Trump pulling out of Paris Climate Accord

[basquebromance]

Margaret Thatcher: "Global Warming provides a marvelous excuse for Global Socialism."

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The language of the accord is irrelevant. We never ratified it.

And never will. Lets move on to undoing the next obamacrap that needs undoing. Gay marriage?

Absolutely. We voted Trump in because he was the candidate that came closest to promising to De-Bama the country.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

The language of the accord is irrelevant. We never ratified it.

And never will. Lets move on to undoing the next obamacrap that needs undoing. Gay marriage?

Absolutely. We voted Trump in because he was the candidate that came closest to promising to De-Bama the country.

And he's doing a fine job of it.

 

[Seawytch]

At the moment, Syria and Nicaragua. That's the company in which Trump wants to put the U.S.

Now....explain logically WHY that is.

<Crickets>

Thought so.

Excuse me? Are you seriously asking me to logically explain why, with regard to climate change commitments, Trump wants to put the U.S. in the same league as Syria and Nicaragua?

There's little that man does that is soundly explainable, and that move on his part suffers from that dereliction. Yes, Trump has given an explanation for why he wanted to withdraw from the Paris climate accord; however, the explanation he's given is merely an explanation, not a sound one.

• The entire coal industry employs fewer people than Arby’s
  
  
  
  
  Although 76,000 might seem like a large number, consider that similar numbers of people are employed by, say, the bowling (69,088) and skiing (75,036) industries. Other dwindling industries, such as travel agencies (99,888 people), employ considerably more. Used-car dealerships provide 138,000 jobs. Theme parks provide nearly 144,000. Carwash employment tops 150,000.
  
  Looking at the level of individual businesses, the coal industry in 2014 (76,572) employed about as many as Whole Foods (72,650), and fewer workers than Arby's (close to 80,000), Dollar General (105,000) or J.C. Penney (114,000). The country's largest private employer, Walmart (2.2 million employees) provides roughly 28 times as many jobs as coal.
  
  If anything the numbers above over-estimate the jobs impact of coal relative to other industries. Since 2014 the coal industry has shrunk further according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, to 50,300 employees as of February 2017.
  
  The point isn't that coal jobs don't matter — they matter to the people who have them and to the communities they support, especially as they typically pay far more than do jobs in the retail and service industries, But if you're looking to make a meaningful increase in the number of jobs available to U.S. workers, bringing back coal jobs isn't going to do it.
  
  
• Average Number of Employees by State and [Coal] Mine Type, 2015 and 2014
  
• 50% of US coal jobs are in just 25 counties
  
• Natural gas is fast outpacing coal as the most popular fuel for U.S. electricity generation.
• Coal companies like Cloud Peak Energy and Peabody Energy argued for staying in the Paris Agreement.

You do realize that your numbers are from 2014, well after Obama shut down coal production?

I heard today (can't find a link) that since Trump took office a 160,000+ coal industry employees have been hired. Here in the western part of the state, and eastern part of a adjoning state, coal companies are trying to hire hundreds of people. In the past month, 6 mines have reopened.

You can't find a link because it's bullshit.

President Donald Trump’s economic adviser Gary Cohn minimized the significance of coal in comments to reporters aboard Air Force One Friday, according to the pool report.

“Coal doesn’t even make that much sense anymore as a feedstock,” Cohn said.

Trump Chief Economic Adviser Contradicts Campaign Promise: Coal ‘Doesn’t Even Make That Much Sense Anymore’

 

[basquebromance]

One of Al Gore's houses uses more than 20 times the energy of the average American home, but he's gonna lecture you about global warming.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

One of Al Gore's houses uses more than 20 times the energy of the average American home, but he's gonna lecture you about global warming.

He's thinking he won't have a problem affording it once the little people start paying him for fake carbon credits.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I'm super busy this afternoon, so I haven't got time to argue, but I'm gonna say this:
ADMIT that even if it were ratified or kissed by the SC or whatever, you STILL would hate it because you don't think it will have any effect. So don't ramble on about the legalities of a VOLUNTARY agreement which as far as I know is not the same thing as a TREATY, but I could be wrong and it doesn't matter because you wouldn't care anyway YOU WOULD STILL BE SAYING IT WAS WRONG HEADED and STUPID.
It is humiliating to be in the basket with Syria and Nicaragua while most of the educated world (and even a lot of the world that isn't very educated) recognize that if we're going to keep this planet anywhere near stable and livable in the foreseeable future, we need to use as much knowledge and foresight and brains as we can muster to do that.
Trump can revise our involvement if he doesn't want to pay big bucks. But he should still participate. We will see. I think it is money well spent, but that's not up to me to say.
And one more thing, if you don't quit with that hack insult "enveloping yourself in emotion and partisan talking points" I'm gonna actually get emotional. I don't do partisan talking points and you know it. Aping that shit like .... well never mind, just don't.

So you are another one who thinks being part of the cool crowd is cool? This is not high school.. Once more scientists like Judith Curry and her peers are part of the 97% consensus..Yet people call them a denier .. Why is that?

.

I have no idea what you're talking about. If you've got a point, try again.

How convenient.

Judith Curry and her peers are part of the 97% consensus..

What? Assuming she even retains any legitimacy/credibility as a scientist, to say nothing of as a climate scientist of some stripe, Judith Curry is among the 3% not the 97%. The woman has given five different years as the point at which global warming stopped.

Forget the debate over whether there are indeed anthropogenic causes of it, that silly woman thought it had stopped happening, and thinks it stopped on five different occasions. That attestation is analogous to one's using the fact of being at a stoplight to support the assertion that they "stopped driving."

so dude, how many scientists make up that 97% number? you even know?

How about 75 out of 77. dude, too funny that you think those are the only scientists in the world. get out of the basement.

so dude, how many scientists make up that 97% number? you even know?

You know, you routinely ask questions the answers to which you are just too f*cking lazy to go find for yourself.

• 2012 -- 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.
  
• 2013 -- The prior analysis preceded subsequent analysis Powell performed in 2013. Powell in 2013 finished another such investigation, that time looking at peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013. And what did he observe?
  
  
  
  
  
  
• 2013 -- Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature -- Of the 11,944 abstracts from the peer-reviewed scientific literature published from 1991–2011 and that matched the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming,' among the researchers who expressed a conclusion on the anthropogenic nature of global warming, 97.1 % of them (~4000) concurred that the global warming we currently observe and experience is anthropogenically caused.
  • It's worth noting that the authors of the paper linked just above later conducted an analysis of to determine "what's up" with the 2% to 3% (the range given due to non-integer nature of the "97%") of researchers who rejected the verity of anthropogenic global warming. Their "replication [of the work performed by the "dissenting" researchers] reveals a number of methodological flaws, and a pattern of common mistakes emerges that is not visible when looking at single isolated cases
• 2011 -- Structure of scientific opinion on climate change -- A 2011 paper from George Mason University published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, “The Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change,” collected the opinions of scientists in the earth, space, atmospheric, oceanic or hydrological sciences. The 489 survey respondents -- representing nearly half of all those eligible according to the survey’s specific standards -- work in academia, government or industry, and are members of prominent professional organizations.
  
  The study’s key findings include:
  
  
  • 97% of the 489 scientists surveyed agreed that that global temperatures have risen over the past century. Moreover, 84% agreed that “human-induced greenhouse warming” is now occurring.” Only 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global warming.
  • “There was greater debate over the likelihood of substantial warming in the near future, with 56% seeing at least a 50-50 chance that temperatures will rise” 2 degrees Celsius over the next 50 to 100 years.
  • “When [survey participants were] asked to rate the effects on a ten-point scale from trivial (1) to catastrophic (10), the mean response was 6.6, with 41% seeing great danger (ratings of 8-10), 44% moderate danger (4-7), and 13% little danger.”
  • Though the expectation might be that scientists involved in industry would be more likely to have doubts about the validity of climate change, a statistical breakdown of the survey results showed that there was “no independent effect of industry employment on scientific attitudes toward climate change.”
• 2010 -- Expert credibility in climate change -- A 2010 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” analyzed the research patterns and scholarly citations of 1,372 climate scientists who publish in this field. Of these, 908 scientists had published 20 or more climate-related papers. The study’s authors, from Stanford University, the University of Toronto and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, examined public statements from groups of scientists that indicated they were either convinced or unconvinced by evidence of climate change, and matched these to the sample of scientists. Though the sample of scientists is not comprehensive, the study’s authors note, the criteria used likely yield the “strongest and most credentialed researchers” in both the unconvinced and unconvinced camps.
  
  The study’s findings include:
  
  • About 97% of the group with the most expertise -- the 908 climate scientists with 20 or more papers published -- are convinced by the evidence of anthropogenically caused climate change.
  • Those who are unconvinced by the evidence make up “only 2% of the top 50 climate researchers as ranked by expertise (number of climate publications), 3% of researchers of the top 100, and 2.5% of the top 200.”
  • Overall, researchers with fewer than 20 climate publications comprise 80% the group that is unconvinced, as opposed to less than 10% of the group that is convinced by the evidence: This indicates that the bulk of [unconvinced] researchers on the most prominent multi-signatory statements about climate change are also the researchers having the least exposure to the elements and effects of climate change and the least experience analyzing the matter.

Having now answered your question, do not again ask me questions for which you are just too damned indolent to answer yourself and in turn use the information you obtain from having sought the answer(s) to form a cogent comment or argument.

 

[usmbguest5318]

At the moment, Syria and Nicaragua. That's the company in which Trump wants to put the U.S.

Now....explain logically WHY that is.

<Crickets>

Thought so.

Excuse me? Are you seriously asking me to logically explain why, with regard to climate change commitments, Trump wants to put the U.S. in the same league as Syria and Nicaragua?

There's little that man does that is soundly explainable, and that move on his part suffers from that dereliction. Yes, Trump has given an explanation for why he wanted to withdraw from the Paris climate accord; however, the explanation he's given is merely an explanation, not a sound one.

• The entire coal industry employs fewer people than Arby’s
  
  
  
  
  Although 76,000 might seem like a large number, consider that similar numbers of people are employed by, say, the bowling (69,088) and skiing (75,036) industries. Other dwindling industries, such as travel agencies (99,888 people), employ considerably more. Used-car dealerships provide 138,000 jobs. Theme parks provide nearly 144,000. Carwash employment tops 150,000.
  
  Looking at the level of individual businesses, the coal industry in 2014 (76,572) employed about as many as Whole Foods (72,650), and fewer workers than Arby's (close to 80,000), Dollar General (105,000) or J.C. Penney (114,000). The country's largest private employer, Walmart (2.2 million employees) provides roughly 28 times as many jobs as coal.
  
  If anything the numbers above over-estimate the jobs impact of coal relative to other industries. Since 2014 the coal industry has shrunk further according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, to 50,300 employees as of February 2017.
  
  The point isn't that coal jobs don't matter — they matter to the people who have them and to the communities they support, especially as they typically pay far more than do jobs in the retail and service industries, But if you're looking to make a meaningful increase in the number of jobs available to U.S. workers, bringing back coal jobs isn't going to do it.
  
  
• Average Number of Employees by State and [Coal] Mine Type, 2015 and 2014
  
• 50% of US coal jobs are in just 25 counties
  
• Natural gas is fast outpacing coal as the most popular fuel for U.S. electricity generation.
• Coal companies like Cloud Peak Energy and Peabody Energy argued for staying in the Paris Agreement.

You do realize that your numbers are from 2014, well after Obama shut down coal production?

I heard today (can't find a link) that since Trump took office a 160,000+ coal industry employees have been hired. Here in the western part of the state, and eastern part of a adjoning state, coal companies are trying to hire hundreds of people. In the past month, 6 mines have reopened.

Obama shut down coal production

Please provide credible documentation that Obama shut down coal production. Just what the hell do you think the companies cited in my post do? Mine fake coal?

 

[usmbguest5318]

One of Al Gore's houses uses more than 20 times the energy of the average American home, but he's gonna lecture you about global warming.

And you know that how?

 

[jc456]

So you are another one who thinks being part of the cool crowd is cool? This is not high school.. Once more scientists like Judith Curry and her peers are part of the 97% consensus..Yet people call them a denier .. Why is that?

.

I have no idea what you're talking about. If you've got a point, try again.

How convenient.

Judith Curry and her peers are part of the 97% consensus..

What? Assuming she even retains any legitimacy/credibility as a scientist, to say nothing of as a climate scientist of some stripe, Judith Curry is among the 3% not the 97%. The woman has given five different years as the point at which global warming stopped.

Forget the debate over whether there are indeed anthropogenic causes of it, that silly woman thought it had stopped happening, and thinks it stopped on five different occasions. That attestation is analogous to one's using the fact of being at a stoplight to support the assertion that they "stopped driving."

so dude, how many scientists make up that 97% number? you even know?

How about 75 out of 77. dude, too funny that you think those are the only scientists in the world. get out of the basement.

so dude, how many scientists make up that 97% number? you even know?

You know, you routinely ask questions the answers to which you are just too f*cking lazy to go find for yourself.

• 2012 -- 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.
  
• 2013 -- The prior analysis preceded subsequent analysis Powell performed in 2013. Powell in 2013 finished another such investigation, that time looking at peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013. And what did he observe?
  
  
  
  
  
  
• 2013 -- Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature -- Of the 11,944 abstracts from the peer-reviewed scientific literature published from 1991–2011 and that matched the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming,' among the researchers who expressed a conclusion on the anthropogenic nature of global warming, 97.1 % of them (~4000) concurred that the global warming we currently observe and experience is anthropogenically caused.
  • It's worth noting that the authors of the paper linked just above later conducted an analysis of to determine "what's up" with the 2% to 3% (the range given due to non-integer nature of the "97%") of researchers who rejected the verity of anthropogenic global warming. Their "replication [of the work performed by the "dissenting" researchers] reveals a number of methodological flaws, and a pattern of common mistakes emerges that is not visible when looking at single isolated cases
• 2011 -- Structure of scientific opinion on climate change -- A 2011 paper from George Mason University published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, “The Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change,” collected the opinions of scientists in the earth, space, atmospheric, oceanic or hydrological sciences. The 489 survey respondents -- representing nearly half of all those eligible according to the survey’s specific standards -- work in academia, government or industry, and are members of prominent professional organizations.
  
  The study’s key findings include:
  
  • 97% of the 489 scientists surveyed agreed that that global temperatures have risen over the past century. Moreover, 84% agreed that “human-induced greenhouse warming” is now occurring.” Only 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global warming.
  • “There was greater debate over the likelihood of substantial warming in the near future, with 56% seeing at least a 50-50 chance that temperatures will rise” 2 degrees Celsius over the next 50 to 100 years.
  • “When [survey participants were] asked to rate the effects on a ten-point scale from trivial (1) to catastrophic (10), the mean response was 6.6, with 41% seeing great danger (ratings of 8-10), 44% moderate danger (4-7), and 13% little danger.”
  • Though the expectation might be that scientists involved in industry would be more likely to have doubts about the validity of climate change, a statistical breakdown of the survey results showed that there was “no independent effect of industry employment on scientific attitudes toward climate change.”
• 2010 -- Expert credibility in climate change -- A 2010 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” analyzed the research patterns and scholarly citations of 1,372 climate scientists who publish in this field. Of these, 908 scientists had published 20 or more climate-related papers. The study’s authors, from Stanford University, the University of Toronto and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, examined public statements from groups of scientists that indicated they were either convinced or unconvinced by evidence of climate change, and matched these to the sample of scientists. Though the sample of scientists is not comprehensive, the study’s authors note, the criteria used likely yield the “strongest and most credentialed researchers” in both the unconvinced and unconvinced camps.
  
  The study’s findings include:
  • About 97% of the group with the most expertise -- the 908 climate scientists with 20 or more papers published -- are convinced by the evidence of anthropogenically caused climate change.
  • Those who are unconvinced by the evidence make up “only 2% of the top 50 climate researchers as ranked by expertise (number of climate publications), 3% of researchers of the top 100, and 2.5% of the top 200.”
  • Overall, researchers with fewer than 20 climate publications comprise 80% the group that is unconvinced, as opposed to less than 10% of the group that is convinced by the evidence: This indicates that the bulk of [unconvinced] researchers on the most prominent multi-signatory statements about climate change are also the researchers having the least exposure to the elements and effects of climate change and the least experience analyzing the matter.

Having now answered your question, do not again ask me questions for which you are just too damned indolent to answer yourself and in turn use the information you obtain from having sought the answer(s) to form a cogent comment or argument.

I gave you the answer in the post75 of 77! You didn't read.

 

[bripat9643]

So you are another one who thinks being part of the cool crowd is cool? This is not high school.. Once more scientists like Judith Curry and her peers are part of the 97% consensus..Yet people call them a denier .. Why is that?

.

I have no idea what you're talking about. If you've got a point, try again.

How convenient.

Judith Curry and her peers are part of the 97% consensus..

What? Assuming she even retains any legitimacy/credibility as a scientist, to say nothing of as a climate scientist of some stripe, Judith Curry is among the 3% not the 97%. The woman has given five different years as the point at which global warming stopped.

Forget the debate over whether there are indeed anthropogenic causes of it, that silly woman thought it had stopped happening, and thinks it stopped on five different occasions. That attestation is analogous to one's using the fact of being at a stoplight to support the assertion that they "stopped driving."

so dude, how many scientists make up that 97% number? you even know?

How about 75 out of 77. dude, too funny that you think those are the only scientists in the world. get out of the basement.

so dude, how many scientists make up that 97% number? you even know?

You know, you routinely ask questions the answers to which you are just too f*cking lazy to go find for yourself.

• 2012 -- 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.
  
• 2013 -- The prior analysis preceded subsequent analysis Powell performed in 2013. Powell in 2013 finished another such investigation, that time looking at peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013. And what did he observe?
  
  
  
  
  
  
• 2013 -- Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature -- Of the 11,944 abstracts from the peer-reviewed scientific literature published from 1991–2011 and that matched the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming,' among the researchers who expressed a conclusion on the anthropogenic nature of global warming, 97.1 % of them (~4000) concurred that the global warming we currently observe and experience is anthropogenically caused.
  • It's worth noting that the authors of the paper linked just above later conducted an analysis of to determine "what's up" with the 2% to 3% (the range given due to non-integer nature of the "97%") of researchers who rejected the verity of anthropogenic global warming. Their "replication [of the work performed by the "dissenting" researchers] reveals a number of methodological flaws, and a pattern of common mistakes emerges that is not visible when looking at single isolated cases
• 2011 -- Structure of scientific opinion on climate change -- A 2011 paper from George Mason University published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, “The Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change,” collected the opinions of scientists in the earth, space, atmospheric, oceanic or hydrological sciences. The 489 survey respondents -- representing nearly half of all those eligible according to the survey’s specific standards -- work in academia, government or industry, and are members of prominent professional organizations.
  
  The study’s key findings include:
  
  • 97% of the 489 scientists surveyed agreed that that global temperatures have risen over the past century. Moreover, 84% agreed that “human-induced greenhouse warming” is now occurring.” Only 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global warming.
  • “There was greater debate over the likelihood of substantial warming in the near future, with 56% seeing at least a 50-50 chance that temperatures will rise” 2 degrees Celsius over the next 50 to 100 years.
  • “When [survey participants were] asked to rate the effects on a ten-point scale from trivial (1) to catastrophic (10), the mean response was 6.6, with 41% seeing great danger (ratings of 8-10), 44% moderate danger (4-7), and 13% little danger.”
  • Though the expectation might be that scientists involved in industry would be more likely to have doubts about the validity of climate change, a statistical breakdown of the survey results showed that there was “no independent effect of industry employment on scientific attitudes toward climate change.”
• 2010 -- Expert credibility in climate change -- A 2010 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” analyzed the research patterns and scholarly citations of 1,372 climate scientists who publish in this field. Of these, 908 scientists had published 20 or more climate-related papers. The study’s authors, from Stanford University, the University of Toronto and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, examined public statements from groups of scientists that indicated they were either convinced or unconvinced by evidence of climate change, and matched these to the sample of scientists. Though the sample of scientists is not comprehensive, the study’s authors note, the criteria used likely yield the “strongest and most credentialed researchers” in both the unconvinced and unconvinced camps.
  
  The study’s findings include:
  • About 97% of the group with the most expertise -- the 908 climate scientists with 20 or more papers published -- are convinced by the evidence of anthropogenically caused climate change.
  • Those who are unconvinced by the evidence make up “only 2% of the top 50 climate researchers as ranked by expertise (number of climate publications), 3% of researchers of the top 100, and 2.5% of the top 200.”
  • Overall, researchers with fewer than 20 climate publications comprise 80% the group that is unconvinced, as opposed to less than 10% of the group that is convinced by the evidence: This indicates that the bulk of [unconvinced] researchers on the most prominent multi-signatory statements about climate change are also the researchers having the least exposure to the elements and effects of climate change and the least experience analyzing the matter.

Having now answered your question, do not again ask me questions for which you are just too damned indolent to answer yourself and in turn use the information you obtain from having sought the answer(s) to form a cogent comment or argument.

They aren't peer reviewed articles. They are pal reviewed.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I have no idea what you're talking about. If you've got a point, try again.

How convenient.

Judith Curry and her peers are part of the 97% consensus..

What? Assuming she even retains any legitimacy/credibility as a scientist, to say nothing of as a climate scientist of some stripe, Judith Curry is among the 3% not the 97%. The woman has given five different years as the point at which global warming stopped.

Forget the debate over whether there are indeed anthropogenic causes of it, that silly woman thought it had stopped happening, and thinks it stopped on five different occasions. That attestation is analogous to one's using the fact of being at a stoplight to support the assertion that they "stopped driving."

so dude, how many scientists make up that 97% number? you even know?

How about 75 out of 77. dude, too funny that you think those are the only scientists in the world. get out of the basement.

so dude, how many scientists make up that 97% number? you even know?

You know, you routinely ask questions the answers to which you are just too f*cking lazy to go find for yourself.

• 2012 -- 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.
  
• 2013 -- The prior analysis preceded subsequent analysis Powell performed in 2013. Powell in 2013 finished another such investigation, that time looking at peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013. And what did he observe?
  
  
  
  
  
  
• 2013 -- Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature -- Of the 11,944 abstracts from the peer-reviewed scientific literature published from 1991–2011 and that matched the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming,' among the researchers who expressed a conclusion on the anthropogenic nature of global warming, 97.1 % of them (~4000) concurred that the global warming we currently observe and experience is anthropogenically caused.
  • It's worth noting that the authors of the paper linked just above later conducted an analysis of to determine "what's up" with the 2% to 3% (the range given due to non-integer nature of the "97%") of researchers who rejected the verity of anthropogenic global warming. Their "replication [of the work performed by the "dissenting" researchers] reveals a number of methodological flaws, and a pattern of common mistakes emerges that is not visible when looking at single isolated cases
• 2011 -- Structure of scientific opinion on climate change -- A 2011 paper from George Mason University published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, “The Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change,” collected the opinions of scientists in the earth, space, atmospheric, oceanic or hydrological sciences. The 489 survey respondents -- representing nearly half of all those eligible according to the survey’s specific standards -- work in academia, government or industry, and are members of prominent professional organizations.
  
  The study’s key findings include:
  • 97% of the 489 scientists surveyed agreed that that global temperatures have risen over the past century. Moreover, 84% agreed that “human-induced greenhouse warming” is now occurring.” Only 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global warming.
  • “There was greater debate over the likelihood of substantial warming in the near future, with 56% seeing at least a 50-50 chance that temperatures will rise” 2 degrees Celsius over the next 50 to 100 years.
  • “When [survey participants were] asked to rate the effects on a ten-point scale from trivial (1) to catastrophic (10), the mean response was 6.6, with 41% seeing great danger (ratings of 8-10), 44% moderate danger (4-7), and 13% little danger.”
  • Though the expectation might be that scientists involved in industry would be more likely to have doubts about the validity of climate change, a statistical breakdown of the survey results showed that there was “no independent effect of industry employment on scientific attitudes toward climate change.”
• 2010 -- Expert credibility in climate change -- A 2010 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” analyzed the research patterns and scholarly citations of 1,372 climate scientists who publish in this field. Of these, 908 scientists had published 20 or more climate-related papers. The study’s authors, from Stanford University, the University of Toronto and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, examined public statements from groups of scientists that indicated they were either convinced or unconvinced by evidence of climate change, and matched these to the sample of scientists. Though the sample of scientists is not comprehensive, the study’s authors note, the criteria used likely yield the “strongest and most credentialed researchers” in both the unconvinced and unconvinced camps.
  
  The study’s findings include:
  • About 97% of the group with the most expertise -- the 908 climate scientists with 20 or more papers published -- are convinced by the evidence of anthropogenically caused climate change.
  • Those who are unconvinced by the evidence make up “only 2% of the top 50 climate researchers as ranked by expertise (number of climate publications), 3% of researchers of the top 100, and 2.5% of the top 200.”
  • Overall, researchers with fewer than 20 climate publications comprise 80% the group that is unconvinced, as opposed to less than 10% of the group that is convinced by the evidence: This indicates that the bulk of [unconvinced] researchers on the most prominent multi-signatory statements about climate change are also the researchers having the least exposure to the elements and effects of climate change and the least experience analyzing the matter.

Having now answered your question, do not again ask me questions for which you are just too damned indolent to answer yourself and in turn use the information you obtain from having sought the answer(s) to form a cogent comment or argument.

I gave you the answer in the post75 of 77! You didn't read.

I ignored that remark because you provided no credible support for that attestation. Surely you don't think I'm going to accept that it's so merely because you wrote so?

 

[jc456]

About that overwhelming 97-98% number of scientists that say there is a climate consensus…
"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”."

 

[Derelict_Drvr]

A giant crack in Antarctic ice is 'days or weeks' from breaking off a Delaware-size iceberg

Bye bye, military bases!

it's already floating. so not sure what your point is.

Quick Facts on Ice Shelves | National Snow and Ice Data Center

Why are ice shelves important?
Because ice shelves already float in the ocean, they do not contribute directly to sea level rise when they break up. However, ice shelf collapse could contribute to sea level rise indirectly. Ice streams and glaciers constantly push on ice shelves, but the shelves eventually come up against coastal features such as islands and peninsulas, building pressure that slows their movement into the ocean. If an ice shelf collapses, the backpressure disappears. The glaciers that fed into the ice shelf speed up, flowing more quickly out to sea. Glaciers and ice sheets rest on land, so once they flow into the ocean, they contribute to sea level rise.


You're welcome.

how you figure? they used the word 'could'. the fact is no added water. so again, your point is what?

Bah! Who needs science, amiright?

Let's use some science! Oceans make up about 70% of the earths surface which is about 140 million square miles. How many square miles of dangling ice shelves would be required to elevate the worlds oceans by say...an inch?

Let's see. If I did my computations right (LxWxDx amount of rise), 140000000 sq. miles x 12100 ft average depth converted to sq. ft, then x .10 (1.2 inches), I come up with 2,303,072.302 cu. miles of water/ice to raise the earth's oceans 1.2 inches.

But correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Derelict_Drvr]

So you are another one who thinks being part of the cool crowd is cool? This is not high school.. Once more scientists like Judith Curry and her peers are part of the 97% consensus..Yet people call them a denier .. Why is that?

.

I have no idea what you're talking about. If you've got a point, try again.

How convenient.

Judith Curry and her peers are part of the 97% consensus..

What? Assuming she even retains any legitimacy/credibility as a scientist, to say nothing of as a climate scientist of some stripe, Judith Curry is among the 3% not the 97%. The woman has given five different years as the point at which global warming stopped.

Forget the debate over whether there are indeed anthropogenic causes of it, that silly woman thought it had stopped happening, and thinks it stopped on five different occasions. That attestation is analogous to one's using the fact of being at a stoplight to support the assertion that they "stopped driving."

so dude, how many scientists make up that 97% number? you even know?

How about 75 out of 77. dude, too funny that you think those are the only scientists in the world. get out of the basement.

so dude, how many scientists make up that 97% number? you even know?

You know, you routinely ask questions the answers to which you are just too f*cking lazy to go find for yourself.

• 2012 -- 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.
  
• 2013 -- The prior analysis preceded subsequent analysis Powell performed in 2013. Powell in 2013 finished another such investigation, that time looking at peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013. And what did he observe?
  
  
  
  
  
  
• 2013 -- Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature -- Of the 11,944 abstracts from the peer-reviewed scientific literature published from 1991–2011 and that matched the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming,' among the researchers who expressed a conclusion on the anthropogenic nature of global warming, 97.1 % of them (~4000) concurred that the global warming we currently observe and experience is anthropogenically caused.
  • It's worth noting that the authors of the paper linked just above later conducted an analysis of to determine "what's up" with the 2% to 3% (the range given due to non-integer nature of the "97%") of researchers who rejected the verity of anthropogenic global warming. Their "replication [of the work performed by the "dissenting" researchers] reveals a number of methodological flaws, and a pattern of common mistakes emerges that is not visible when looking at single isolated cases
• 2011 -- Structure of scientific opinion on climate change -- A 2011 paper from George Mason University published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, “The Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change,” collected the opinions of scientists in the earth, space, atmospheric, oceanic or hydrological sciences. The 489 survey respondents -- representing nearly half of all those eligible according to the survey’s specific standards -- work in academia, government or industry, and are members of prominent professional organizations.
  
  The study’s key findings include:
  
  • 97% of the 489 scientists surveyed agreed that that global temperatures have risen over the past century. Moreover, 84% agreed that “human-induced greenhouse warming” is now occurring.” Only 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global warming.
  • “There was greater debate over the likelihood of substantial warming in the near future, with 56% seeing at least a 50-50 chance that temperatures will rise” 2 degrees Celsius over the next 50 to 100 years.
  • “When [survey participants were] asked to rate the effects on a ten-point scale from trivial (1) to catastrophic (10), the mean response was 6.6, with 41% seeing great danger (ratings of 8-10), 44% moderate danger (4-7), and 13% little danger.”
  • Though the expectation might be that scientists involved in industry would be more likely to have doubts about the validity of climate change, a statistical breakdown of the survey results showed that there was “no independent effect of industry employment on scientific attitudes toward climate change.”
• 2010 -- Expert credibility in climate change -- A 2010 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” analyzed the research patterns and scholarly citations of 1,372 climate scientists who publish in this field. Of these, 908 scientists had published 20 or more climate-related papers. The study’s authors, from Stanford University, the University of Toronto and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, examined public statements from groups of scientists that indicated they were either convinced or unconvinced by evidence of climate change, and matched these to the sample of scientists. Though the sample of scientists is not comprehensive, the study’s authors note, the criteria used likely yield the “strongest and most credentialed researchers” in both the unconvinced and unconvinced camps.
  
  The study’s findings include:
  • About 97% of the group with the most expertise -- the 908 climate scientists with 20 or more papers published -- are convinced by the evidence of anthropogenically caused climate change.
  • Those who are unconvinced by the evidence make up “only 2% of the top 50 climate researchers as ranked by expertise (number of climate publications), 3% of researchers of the top 100, and 2.5% of the top 200.”
  • Overall, researchers with fewer than 20 climate publications comprise 80% the group that is unconvinced, as opposed to less than 10% of the group that is convinced by the evidence: This indicates that the bulk of [unconvinced] researchers on the most prominent multi-signatory statements about climate change are also the researchers having the least exposure to the elements and effects of climate change and the least experience analyzing the matter.

Having now answered your question, do not again ask me questions for which you are just too damned indolent to answer yourself and in turn use the information you obtain from having sought the answer(s) to form a cogent comment or argument.

As I stated earlier, climate warming is not the issue. However, that man caused it is what is in contention.

 

[HenryBHough]

Let me give an analogy.

You and your fiancée write out and sign a pre nuptial agreement in case you divorce.

Two days before the wedding she dumps you.

Can you now sue for damages under the pre nuptial agreement?

Of course not! You were never married! So any agreement to divestment of the assets at the time of divorce is irrelevant.

Likewise while we may have helped write terms of this accord, until the senate ratifies we haven't adopted the accord and thus none of it's terms are valid.

You cannot leave what you never went to. Much like you can't divorce before you marry

Give it up!

You're just confusing them.

 

[Billy_Bob]

So you are another one who thinks being part of the cool crowd is cool? This is not high school.. Once more scientists like Judith Curry and her peers are part of the 97% consensus..Yet people call them a denier .. Why is that?

.

I have no idea what you're talking about. If you've got a point, try again.

How convenient.

Judith Curry and her peers are part of the 97% consensus..

What? Assuming she even retains any legitimacy/credibility as a scientist, to say nothing of as a climate scientist of some stripe, Judith Curry is among the 3% not the 97%. The woman has given five different years as the point at which global warming stopped.

Forget the debate over whether there are indeed anthropogenic causes of it, that silly woman thought it had stopped happening, and thinks it stopped on five different occasions. That attestation is analogous to one's using the fact of being at a stoplight to support the assertion that they "stopped driving."

so dude, how many scientists make up that 97% number? you even know?

How about 75 out of 77. dude, too funny that you think those are the only scientists in the world. get out of the basement.

so dude, how many scientists make up that 97% number? you even know?

You know, you routinely ask questions the answers to which you are just too f*cking lazy to go find for yourself.

• 2012 -- 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.
  
• 2013 -- The prior analysis preceded subsequent analysis Powell performed in 2013. Powell in 2013 finished another such investigation, that time looking at peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013. And what did he observe?
  
  
  
  
  
  
• 2013 -- Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature -- Of the 11,944 abstracts from the peer-reviewed scientific literature published from 1991–2011 and that matched the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming,' among the researchers who expressed a conclusion on the anthropogenic nature of global warming, 97.1 % of them (~4000) concurred that the global warming we currently observe and experience is anthropogenically caused.
  • It's worth noting that the authors of the paper linked just above later conducted an analysis of to determine "what's up" with the 2% to 3% (the range given due to non-integer nature of the "97%") of researchers who rejected the verity of anthropogenic global warming. Their "replication [of the work performed by the "dissenting" researchers] reveals a number of methodological flaws, and a pattern of common mistakes emerges that is not visible when looking at single isolated cases
• 2011 -- Structure of scientific opinion on climate change -- A 2011 paper from George Mason University published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, “The Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change,” collected the opinions of scientists in the earth, space, atmospheric, oceanic or hydrological sciences. The 489 survey respondents -- representing nearly half of all those eligible according to the survey’s specific standards -- work in academia, government or industry, and are members of prominent professional organizations.
  
  The study’s key findings include:
  • 97% of the 489 scientists surveyed agreed that that global temperatures have risen over the past century. Moreover, 84% agreed that “human-induced greenhouse warming” is now occurring.” Only 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global warming.
  • “There was greater debate over the likelihood of substantial warming in the near future, with 56% seeing at least a 50-50 chance that temperatures will rise” 2 degrees Celsius over the next 50 to 100 years.
  • “When [survey participants were] asked to rate the effects on a ten-point scale from trivial (1) to catastrophic (10), the mean response was 6.6, with 41% seeing great danger (ratings of 8-10), 44% moderate danger (4-7), and 13% little danger.”
  • Though the expectation might be that scientists involved in industry would be more likely to have doubts about the validity of climate change, a statistical breakdown of the survey results showed that there was “no independent effect of industry employment on scientific attitudes toward climate change.”
• 2010 -- Expert credibility in climate change -- A 2010 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” analyzed the research patterns and scholarly citations of 1,372 climate scientists who publish in this field. Of these, 908 scientists had published 20 or more climate-related papers. The study’s authors, from Stanford University, the University of Toronto and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, examined public statements from groups of scientists that indicated they were either convinced or unconvinced by evidence of climate change, and matched these to the sample of scientists. Though the sample of scientists is not comprehensive, the study’s authors note, the criteria used likely yield the “strongest and most credentialed researchers” in both the unconvinced and unconvinced camps.
  
  The study’s findings include:
  • About 97% of the group with the most expertise -- the 908 climate scientists with 20 or more papers published -- are convinced by the evidence of anthropogenically caused climate change.
  • Those who are unconvinced by the evidence make up “only 2% of the top 50 climate researchers as ranked by expertise (number of climate publications), 3% of researchers of the top 100, and 2.5% of the top 200.”
  • Overall, researchers with fewer than 20 climate publications comprise 80% the group that is unconvinced, as opposed to less than 10% of the group that is convinced by the evidence: This indicates that the bulk of [unconvinced] researchers on the most prominent multi-signatory statements about climate change are also the researchers having the least exposure to the elements and effects of climate change and the least experience analyzing the matter.

Having now answered your question, do not again ask me questions for which you are just too damned indolent to answer yourself and in turn use the information you obtain from having sought the answer(s) to form a cogent comment or argument.

Another John Cook fantasy paper.. Using the same bull shit tactics that Cook used... Tell me how your clairvoyant staff determined what those scientists meant when you NEVER TALKED TO ANY OF THEM, yet you assigned your interpretation to what they produced? One of the questions your staff used to say that a paper stated that man was responsible was "is man responsible for any impact?" yet there is no quantification of what that responsibility is... SO a paper could say that man is potentially responsible for just 0.000001% of the effect and you would cry it was all mans fault..

This is kin to witch doctoring.. The papers methods are so questionable that I would not even call it scientific.. Its more like pure propaganda because there is no science at its base.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Let me give an analogy.

You and your fiancée write out and sign a pre nuptial agreement in case you divorce.

Two days before the wedding she dumps you.

Can you now sue for damages under the pre nuptial agreement?

Of course not! You were never married! So any agreement to divestment of the assets at the time of divorce is irrelevant.

Likewise while we may have helped write terms of this accord, until the senate ratifies we haven't adopted the accord and thus none of it's terms are valid.

You cannot leave what you never went to. Much like you can't divorce before you marry

Give it up!

You're just confusing them.

How do you confuse a rock?

 

[usmbguest5318]

I have no idea what you're talking about. If you've got a point, try again.

How convenient.

Judith Curry and her peers are part of the 97% consensus..

What? Assuming she even retains any legitimacy/credibility as a scientist, to say nothing of as a climate scientist of some stripe, Judith Curry is among the 3% not the 97%. The woman has given five different years as the point at which global warming stopped.

Forget the debate over whether there are indeed anthropogenic causes of it, that silly woman thought it had stopped happening, and thinks it stopped on five different occasions. That attestation is analogous to one's using the fact of being at a stoplight to support the assertion that they "stopped driving."

so dude, how many scientists make up that 97% number? you even know?

How about 75 out of 77. dude, too funny that you think those are the only scientists in the world. get out of the basement.

so dude, how many scientists make up that 97% number? you even know?

You know, you routinely ask questions the answers to which you are just too f*cking lazy to go find for yourself.

• 2012 -- 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.
  
• 2013 -- The prior analysis preceded subsequent analysis Powell performed in 2013. Powell in 2013 finished another such investigation, that time looking at peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013. And what did he observe?
  
  
  
  
  
  
• 2013 -- Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature -- Of the 11,944 abstracts from the peer-reviewed scientific literature published from 1991–2011 and that matched the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming,' among the researchers who expressed a conclusion on the anthropogenic nature of global warming, 97.1 % of them (~4000) concurred that the global warming we currently observe and experience is anthropogenically caused.
  • It's worth noting that the authors of the paper linked just above later conducted an analysis of to determine "what's up" with the 2% to 3% (the range given due to non-integer nature of the "97%") of researchers who rejected the verity of anthropogenic global warming. Their "replication [of the work performed by the "dissenting" researchers] reveals a number of methodological flaws, and a pattern of common mistakes emerges that is not visible when looking at single isolated cases
• 2011 -- Structure of scientific opinion on climate change -- A 2011 paper from George Mason University published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, “The Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change,” collected the opinions of scientists in the earth, space, atmospheric, oceanic or hydrological sciences. The 489 survey respondents -- representing nearly half of all those eligible according to the survey’s specific standards -- work in academia, government or industry, and are members of prominent professional organizations.
  
  The study’s key findings include:
  • 97% of the 489 scientists surveyed agreed that that global temperatures have risen over the past century. Moreover, 84% agreed that “human-induced greenhouse warming” is now occurring.” Only 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global warming.
  • “There was greater debate over the likelihood of substantial warming in the near future, with 56% seeing at least a 50-50 chance that temperatures will rise” 2 degrees Celsius over the next 50 to 100 years.
  • “When [survey participants were] asked to rate the effects on a ten-point scale from trivial (1) to catastrophic (10), the mean response was 6.6, with 41% seeing great danger (ratings of 8-10), 44% moderate danger (4-7), and 13% little danger.”
  • Though the expectation might be that scientists involved in industry would be more likely to have doubts about the validity of climate change, a statistical breakdown of the survey results showed that there was “no independent effect of industry employment on scientific attitudes toward climate change.”
• 2010 -- Expert credibility in climate change -- A 2010 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” analyzed the research patterns and scholarly citations of 1,372 climate scientists who publish in this field. Of these, 908 scientists had published 20 or more climate-related papers. The study’s authors, from Stanford University, the University of Toronto and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, examined public statements from groups of scientists that indicated they were either convinced or unconvinced by evidence of climate change, and matched these to the sample of scientists. Though the sample of scientists is not comprehensive, the study’s authors note, the criteria used likely yield the “strongest and most credentialed researchers” in both the unconvinced and unconvinced camps.
  
  The study’s findings include:
  • About 97% of the group with the most expertise -- the 908 climate scientists with 20 or more papers published -- are convinced by the evidence of anthropogenically caused climate change.
  • Those who are unconvinced by the evidence make up “only 2% of the top 50 climate researchers as ranked by expertise (number of climate publications), 3% of researchers of the top 100, and 2.5% of the top 200.”
  • Overall, researchers with fewer than 20 climate publications comprise 80% the group that is unconvinced, as opposed to less than 10% of the group that is convinced by the evidence: This indicates that the bulk of [unconvinced] researchers on the most prominent multi-signatory statements about climate change are also the researchers having the least exposure to the elements and effects of climate change and the least experience analyzing the matter.

Having now answered your question, do not again ask me questions for which you are just too damned indolent to answer yourself and in turn use the information you obtain from having sought the answer(s) to form a cogent comment or argument.

As I stated earlier, climate warming is not the issue. However, that man caused it is what is in contention.

And the entirety of my post has to do with the validity and veracity of anthropogenically effected global warming. You'd possibly know that were you to have actually read it and/or the linked content. I write "possibly" because if you did indeed fully read my post, reading comprehension and poor communication skills are more likely why, respectively, you don't know so and/or responded to me as though I didn't post content about the nature and extent of support among climate scientists with regard to the verity of anthropogenically caused warming.

 

[Wyatt earp]

How convenient.

Judith Curry and her peers are part of the 97% consensus..

What? Assuming she even retains any legitimacy/credibility as a scientist, to say nothing of as a climate scientist of some stripe, Judith Curry is among the 3% not the 97%. The woman has given five different years as the point at which global warming stopped.

Forget the debate over whether there are indeed anthropogenic causes of it, that silly woman thought it had stopped happening, and thinks it stopped on five different occasions. That attestation is analogous to one's using the fact of being at a stoplight to support the assertion that they "stopped driving."

so dude, how many scientists make up that 97% number? you even know?

How about 75 out of 77. dude, too funny that you think those are the only scientists in the world. get out of the basement.

so dude, how many scientists make up that 97% number? you even know?

You know, you routinely ask questions the answers to which you are just too f*cking lazy to go find for yourself.

• 2012 -- 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.
  
• 2013 -- The prior analysis preceded subsequent analysis Powell performed in 2013. Powell in 2013 finished another such investigation, that time looking at peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013. And what did he observe?
  
  
  
  
  
  
• 2013 -- Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature -- Of the 11,944 abstracts from the peer-reviewed scientific literature published from 1991–2011 and that matched the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming,' among the researchers who expressed a conclusion on the anthropogenic nature of global warming, 97.1 % of them (~4000) concurred that the global warming we currently observe and experience is anthropogenically caused.
  • It's worth noting that the authors of the paper linked just above later conducted an analysis of to determine "what's up" with the 2% to 3% (the range given due to non-integer nature of the "97%") of researchers who rejected the verity of anthropogenic global warming. Their "replication [of the work performed by the "dissenting" researchers] reveals a number of methodological flaws, and a pattern of common mistakes emerges that is not visible when looking at single isolated cases
• 2011 -- Structure of scientific opinion on climate change -- A 2011 paper from George Mason University published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, “The Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change,” collected the opinions of scientists in the earth, space, atmospheric, oceanic or hydrological sciences. The 489 survey respondents -- representing nearly half of all those eligible according to the survey’s specific standards -- work in academia, government or industry, and are members of prominent professional organizations.
  
  The study’s key findings include:
  • 97% of the 489 scientists surveyed agreed that that global temperatures have risen over the past century. Moreover, 84% agreed that “human-induced greenhouse warming” is now occurring.” Only 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global warming.
  • “There was greater debate over the likelihood of substantial warming in the near future, with 56% seeing at least a 50-50 chance that temperatures will rise” 2 degrees Celsius over the next 50 to 100 years.
  • “When [survey participants were] asked to rate the effects on a ten-point scale from trivial (1) to catastrophic (10), the mean response was 6.6, with 41% seeing great danger (ratings of 8-10), 44% moderate danger (4-7), and 13% little danger.”
  • Though the expectation might be that scientists involved in industry would be more likely to have doubts about the validity of climate change, a statistical breakdown of the survey results showed that there was “no independent effect of industry employment on scientific attitudes toward climate change.”
• 2010 -- Expert credibility in climate change -- A 2010 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” analyzed the research patterns and scholarly citations of 1,372 climate scientists who publish in this field. Of these, 908 scientists had published 20 or more climate-related papers. The study’s authors, from Stanford University, the University of Toronto and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, examined public statements from groups of scientists that indicated they were either convinced or unconvinced by evidence of climate change, and matched these to the sample of scientists. Though the sample of scientists is not comprehensive, the study’s authors note, the criteria used likely yield the “strongest and most credentialed researchers” in both the unconvinced and unconvinced camps.
  
  The study’s findings include:
  • About 97% of the group with the most expertise -- the 908 climate scientists with 20 or more papers published -- are convinced by the evidence of anthropogenically caused climate change.
  • Those who are unconvinced by the evidence make up “only 2% of the top 50 climate researchers as ranked by expertise (number of climate publications), 3% of researchers of the top 100, and 2.5% of the top 200.”
  • Overall, researchers with fewer than 20 climate publications comprise 80% the group that is unconvinced, as opposed to less than 10% of the group that is convinced by the evidence: This indicates that the bulk of [unconvinced] researchers on the most prominent multi-signatory statements about climate change are also the researchers having the least exposure to the elements and effects of climate change and the least experience analyzing the matter.

Having now answered your question, do not again ask me questions for which you are just too damned indolent to answer yourself and in turn use the information you obtain from having sought the answer(s) to form a cogent comment or argument.

I gave you the answer in the post75 of 77! You didn't read.

I ignored that remark because you provided no credible support for that attestation. Surely you don't think I'm going to accept that it's so merely because you wrote so?

Why don't you go outside once in awhile?