic Forum. Retrieved 5 November 2023.
45. ^ Slade, David H. (1989). "A survey of informed opinion regarding the nature and reality of a 'global greenhouse warming'". Climatic Change. 16: 1–4. doi:10.1007/BF00137342. S2CID 153884762.
46. ^ GECR climate survey shows strong agreement on action, less so on warming (Report). Vol. 2. Global Environmental Change Report. 1990. pp. 1–3.
47. ^ "World warming at record 0.2 C per decade, scientists warn". Phys.org. Retrieved 23 November 2023.
48. ^ Jump up to:a b c Bray, Dennis; Storch, Hans von. "Climate Scientists' Perceptions of Climate Change Science" (PDF). GKSS Report 11/2007.
49. ^ "Climate scientists' views on climate change: a survey". Nature Climate Change. 8 August 2007. Archived from the original on 13 January 2012.
50. ^ Naomi Oreskes (3 December 2004). "Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" (PDF). Science. 306 (5702): 1686. doi:10.1126/science.1103618. PMID 15576594. S2CID 153792099.
51. ^ Lichter, S. Robert (24 April 2008). "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. Archived from the original on 11 January 2010. Retrieved 20 January 2010.
52. ^ ""Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change"". Journalist's Resource.org.
53. ^ Stephen J. Farnsworth; S. Robert Lichter (27 October 2011). "The Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change". International Journal of Public Opinion Research. Archived from the original on 11 March 2013. Retrieved 2 December 2011.
54. ^ Lavelle, Marianne (23 April 2008). "Survey Tracks Scientists' Growing Climate Concern". U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved 20 January 2010.
55. ^ Bray, Dennis; von Storch, Hans (2010). "A Survey of the Perspectives of Climate Scientists Concerning Climate Science and Climate Change" (PDF).
56. ^ Bray, Dennis (August 2010). "The scientific consensus of climate change revisited" (PDF). Environmental Science & Policy. 13 (5): 340–350. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2010.04.001., copy online at [1]
57. ^ Bray, D.; von Storch H. (2009). "Prediction' or 'Projection; The nomenclature of climate science" (PDF). Science Communication. 30 (4): 534–543. doi:10.1177/1075547009333698. S2CID 145338218.
58. ^ "Ice sheet melt on track with 'worst-case climate scenario'". www.esa.int. Retrieved 8 September 2020.
59. ^ Slater, Thomas; Hogg, Anna E.; Mottram, Ruth (31 August 2020). "Ice-sheet losses track high-end sea-level rise projections". Nature Climate Change. 10 (10): 879–881. Bibcode:2020NatCC..10..879S. doi:10.1038/s41558-020-0893-y. ISSN 1758-6798. S2CID 221381924. Archived from the original on 2 September 2020. Retrieved 8 September 2020.
60. ^ Grinsted, Aslak; Christensen, Jens Hesselbjerg (2021-02-02). "The transient sensitivity of sea level rise". Ocean Science. 17 (1): 181–186. Bibcode:2021OcSci..17..181G. doi:10.5194/os-17-181-2021. ISSN 1812-0784. S2CID 234353584.
61. ^ Fox-Kemper, B.; Hewitt, H.T.; Xiao, C.; Aðalgeirsdóttir, G.; Drijfhout, S.S.; Edwards, T.L.; Golledge, N.R.; Hemer, M.; Kopp, R.E.; Krinner, G.; Mix, A. (2021). Masson-Delmotte, V.; Zhai, P.; Pirani, A.; Connors, S.L.; Péan, C.; Berger, S.; Caud, N.; Chen, Y.; Goldfarb, L. (eds.). "Chapter 9: Ocean, Cryosphere and Sea Level Change" (PDF). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, US: 1302.
62. ^ Doran, Peter T.; Zimmerman, Maggie Kendall (20 January 2009). "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change". EOS. 90 (3): 22–23. Bibcode:2009EOSTr..90...22D. doi:10.1029/2009EO030002. S2CID 128398335.
63. ^ William R. L. Anderegg; James W. Prall; Jacob Harold & Stephen H. Schneider (April 9, 2010). "Expert credibility in climate change". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 107 (27): 12107–12109. Bibcode:2010PNAS..10712107A. doi:10.1073/pnas.1003187107. PMC 2901439. PMID 20566872.
64. ^ Scientists 'Convinced' of Climate Consensus More Prominent Than Opponents, Says Paper by Eli Kintisch, "Science Insider", Science, 21 June 2010
65. ^ ""Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change" at Journalist's Resource.org".
66. ^ Jump up to:a b Stephen J. Farnsworth; S. Robert Lichter (27 October 2011). "The Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change". International Journal of Public Opinion Research. 24: 93–103. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edr033. Retrieved 2 December 2011. Paywalled; full test online here, retrieved 30 November 2014. From Table I, "Q: In your opinion, is human-induced greenhouse warming now occurring?" Yes, 84%. No, 5%. Don't Know, 12%
67. ^ Powell, James Lawrence (15 November 2012), "The State of Climate Science: A Thorough Review of the Scientific Literature on Global Warming", Science Progress, retrieved 21 September 2016
68. ^ Powell, James Lawrence (2011). The Inquisition of Climate Science. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-15718-6.
69. ^ Plait, P. (11 December 2012). "Why Climate Change Denial Is Just Hot Air". Slate. Retrieved 12 June 2014.
70. ^ Sheppard, Kate (1 December 2012). "CHART: Only 0.17 Percent of Peer-Reviewed Papers Question Global Warming". Mother Jones. Retrieved 12 February 2014.
71. ^ Plait, P. (14 January 2014). "The Very, Very Thin Wedge of Denial". Slate. Retrieved 12 June 2014.
72. ^ Gertz, Emily (10 January 2014). "Infographic: Scientists Who Doubt Human-Caused Climate Change". Popular Science. Retrieved 12 February 2014.
73. ^ The study in question was: Avakyan, S. V. (2013). "The role of solar activity in global warming". Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences. 83 (3): 275–285. Bibcode:2013HRuAS..83..275A. doi:10.1134/S1019331613030015. S2CID 154047107.
74. ^ Bray, Dennis; von Storch, Hans (2014). "A survey of the perceptions of climate scientists 2013" (PDF).
75. ^ Jump up to:a b c Cook, John; Dana Nuccitelli; Sarah A Green; Mark Richardson; Bärbel Winkler; Rob Painting; Robert Way; Peter Jacobs; Andrew Skuce (May 2013). "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature". Environmental Research Letters. 8 (2): 024024. Bibcode:2013ERL.....8b4024C. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024.
76. ^ Oreskes 2007, p. 72: "[Scientists] generally focus their discussions on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather than on matters about which everyone agrees"
77. ^ Verheggen, Bart; Strengers, Bart; Cook, John; van Dorland, Rob; Vringer, Kees; Peters, Jeroen; Visser, Hans; Meyer, Leo (19 August 2014). "Scientists' Views about Attribution of Global Warming". Environmental Science & Technology. 48 (16): 8963–8971. Bibcode:2014EnST...48.8963V. doi:10.1021/es501998e. PMID 25051508.
78. ^ Verheggen, Bart; Strengers, Bart; Vringer, Kees; Cook, John; Dorland, Rob van; Peters, Jeroen; Visser, Hans; Meyer, Leo (2 December 2014). "Reply to Comment on "Scientists' Views about Attribution of Global Warming"". Environmental Science & Technology. 48 (23): 14059–14060. Bibcode:2014EnST...4814059V. doi:10.1021/es505183e. ISSN 0013-936X. PMID 25405594.
79. ^ Jump up to:a b Powell, James Lawrence (24 May 2017). "The Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming Matters". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 36 (3): 157–163. doi:10.1177/0270467617707079. S2CID 148618842.
80. ^ Benestad, Rasmus E.; Nuccitelli, Dana; Lewandowsky, Stephan; Hayhoe, Katharine; Hygen, Hans Olav; van Dorland, Rob; Cook, John (November 2016). "Learning from mistakes in climate research". Theoretical and Applied Climatology. 126 (3–4): 699–703. Bibcode:2016ThApC.126..699B. doi:10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5. ISSN 0177-798X.
81. ^ Tol, Richard S J (1 April 2016). "Comment on 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature'". Environmental Research Letters. 11 (4). IOP Publishing: 048001. Bibcode:2016ERL....11d8001T. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048001. ISSN 1748-9326.
82. ^ Cook, John; Oreskes, Naomi; Doran, Peter T.; Anderegg, William R. L.; Verheggen, Bart; Maibach, Ed W.; Carlton, J. Stuart; Lewandowsky, Stephan; Skuce, Andrew G.; Green, Sarah A.; Nuccitelli, Dana (April 2016). "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming". Environmental Research Letters. 11 (4): 048002. Bibcode:2016ERL....11d8002C. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002. ISSN 1748-9326.
83. ^ Bray, Dennis; von Storch, Hans (2016). "The Bray and von Storch 5th International Survey of Climate Scientists 2015/2016". doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.11802.85443.
84. ^ Cook, John; Oreskes, Naomi; Doran, Peter T.; Anderegg, William R. L.; et al. (2016). "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming". Environmental Research Letters. 11 (4): 048002. Bibcode:2016ERL....11d8002C. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002.
85. ^ Jump up to:a b Carrington, Damian (8 May 2024). "World's top climate scientists expect global heating to blast past 1.5C target". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 9 May 2024. Replies were received from 380 of 843 scientists believed to have been contacted.
86. ^ Ramanujan, Krishna. "More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change". Cornell Chronicle. Environmental Research Letters. Retrieved 20 October 2021.

 

[elektra]

References​

1. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o IPCC, 2021: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M. I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J. B. R. Matthews, T. K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York City, US, pp. 3–32, doi:10.1017/9781009157896.001.
2. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h i j k l m Marvel, K., W. Su, R. Delgado, S. Aarons, A. Chatterjee, M.E. Garcia, Z. Hausfather, K. Hayhoe, D.A. Hence, E.B. Jewett, A. Robel, D. Singh, A. Tripati, and R.S. Vose, 2023: Chapter 2. Climate trends. In: Fifth National Climate Assessment. Crimmins, A.R., C.W. Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock, Eds. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA. doi:10.7930/NCA5.2023.CH2
3. ^ "Total radiative forcing is positive and has led to an uptake of energy by the climate system. The largest contribution to total radiative forcing is caused by the increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 since 1750." and "From 1750 to 2011, CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion and cement production have released 375 [345 to 405] GtC to the atmosphere, while deforestation and other land-use change are estimated to have released 180 [100 to 260] GtC." In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
4. ^ Jump up to:a b c Myers, Krista F.; Doran, Peter T.; Cook, John; Kotcher, John E.; Myers, Teresa A. (20 October 2021). "Consensus revisited: quantifying scientific agreement on climate change and climate expertise among Earth scientists 10 years later". Environmental Research Letters. 16 (10): 104030. Bibcode:2021ERL....16j4030M. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ac2774. S2CID 239047650.
5. ^ John Cook; et al. (April 2016). "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming". Environmental Research Letters. 11 (4): 048002. Bibcode:2016ERL....11d8002C. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002.
6. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Powell, James Lawrence (20 November 2019). "Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 37 (4): 183–184. doi:10.1177/0270467619886266. S2CID 213454806. Retrieved 15 November 2020.
7. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Lynas, Mark; Houlton, Benjamin Z.; Perry, Simon (19 October 2021). "Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature". Environmental Research Letters. 16 (11): 114005. Bibcode:2021ERL....16k4005L. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966. S2CID 239032360.
8. ^ Benestad, Rasmus E.; Nuccitelli, Dana; Lewandowsky, Stephan; Hayhoe, Katharine; Hygen, Hans Olav; van Dorland, Rob; Cook, John (1 November 2016). "Learning from mistakes in climate research". Theoretical and Applied Climatology. 126 (3): 699–703. Bibcode:2016ThApC.126..699B. doi:10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5. ISSN 1434-4483.
9. ^ "Joint Science Academies' Statement" (PDF). 2005. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-09-09. Retrieved 2014-04-20. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001). This warming has already led to changes in the Earth's climate.
10. ^ "'Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis.' IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, Working Group I, Summary for Policymakers. 'The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.'" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 22 October 2018. Retrieved 26 December 2018.
11. ^ Julie Brigham-Grette; et al. (September 2006). "Petroleum Geologists' Award to Novelist Crichton Is Inappropriate". Eos. 87 (36): 364. Bibcode:2006EOSTr..87..364B. doi:10.1029/2006EO360008. The AAPG stands alone among scientific societies in its denial of human-induced effects on global warming.
12. ^ DiMento, Joseph F. C.; Doughman, Pamela M. (2007). Climate Change: What It Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren. The MIT Press. p. 68. ISBN 978-0-262-54193-0.
13. ^ Stoddard, Isak; Anderson, Kevin; Capstick, Stuart; Carton, Wim; Depledge, Joanna; Facer, Keri; Gough, Clair; Hache, Frederic; Hoolohan, Claire; Hultman, Martin; Hällström, Niclas; Kartha, Sivan; Klinsky, Sonja; Kuchler, Magdalena; Lövbrand, Eva; Nasiritousi, Naghmeh; Newell, Peter; Peters, Glen P.; Sokona, Youba; Stirling, Andy; Stilwell, Matthew; Spash, Clive L.; Williams, Mariama; et al. (18 October 2021). "Three Decades of Climate Mitigation: Why Haven't We Bent the Global Emissions Curve?". Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 46 (1): 653–689. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-012220-011104. hdl:1983/93c742bc-4895-42ac-be81-535f36c5039d. ISSN 1543-5938. S2CID 233815004. Retrieved 31 August 2022.
14. ^ Mann, Michael E.; Toles, Tom (2016). The Madhouse Effect. New York Chichester, West Sussex: Columbia University Press. doi:10.7312/mann17786. ISBN 978-0231541817.
15. ^ Oreskes, Naomi; Conway, Erik (2012). Merchants of doubt : how a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. Bloomsbury. ISBN 978-1408824832. OCLC 934374946.
16. ^ "Public perceptions on climate change" (PDF). PERITIA Trust EU – The Policy Institute of King's College London. June 2022. p. 4. Archived (PDF) from the original on 15 July 2022.
17. ^ Powell, James (20 November 2019). "Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 37 (4): 183–184. doi:10.1177/0270467619886266. S2CID 213454806.
18. ^ Lynas, Mark; Houlton, Benjamin Z.; Perry, Simon (19 October 2021). "Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature". Environmental Research Letters. 16 (11): 114005. Bibcode:2021ERL....16k4005L. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966. S2CID 239032360.
19. ^ Myers, Krista F.; Doran, Peter T.; Cook, John; Kotcher, John E.; Myers, Teresa A. (20 October 2021). "Consensus revisited: quantifying scientific agreement on climate change and climate expertise among Earth scientists 10 years later". Environmental Research Letters. 16 (10): 104030. Bibcode:2021ERL....16j4030M. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ac2774. S2CID 239047650.
20. ^ Jump up to:a b c Climate Change to the Year 2000: A Survey of Expert Opinion (PDF) (Report). February 1978.
21. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e Stewart, Thomas R.; Mumpower, Jeryl L.; Reagan-Cirincione, Patricia (April 1992). Scientists' Agreement and Disagreement about Global Climate Change: Evidence from Surveys (PDF) (Report).
22. ^ Jump up to:a b Bray, Dennis; Hans von Storch (1999). "Climate Science: An Empirical Example of Postnormal Science" (PDF). Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. 80 (3): 439–455. Bibcode:1999BAMS...80..439B. doi:10.1175/1520-0477(1999)080<0439:CSAEEO>2.0.CO;2. ISSN 1520-0477.
23. ^ Cook, John; Oreskes, Naomi; Doran, Peter T.; Anderegg, William R. L.; Verheggen, Bart; Maibach, Ed W.; Carlton, J. Stuart; Lewandowsky, Stephan; Skuce, Andrew G.; Green, Sarah A.; Nuccitelli, Dana; Jacobs, Peter; Richardson, Mark; Winkler, Bärbel; Painting, Rob; Rice, Ken (2016). "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming". Environmental Research Letters. 11 (4): 048002. Bibcode:2016ERL....11d8002C. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002. ISSN 1748-9326.
24. ^ Oreskes, Naomi (2007). "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change: How Do We Know We're Not Wrong?". In DiMento, Joseph F. C.; Doughman, Pamela M. (eds.). Climate Change: What It Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren. MIT Press. pp. 65–66. ISBN 978-0-262-54193-0.
25. ^ "ACIA Display". Amap.no. Archived from the original on 14 December 2010. Retrieved 30 July 2012.
26. ^ "Impacts of a Warming Arctic: Arctic Climate Impact Assessment New Scientific Consensus: Arctic Is Warming Rapidly". UNEP/GRID-Arendal. 8 November 2004. Retrieved 20 January 2010.
27. ^ "US Government Agencies Participating in the USGCRP". Agencies. USGCRP. 20 October 2008. Retrieved November 23, 2018.
28. ^ Christensen, Jen; Nedelman, Michael (November 23, 2018). "Climate change will shrink US economy and kill thousands, government report warns". CNN. Retrieved November 23, 2018.
29. ^ "About the IPCC". Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved 22 February 2019.
30. ^ "UN General Assembly Resolution 43/53 "Protection of global climate for present and future generations of mankind"" (PDF). UN General Assembly Resolutions 43rd Session 1988–1989. United Nations.
31. ^ "Annex C to Appendix C to the Principles Governing IPCC Work". IPCC Procedures. IPCC.
32. ^ "The IPCC: Who Are They and Why Do Their Climate Reports Matter?". Union of Concerned Scientists: Reports & Multimedia - Activist Resources: Explainers. Union of Concerned Scientists. 11 October 2018.
33. ^ Australian Academy of Sciences; Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts; Brazilian Academy of Sciences; Royal Society of Canada; Caribbean Academy of Sciences; Chinese Academy of Sciences; French Academy of Sciences; German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina; Indian National Science Academy; Indonesian Academy of Sciences; Royal Irish Academy; Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy); Academy of Sciences Malaysia; Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand; Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences; Turkish Academy of Sciences; Royal Society (UK) (18 May 2001). "The Science of Climate Change". Science. 292 (5520). Science Magazine: 1261. doi:10.1126/science.292.5520.1261. PMID 11360966.
34. ^ "Joint Science Academies' Statement" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-09-09. Retrieved 2006-08-30.
35. ^ "Joint statement by the Network of African Science Academies (NASAC) to the G8 on sustainability, energy efficiency and climate change". Network of African Science Academies. 2007. Archived from the original (PDF) on 9 June 2017. Retrieved 28 August 2012.
36. ^ "INQUA Statement On Climate Change" (PDF).
37. ^ Cook, John; Nuccitelli, Dana; Green, Sarah A.; Richardson, Mark; Winkler, Bärbel; Painting, Rob; Way, Robert; Jacobs, Peter; Skuce, Andrew (15 May 2013). "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature". Environ. Res. Lett. 8 (2). IOP Publishing Ltd.: 024024. Bibcode:2013ERL.....8b4024C. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024.
38. ^ "Scientific and Public Perspectives on Climate Change / Scientists' vs. Public Understanding of Human-Caused Global Warming". climatecommunication.yale.edu. Yale University. 29 May 2013. Archived from the original on 17 April 2019.
39. ^ Cook, John; Oreskes, Naomi; Doran, Peter T.; Anderegg, William R. L.; Verheggen, Bart; Maibach, Ed W.; Carlton, J. Stuart; Lewandowsky, Stephan; Skuce, Andrew G.; Green, Sarah A. (2016), "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming", Environmental Research Letters, 11 (44): 048002, Bibcode:2016ERL....11d8002C, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002048002
40. ^ "The NOAA Annual Greenhouse Gas Index (AGGI)". NOAA.gov. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Spring 2023. Archived from the original on 24 May 2023.
41. ^ "List of Worldwide Scientific Organizations That Hold the Position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action". Archived from the original on 7 August 2017. Retrieved 7 August 2017.
42. ^ "Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I – Chapter 3: Detection and Attribution of Climate Change". science2017.globalchange.gov. U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP): 1–470. 2017. Archived from the original on 23 September 2019. Adapted directly from Fig. 3.3.
43. ^ Wuebbles, D.J.; Fahey, D.W.; Hibbard, K.A.; Deangelo, B.; Doherty, S.; Hayhoe, K.; Horton, R.; Kossin, J.P.; Taylor, P.C.; Waple, A.M.; Yohe, C.P. (23 November 2018). "Climate Science Special Report / Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4), Volume I /Executive Summary / Highlights of the Findings of the U.S. Global Change Research Program Climate Science Special Report". globalchange.gov. U.S. Global Change Research Program: 1–470. doi:10.7930/J0DJ5CTG. Archived from the original on 14 June 2019.
44. ^ Roper, Willem (25 January 2021). "Global Warming Chart – Here's How Temperatures Have Risen Since 1950". World Economic Forum. Retrieved 5 November 2023.
45. ^ Slade, David H. (1989). "A survey of informed opinion regarding the nature and reality of a 'global greenhouse warming'". Climatic Change. 16: 1–4. doi:10.1007/BF00137342. S2CID 153884762.
46. ^ GECR climate survey shows strong agreement on action, less so on warming (Report). Vol. 2. Global Environmental Change Report. 1990. pp. 1–3.
47. ^ "World warming at record 0.2 C per decade, scientists warn". Phys.org. Retrieved 23 November 2023.
48. ^ Jump up to:a b c Bray, Dennis; Storch, Hans von. "Climate Scientists' Perceptions of Climate Change Science" (PDF). GKSS Report 11/2007.
49. ^ "Climate scientists' views on climate change: a survey". Nature Climate Change. 8 August 2007. Archived from the original on 13 January 2012.
50. ^ Naomi Oreskes (3 December 2004). "Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" (PDF). Science. 306 (5702): 1686. doi:10.1126/science.1103618. PMID 15576594. S2CID 153792099.
51. ^ Lichter, S. Robert (24 April 2008). "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. Archived from the original on 11 January 2010. Retrieved 20 January 2010.
52. ^ ""Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change"". Journalist's Resource.org.
53. ^ Stephen J. Farnsworth; S. Robert Lichter (27 October 2011). "The Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change". International Journal of Public Opinion Research. Archived from the original on 11 March 2013. Retrieved 2 December 2011.
54. ^ Lavelle, Marianne (23 April 2008). "Survey Tracks Scientists' Growing Climate Concern". U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved 20 January 2010.
55. ^ Bray, Dennis; von Storch, Hans (2010). "A Survey of the Perspectives of Climate Scientists Concerning Climate Science and Climate Change" (PDF).
56. ^ Bray, Dennis (August 2010). "The scientific consensus of climate change revisited" (PDF). Environmental Science & Policy. 13 (5): 340–350. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2010.04.001., copy online at [1]
57. ^ Bray, D.; von Storch H. (2009). "Prediction' or 'Projection; The nomenclature of climate science" (PDF). Science Communication. 30 (4): 534–543. doi:10.1177/1075547009333698. S2CID 145338218.
58. ^ "Ice sheet melt on track with 'worst-case climate scenario'". www.esa.int. Retrieved 8 September 2020.
59. ^ Slater, Thomas; Hogg, Anna E.; Mottram, Ruth (31 August 2020). "Ice-sheet losses track high-end sea-level rise projections". Nature Climate Change. 10 (10): 879–881. Bibcode:2020NatCC..10..879S. doi:10.1038/s41558-020-0893-y. ISSN 1758-6798. S2CID 221381924. Archived from the original on 2 September 2020. Retrieved 8 September 2020.
60. ^ Grinsted, Aslak; Christensen, Jens Hesselbjerg (2021-02-02). "The transient sensitivity of sea level rise". Ocean Science. 17 (1): 181–186. Bibcode:2021OcSci..17..181G. doi:10.5194/os-17-181-2021. ISSN 1812-0784. S2CID 234353584.
61. ^ Fox-Kemper, B.; Hewitt, H.T.; Xiao, C.; Aðalgeirsdóttir, G.; Drijfhout, S.S.; Edwards, T.L.; Golledge, N.R.; Hemer, M.; Kopp, R.E.; Krinner, G.; Mix, A. (2021). Masson-Delmotte, V.; Zhai, P.; Pirani, A.; Connors, S.L.; Péan, C.; Berger, S.; Caud, N.; Chen, Y.; Goldfarb, L. (eds.). "Chapter 9: Ocean, Cryosphere and Sea Level Change" (PDF). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, US: 1302.
62. ^ Doran, Peter T.; Zimmerman, Maggie Kendall (20 January 2009). "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change". EOS. 90 (3): 22–23. Bibcode:2009EOSTr..90...22D. doi:10.1029/2009EO030002. S2CID 128398335.
63. ^ William R. L. Anderegg; James W. Prall; Jacob Harold & Stephen H. Schneider (April 9, 2010). "Expert credibility in climate change". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 107 (27): 12107–12109. Bibcode:2010PNAS..10712107A. doi:10.1073/pnas.1003187107. PMC 2901439. PMID 20566872.
64. ^ Scientists 'Convinced' of Climate Consensus More Prominent Than Opponents, Says Paper by Eli Kintisch, "Science Insider", Science, 21 June 2010
65. ^ ""Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change" at Journalist's Resource.org".
66. ^ Jump up to:a b Stephen J. Farnsworth; S. Robert Lichter (27 October 2011). "The Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change". International Journal of Public Opinion Research. 24: 93–103. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edr033. Retrieved 2 December 2011. Paywalled; full test online here, retrieved 30 November 2014. From Table I, "Q: In your opinion, is human-induced greenhouse warming now occurring?" Yes, 84%. No, 5%. Don't Know, 12%
67. ^ Powell, James Lawrence (15 November 2012), "The State of Climate Science: A Thorough Review of the Scientific Literature on Global Warming", Science Progress, retrieved 21 September 2016
68. ^ Powell, James Lawrence (2011). The Inquisition of Climate Science. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-15718-6.
69. ^ Plait, P. (11 December 2012). "Why Climate Change Denial Is Just Hot Air". Slate. Retrieved 12 June 2014.
70. ^ Sheppard, Kate (1 December 2012). "CHART: Only 0.17 Percent of Peer-Reviewed Papers Question Global Warming". Mother Jones. Retrieved 12 February 2014.
71. ^ Plait, P. (14 January 2014). "The Very, Very Thin Wedge of Denial". Slate. Retrieved 12 June 2014.
72. ^ Gertz, Emily (10 January 2014). "Infographic: Scientists Who Doubt Human-Caused Climate Change". Popular Science. Retrieved 12 February 2014.
73. ^ The study in question was: Avakyan, S. V. (2013). "The role of solar activity in global warming". Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences. 83 (3): 275–285. Bibcode:2013HRuAS..83..275A. doi:10.1134/S1019331613030015. S2CID 154047107.
74. ^ Bray, Dennis; von Storch, Hans (2014). "A survey of the perceptions of climate scientists 2013" (PDF).
75. ^ Jump up to:a b c Cook, John; Dana Nuccitelli; Sarah A Green; Mark Richardson; Bärbel Winkler; Rob Painting; Robert Way; Peter Jacobs; Andrew Skuce (May 2013). "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature". Environmental Research Letters. 8 (2): 024024. Bibcode:2013ERL.....8b4024C. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024.
76. ^ Oreskes 2007, p. 72: "[Scientists] generally focus their discussions on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather than on matters about which everyone agrees"
77. ^ Verheggen, Bart; Strengers, Bart; Cook, John; van Dorland, Rob; Vringer, Kees; Peters, Jeroen; Visser, Hans; Meyer, Leo (19 August 2014). "Scientists' Views about Attribution of Global Warming". Environmental Science & Technology. 48 (16): 8963–8971. Bibcode:2014EnST...48.8963V. doi:10.1021/es501998e. PMID 25051508.
78. ^ Verheggen, Bart; Strengers, Bart; Vringer, Kees; Cook, John; Dorland, Rob van; Peters, Jeroen; Visser, Hans; Meyer, Leo (2 December 2014). "Reply to Comment on "Scientists' Views about Attribution of Global Warming"". Environmental Science & Technology. 48 (23): 14059–14060. Bibcode:2014EnST...4814059V. doi:10.1021/es505183e. ISSN 0013-936X. PMID 25405594.
79. ^ Jump up to:a b Powell, James Lawrence (24 May 2017). "The Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming Matters". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 36 (3): 157–163. doi:10.1177/0270467617707079. S2CID 148618842.
80. ^ Benestad, Rasmus E.; Nuccitelli, Dana; Lewandowsky, Stephan; Hayhoe, Katharine; Hygen, Hans Olav; van Dorland, Rob; Cook, John (November 2016). "Learning from mistakes in climate research". Theoretical and Applied Climatology. 126 (3–4): 699–703. Bibcode:2016ThApC.126..699B. doi:10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5. ISSN 0177-798X.
81. ^ Tol, Richard S J (1 April 2016). "Comment on 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature'". Environmental Research Letters. 11 (4). IOP Publishing: 048001. Bibcode:2016ERL....11d8001T. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048001. ISSN 1748-9326.
82. ^ Cook, John; Oreskes, Naomi; Doran, Peter T.; Anderegg, William R. L.; Verheggen, Bart; Maibach, Ed W.; Carlton, J. Stuart; Lewandowsky, Stephan; Skuce, Andrew G.; Green, Sarah A.; Nuccitelli, Dana (April 2016). "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming". Environmental Research Letters. 11 (4): 048002. Bibcode:2016ERL....11d8002C. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002. ISSN 1748-9326.
83. ^ Bray, Dennis; von Storch, Hans (2016). "The Bray and von Storch 5th International Survey of Climate Scientists 2015/2016". doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.11802.85443.
84. ^ Cook, John; Oreskes, Naomi; Doran, Peter T.; Anderegg, William R. L.; et al. (2016). "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming". Environmental Research Letters. 11 (4): 048002. Bibcode:2016ERL....11d8002C. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002.
85. ^ Jump up to:a b Carrington, Damian (8 May 2024). "World's top climate scientists expect global heating to blast past 1.5C target". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 9 May 2024. Replies were received from 380 of 843 scientists believed to have been contacted.
86. ^ Ramanujan, Krishna. "More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change". Cornell Chronicle. Environmental Research Letters. Retrieved 20 October 2021.

What are you an idiot, pisting the entire wiki article.

153 scientist at the most, agree. That is not the percentage crick claims. At best it is 1%
Ok, we can play again, from your source it says this:
Out of a group of 153 independently confirmed climate experts, 98.7% of those scientists indicated that the Earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels

 

[Crick]

Okay crick, I will cut to the chase and play the wiki game. Where do I get my information? I am a scientist working for the solar and wind power industry.

You are not a scientist.

I have also worked for geothermal so you can get an education from me on geothermal as well.

Your past claims, statements and conclusions make that exceedingly unlikely.

Nuclear power is my cup of tea.

Bottoms up then.

I have been requested to go to Spain four times, Argentina once, Brazil 22 times, Canada 36 times, England once. So where do I get my information. Being intelligent and working in a scientific field, I learn. As most intelligent people do.

I hate to break your bubble, but your postings here do not lead us to that conclusion whatsoever.

Wikipedia is just an article.

Wikipedia is a website. The particular article at that website that I've been using for several years on this topic is very heavily resourced with reference files from refereed science journals and mainstream publications as you can see directly above.

I will show how much fun it is, rubbing cricks nose in the shit.

Does that have something to do with the topic under discussion?

First the article does give us references. I will check out the references until the first 6 references all prove crick does not know a damn thing.

Isn't that predicting the outcome of something you haven't yet looked at? I have posted ALL the articles references above.

Nice, the article starts by saying it is so. Dictating. And for reference they reference the IPCC, which crick tells us does not do any sort of research at all. Just an organization? So what good is a source that says they are using another source, the IPCC, and the IPCC will be using another source to make the claim

The IPCC, as you really ought to know, assesses published science. They are an excellent reference if you are interested in what published scientific studies are telling us about global warming.

Crick says use Wikipedia, says use IPCC, says use....

There is a nearly unanimous scientific consensus that the Earth has been consistently warming since the start of the Industrial Revolution, that the rate of recent warming is largely unprecedented,[1]: 8 [2]: 11 

Correct.

First link given to the IPCC report? Am I suppose to read the entire 100,000 page report to see what the fuck crick thinks he referenced?

The report is not 100,000 pages. You seem to be admitting that you are unable to handle large technical documents. Does that not have some negative impact to your job as a scientist for the solar, wind, geothermal and nuclear industries? Do they never ask you to read?

Second link to the .gov site on what? https://www.globalchange.gov/our-work/fifth-national-climate-assessment
Oh, to the fifth assessment? Is this what crick refers to? And there is another link to follow to the actual fifth assessment?

The US government's national climate assessment reports are a perfectly valid source. But, it appears you don't like what they say. Why?

More crick bullshit that crick dont read. I will ignore all these links to nowhere, okay, crick

1) I am not required to review every reference from every linked article I provide but I am quite certain from what you've just shown us that I have read a GREAT deal more of them than have you.
2) Your "I will ignore all these links to nowhere" falls right in line with your claim that only the ignorat post supporting links. You don't use links because you can't find any that agree with the misinformation you've chosen to spew here.

The human activities causing this warming include fossil fuel combustion, cement production, and land use changes such as deforestation,[3]: 10–11  with a significant supporting role from the other greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide.[1]: 7  This human role in climate change is considered "unequivocal" and "incontrovertible".[1]: 4 [2]: 4 

More links? More, I say this, and you must believe, but nothing about the consensus?
This link is to another IPCC report with the 5th assessment. Already been linked to now linked again really forcefully saying, "You must believe."

The use of footnotes and endnotes to supporting reference material in technical documents is not only preferable, it is essential. Your claim to be a scientist, on just this ridiculous position or yours, fails completely.

Just to make that clear: no scientist would say what you have just said.

 

[elektra]

You are not a scientist.

Your past claims, statements and conclusions make that exceedingly unlikely.

Bottoms up then.

I hate to break your bubble, but your postings here do not lead us to that conclusion whatsoever.

Wikipedia is a website. The particular article at that website that I've been using for several years on this topic is very heavily resourced with reference files from refereed science journals and mainstream publications as you can see directly above.

Does that have something to do with the topic under discussion?

Isn't that predicting the outcome of something you haven't yet looked at? I have posted ALL the articles references above.

The IPCC, as you really ought to know, assesses published science. They are an excellent reference if you are interested in what published scientific studies are telling us about global warming.

Correct.

The report is not 100,000 pages. You seem to be admitting that you are unable to handle large technical documents. Does that not have some negative impact to your job as a scientist for the solar, wind, geothermal and nuclear industries? Do they never ask you to read?

The US government's national climate assessment reports are a perfectly valid source. But, it appears you don't like what they say. Why?

1) I am not required to review every reference from every linked article I provide but I am quite certain from what you've just shown us that I have read a GREAT deal more of them than have you.
2) Your "I will ignore all these links to nowhere" falls right in line with your claim that only the ignorat post supporting links. You don't use links because you can't find any that agree with the misinformation you've chosen to spew here.

The use of footnotes and endnotes to supporting reference material in technical documents is not only preferable, it is essential. Your claim to be a scientist, on just this ridiculous position or yours, fails completely.

Just to make that clear: no scientist would say what you have just said.

Just to make this clear: crick is dumb.
This is the 3rd time I am pointing out that cricks source says less than a 153 scientists agree that man is causing climate change.

crick rants, posts, tells us what wikipedia and the IPCC does while ignoring what we all see.

crick proves less than 1% of scientists agree
Out of a group of 153 independently confirmed climate experts, 98.7% of those scientists indicated that the Earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels

 

[Crick]

Just to make this clear: crick is dumb.
This is the 3rd time I am pointing out that cricks source says less than a 153 scientists agree that man is causing climate change.

This is a lie. My sources say no such thing.

crick rants, posts, tells us what wikipedia and the IPCC does while ignoring what we all see.

What you all see? What is it you think you see?

crick proves less than 1% of scientists agree
Out of a group of 153 independently confirmed climate experts, 98.7% of those scientists indicated that the Earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels

There is no connection between your claim and the text you post. Do a better job of explaining what you are attempting to say or just give it the fuck up.

 

[elektra]

This is a lie. My sources say no such thing.

You are a hack, I linked and quoted from wiki you gave

 

[Natural Citizen]

I dug a four foot deep hole with just post hole diggers in 96 degree weather the other day for a new flag pole. Which, btw, is perfectly plumb. The last couple of feet were pretty much rock.

Twernt nothin.

Pussies...

 

[ding]

Brrrrrrrr

Good Lord, you're on a necro roll.

 

[Crick]

Yep it sure is the hottest year ever...for sure!

Ski Season Begins Early In Europe - Fast Track Ski News

http://english.vietnamnet.vn/en/soc...hanoi--buffaloes-freeze-to-death-in-sapa.html

And the reason why you shouldn't really py attention to Chris and his alarmism are these reports that show a whole host of problems with the data collection.

Control for Weather Quality Reporter

Seasonal Temperature: March –May 2024​

The March 2024–May 2024 global surface temperature was the warmest March–May period in the 175-year record, 1.29°C (2.32°F) above the 20th-century average of 13.7°C (56.7°F). The past eleven March–May periods have ranked among the twelve warmest such periods on record.

May 2024 Global Climate Report | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

An analysis of global temperatures and precipitation, placing the data into a historical perspective

www.ncei.noaa.gov

 

[Stryder50]

Seasonal Temperature: March –May 2024​

The March 2024–May 2024 global surface temperature was the warmest March–May period in the 175-year record, 1.29°C (2.32°F) above the 20th-century average of 13.7°C (56.7°F). The past eleven March–May periods have ranked among the twelve warmest such periods on record.

May 2024 Global Climate Report | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

An analysis of global temperatures and precipitation, placing the data into a historical perspective

www.ncei.noaa.gov

But far from the record for the past 175 MILLION years.