Where Did ’97 Percent’ Global Warming Consensus Figure Come From?

[Crick]

the cultist in gloBULL warming pulled that number from their ass

why not just make it 100%

people fall for this crap from the like's of Albert Gore, Obama, and politicians who has no formal education on the climate, weather, etc

That number came from a sizeable collection of surveys, polls and studies. The following pollsters, surveyors and researchers all arrived at roughly the same level of acceptance for AGW among climate scientists:

Dennis Bray
Hans von Storch
T. R. Stewart
J. L. Mumpower
P. Reagan-Cirincione
Naomi Oreskes
Harris Interactive
Peter Doran
Maggie Kendall Zimmerman
Bill Anderegg
James Prall
Jacob Harold
Harold Schneider
Stephen Farnsworth
Robert Lichter
Lianne Lefsrud
Renate Meyer
Dana Nuccitelli
Sarah A Green
Mark Richardson
Bärbel Winkler
Rob Painting
Robert Way
Peter Jacobs
Andrew Skuce or
Gallup Polling

The accusation that they all lied is not only absurd on its face, it's supported by no evidence whatsoever.

The acceptance of AGW theory among climate scientists is very high. If you can't handle that, it's your problem.

 

[westwall]

the cultist in gloBULL warming pulled that number from their ass

why not just make it 100%

people fall for this crap from the like's of Albert Gore, Obama, and politicians who has no formal education on the climate, weather, etc

That number came from a sizeable collection of surveys, polls and studies. The following pollsters, surveyors and researchers all arrived at roughly the same level of acceptance for AGW among climate scientists:

Dennis Bray
Hans von Storch
T. R. Stewart
J. L. Mumpower
P. Reagan-Cirincione
Naomi Oreskes
Harris Interactive
Peter Doran
Maggie Kendall Zimmerman
Bill Anderegg
James Prall
Jacob Harold
Harold Schneider
Stephen Farnsworth
Robert Lichter
Lianne Lefsrud
Renate Meyer
Dana Nuccitelli
Sarah A Green
Mark Richardson
Bärbel Winkler
Rob Painting
Robert Way
Peter Jacobs
Andrew Skuce or
Gallup Polling

The accusation that they all lied is not only absurd on its face, it's supported by no evidence whatsoever.

The acceptance of AGW theory among climate scientists is very high. If you can't handle that, it's your problem.

Actually, no....it's theirs. They have violated the scientific method at every turn and have resorted to fraud to prop up their failed theory. It's you who is going to be dealing with that fallout as the actual facts are released to the general public.

They are not going to be pleased, and they are a vindictive bunch.

 

[Crick]

Just saying it doesn't make it so. What evidence do you have of ANY of your charges? You have none. And I was unaware that the scientific method dictated the conduct of polls and surveys. You've really got jack shit. And those that were accomplished as peer reviewed studies survived peer review. And, guess what? You weren't one of the peers.

 

[westwall]

Just saying it doesn't make it so. What evidence do you have of ANY of your charges? You have none.

Oh there's loads of evidence which you willfully ignore. No matter, ten years ago the whole world was marching in lockstep towards all sorts of loony carbon controls and then CLIMATEGATE exposed the fraud (to those who weren't brainwashed, like you) and now you guys are going into full panic mode.

Propaganda is presented daily in your major media outlets, there's a new climate propaganda series coming out on TV starring the usual suspects, and one of your tame billionaires is dumping 100 million dollars of his own money to try and influence US politics to further your globalist goals.

So you see dear child....it is you who have nothing..... And it's obvious to the WHOLE world.

 

[polarbear]

As to validity, my glee at seeing this accomplished by Mythbusters is due to the lack of scientific sophistication required to demonstrate a physical process you have all declaimed as physically impossible.

Which goes to show that you havent` got the slightest clue how AGW is supposed to work:
Global warming - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Solar radiation at the frequencies of visible light largely passes through the atmosphere to warm the planetary surface, which then emits this energy at the lower frequencies of infrared thermal radiation. Infrared radiation is absorbed by greenhouse gases, which in turn re-radiate much of the energy to the surface and lower atmosphere. The mechanism is named after the effect of solar radiation passing through glass and warming a greenhouse, but the way it retains heat is fundamentally different as a greenhouse works by reducing airflow, isolating the warm air inside the structure so that heat is not lost by convection

So how is this experiment or any of the other crap posted on Youtube duplicating that?
All these idiotic experiments do show is that you can heat bottled up CO2 with a 1570 foot candles floodlight ...(that`s ~ 25 watts per m^2 !).
Nobody ever disputed that CO2 can`t absorb IR. What is being disputed is if a little over 1 watt per m^2 re-radiated by the CO2 at 15 µm (!!!!) can raise the temperature as much as the IPCC claims it will.
So what do simpleton experiments like this one show?
They should show you that all the heat CO2 can absorb, in this case the heat coming from the 1570 foot candle floodlight has been stripped out by the CO2 which is in the upper layer of the atmosphere and can`t warm the earth`s surface any more after it`s been absorbed way up there (where the T is in the -40 C range !
In that kiddie experiment the enclosed 3X3 foot air parcel got 1 deg warmer. It represents a parcel of air which is several kilometers AGL and can re-radiate at (t+1)^4 more watts/m^2 more energy straight back into space.
So you tell me or show me an experiment which first strips out (subtracted) the absorbed energy and then shows that you can increase the surface temperature with this lesser, remaining amount of energy.

It would be easy enough to do that.
Take the same floodlight and place it behind a 1 meter long glass tube which contains enough CO2 to yield a near 100% absorption and then irradiate with what`s left another cubic parcel of air with 390 ppm CO2....all the while allowing for convection.
That should not be a problem because our air is at 390 ppm and there is no need to enclose it in a sauna (sweat box or in a bottle) like in any of these kiddie brain "scientific experiments".
If you had any brains then you would realize that after you do that you get less heat, not more!
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo"]CO2 experiment - YouTube[/ame]
So after watching this video what does your chicken-little brain tell you?
(The tube represents the upper atmosphere layers)
Would something on the far end of this tube where the candle flame all but vanished with his IR camera still heat up an object to a higher temperature than one without the CO2 tube?
Of course not !
All that`s left after the tube is the visible& UV light and the IR that CO2 can`t absorb....and only a non reflective object can...and after that it`s Planck & Boltzmann black body physics...with what ~1.5 watts/m^2 can possibly do...1.5 watts that`s about the same power output as a "jumbo" IR LED.
So go ahead and try and heat a square meter of dirt in your yard or melt a block of ice with that

The AGW process which is disputed has no similarity whatsoever with any of these childish experiments you and the likes of you keep posting here.
This is what is being disputed:
http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm

[FONT=Arial, Geneva][SIZE=+4]The Climate Catastrophe
[/SIZE][SIZE=+3]- A Spectroscopic Artifact?[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]by [SIZE=+1]Dr. Heinz Hug[/SIZE][/FONT]




[FONT=Arial, Geneva]Crucial is the relative increment of greenhouse effect . This is equal to the difference between the sum of slope integrals for 714 and 357 ppm, related to the total integral for 357 ppm. Considering the n[SIZE=-2]3[/SIZE] band alone (as IPCC does) we get[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva](9.79[SIZE=+1]*[/SIZE]10^[SIZE=-2]-4[/SIZE] cm^[SIZE=-2]-1[/SIZE] - 1.11[SIZE=+1]*[/SIZE]10^[SIZE=-2]-4[/SIZE] cm^[SIZE=-2]-1[/SIZE]) / 0.5171 cm^[SIZE=-2]-1[/SIZE] = 0.17 %[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]This is roughly 80 times less than IPCC's radiative forcing.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]
It is hardly to be expected that for CO[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] doubling an increment of IR absorption at the 15 µm edges by 0.17% can cause any significant global warming or even a climate catastrophe.[/FONT]

There is no shortage of idiots like you and until you do understand the greenhouse gas effect that scientists are discussing you should shut your loud mouth.

 

[Crick]

Just saying it doesn't make it so. What evidence do you have of ANY of your charges? You have none.

Oh there's loads of evidence which you willfully ignore.

I've got nothing TO ignore because YOU HAVEN'T PRESENTED IT

No matter

No matter is right.

ten years ago the whole world was marching in lockstep towards all sorts of loony carbon controls and then CLIMATEGATE exposed the fraud (to those who weren't brainwashed, like you) and now you guys are going into full panic mode.

Climategate has been a complete washout. The proportion of climate scientists who accept AGW has done nothing but increase.

Propaganda is presented daily in your major media outlets, there's a new climate propaganda series coming out on TV starring the usual suspects, and one of your tame billionaires is dumping 100 million dollars of his own money to try and influence US politics to further your globalist goals.

Less than one FIFTH what's been dumped into denier pockets by the very well-heeled fossil fuel industry. And what you call propaganda, the world's scientists call their work. What you call science, the world's scientists call fossil fuel propaganda.

So you see dear child....it is you who have nothing..... And it's obvious to the WHOLE world.

I have a long list of polls, surveys and studies that have been available to the public for years. The list of them does nothing but grow and the percentage of climate scientists who they find accept AGW does the same. What we DON'T see here, is the evidence you claim to have that all these polls and surveys are lies. What we don't see here are the critical reviews showing these studies abused the scientific method. C'mon. Bring out Legates. It's all you've got and you know it. Is there perhaps some reason you don't want to go over his work with us? Is there? Does that survey have a weakness or two in it? Does it? Let's have a look and see.

 

[polarbear]

As to validity, my glee at seeing this accomplished by Mythbusters is due to the lack of scientific sophistication required to demonstrate a physical process you have all declaimed as physically impossible.

So where is your glee now over what has been "accomplished" with your "mythbusters" kiddie physics experiment after it`s been debunked?
What`s the matter, couldn`t find anything when you ran home to your "skepticalscience.org" mommie`s FAQ section?

 

[flacaltenn]

As to validity, my glee at seeing this accomplished by Mythbusters is due to the lack of scientific sophistication required to demonstrate a physical process you have all declaimed as physically impossible.

If thats indeed 2hat was in the control box, then they failed spectacularly to make any useful analogy. Because going from 0 ppm to 380ppm represents the equivalents of several doublings of Co2 not just a 100ppm increase. If the conditions were accurate, you should have seen 6 or 8 degC according to the GHouse computations..... But conditions are not even close ,,, especially the illumination source....



BTw kiddies... LOTS of stage lighting is designed with MINIMAL RADIATION at IR frequencies... Its a marketing feature to keep the sweat off the makeup.. But BELIEF is all that matters in Hollywood (or Oakland for the Mythbusters)

 

[Crick]

BTW kiddies, this was a TV show aimed at children. If you want real science, go to a scientist. The point in using Mythbusters was to show how stupid is the claim that no scientist can pull this off.

And we're well of the thread's topic here. This is "where did the 97% consensus come from" thread, not the "no one can show CO2 warming the atmosphere" thread.

 

[westwall]

Just saying it doesn't make it so. What evidence do you have of ANY of your charges? You have none.

Oh there's loads of evidence which you willfully ignore.

I've got nothing TO ignore because YOU HAVEN'T PRESENTED IT



No matter is right.



Climategate has been a complete washout. The proportion of climate scientists who accept AGW has done nothing but increase.

Propaganda is presented daily in your major media outlets, there's a new climate propaganda series coming out on TV starring the usual suspects, and one of your tame billionaires is dumping 100 million dollars of his own money to try and influence US politics to further your globalist goals.

Less than one FIFTH what's been dumped into denier pockets by the very well-heeled fossil fuel industry. And what you call propaganda, the world's scientists call their work. What you call science, the world's scientists call fossil fuel propaganda.

So you see dear child....it is you who have nothing..... And it's obvious to the WHOLE world.

I have a long list of polls, surveys and studies that have been available to the public for years. The list of them does nothing but grow and the percentage of climate scientists who they find accept AGW does the same. What we DON'T see here, is the evidence you claim to have that all these polls and surveys are lies. What we don't see here are the critical reviews showing these studies abused the scientific method. C'mon. Bring out Legates. It's all you've got and you know it. Is there perhaps some reason you don't want to go over his work with us? Is there? Does that survey have a weakness or two in it? Does it? Let's have a look and see.

Oh boy! You have "polls" That's GREAT! We have the fact that carbon tax laws are NOT being passed all over the world. WINNING!

 

[bripat9643]

It appears you have a comprehension problem. They tested a nitrox mixture against a nitrox mixture with 350 ppm CO2 and another with 1800 ppb methane.

Please post the number of minutes into the video where that is stated.

 

[bripat9643]

It appears you have a comprehension problem. They tested a nitrox mixture against a nitrox mixture with 350 ppm CO2 and another with 1800 ppb methane.

I went back and reviewed the video, and I didn't see any confirmation of what you claim. All they said is that some buy named Gupta could measure these gases accurate. One thing is obvious merely from watching the video, all three examples started out with natural air. The means that they all had at a minimum 390 ppm of C02. If you disagree, then point me to the part of the film where they evacuated the normal air and replaced it with pure Nitrox ? I didn't note any canisters of Nitrox in the video. That means their other to containers had higher than the natural amount of C02 and Methane. So how much did they have? The video doesn't give the slightest indication. My suspicion is that the results were rigged. They filled the other two containers with 100% Methane and 100% C02. Also, the temperature of the bottles of containers of CO2 and Methane was not noted.

There are so many unanswered questions with this experiment that it's virtually useless to prove what you claim it proves. You're right about one thing, this show is intended for children because only they would be fooled by it.

 

[polarbear]

BTW kiddies, this was a TV show aimed at children. If you want real science, go to a scientist. The point in using Mythbusters was to show how stupid is the claim that no scientist can pull this off.

And we're well of the thread's topic here. This is "where did the 97% consensus come from" thread, not the "no one can show CO2 warming the atmosphere" thread.

That`s right, it was for kiddies, just like you !

And no scientist would try and "pull this off" as an experiment which is supposed to prove that CO2 is causing a temperature increase as large as the IPCC models would have it.
Now you say "And we're well of the thread's topic here" after it`s debunked, well let me remind you that you were the one who posted it !
"Off the topic" or not, what it did show is how stupid you were when you posted that video as "proof" how 380 ppm CO2 is supposed to cause the kind of catastrophic climate change with a mere 1/80 of what the IPCC exaggerations are based on...and that includes doubling the ppm to over 700 ppm !
But according to Cook who came up with this 97% consensus nonsense amongst tree-ring and mud-bug counters and various "save the planet" fringe groups who are as clue-less as you are when it comes to physics it does !...even though every model their so called consensus approved so far failed miserably....because besides being a spectroscopic artifact it`s also a pseudo science & political artifact.
Real science never had any problems backing a hypothesis with solid data and controlled experiments. But just as soon as any scientist who has been involved in climate modelling and reviewing the data voices any doubts the entire "97 % consensus" lynch mob goes on a witch hunt.
First and foremost the liar who claims there is a 97% consensus and secondly the media, followed up with a publication ban on what scientists like Bengsston had to say...
In any real science the raw data has to be disclosed and if you claim you "lost it" as was the case with the climate gate scandal, then you are done!
The hacked e-mails clearly showed that thing is a swindle but could not be prosecuted as such as a criminal offense because in the British Commonwealth legal system even intentionally committed "errors" do not constitute fraud.
It`s a fine line and it was only this legal definition that did save their ass.
Everybody else who did read these e-mails judged it as such:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Am3-HpSnE9Y"]Rex Murphy on Climategate - YouTube[/ame]
And before you go off on a tangent, no the CBC is not a "right wing" institution. Canada`s national news is about as left wing as you can be when it comes to political issues, but they do draw the line when it comes to outright lies.
Besides, every major news outlet around the world had the same take on it as Murphy did.
You can still see it with "Google Trends" that unlike you and your occult the entire world took notice:
Google Trends
It spiked more than double of what the general public has been looking for when it comes to "climate change" or "global warming".
All you and the rest of the alarmists are hoping for is that the public at large forgets about it and that the current hiatus ends.
In the meantime your lot has to clamor to isolated weather related events or some chunk of ice that breaks loose at either pole.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Look at the global temperature graphs from the giss or noaa the past 15 years. What do they tell you?

 

[ScienceRocks]

You know what it tells me???

1990-2000 = .2 of warming... .3c to .5c!
At this rate of warming we should be at close to .8c right now!

2010 should of hit .7c for the avg.

This is why the skeptics are on your ass. They're on your ass as we can get an avg temperature today as we got it 10 years ago!

 

[flacaltenn]

Give me the 97% consensus on what the global temp is gonna be in 2060.., Give me the 97% consensus on the question of whether the proxy evidence is conclusively proving that our rate of warming "is exceptional" I will bow to authority....

 

[polarbear]

BTW kiddies, this was a TV show aimed at children. If you want real science, go to a scientist. The point in using Mythbusters was to show how stupid is the claim that no scientist can pull this off.

And we're well of the thread's topic here. This is "where did the 97% consensus come from" thread, not the "no one can show CO2 warming the atmosphere" thread.

That`s right, it was for kiddies, just like you !
And no scientist would try and "pull this off" as an experiment which is supposed to prove that CO2 is causing a temperature increase as large as the IPCC models would have it.
Now you say it`s "off the topic", after it`s been debunked. Well let me remind you that you posted that idiotic "off topic" video here which filled you with glee.
"off topic" or not, what it did show is how stupid you were when you posted that video as "proof" how 380 ppm CO2 is supposed to cause the kind of catastrophic climate change with a mere 1/80 of what the IPCC exaggerations are based on...and that includes doubling the ppm to over 700 ppm !
But according to Cook who came up with this 97% consensus nonsense amongst tree-ring and mud-bug counters and various "save the planet" fringe groups who are as clue-less as you are when it comes to physics it does !...even though every model their so called consensus approved so far failed miserably....because besides being a spectroscopic artifact it`s also a pseudo science & political artifact.
Real science never had any problems backing a hypothesis with solid data and controlled experiments. But just as soon as any scientist who has been involved in climate modelling and reviewing the data voices any doubts the entire "97 % consensus" lynch mob goes on a with hunt.
First and foremost the liar who claims there is a 97% consensus and secondly the media, followed up with a publication ban on what scientists like Bengsston had to say...
In any real science the raw data has to be disclosed and if you claim you "lost it" as was the case with the climate gate scandal, then you are done!
The hacked e-mails clearly showed that thing is a swindle but could not be prosecuted as a criminal offense because in the British

 

[ScienceRocks]

Anyone that tells me that the combined Land/ocean global temperature chart shows a warming the past 15 years...Has probably failed Freshman math. Climate at a Glance | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) Flat as a table!


Making the argument that the energy is going 2000 meters below the surface of the ocean doesn't make much sense.

 

[polarbear]

BTW kiddies, this was a TV show aimed at children. If you want real science, go to a scientist. The point in using Mythbusters was to show how stupid is the claim that no scientist can pull this off.

And we're well of the thread's topic here. This is "where did the 97% consensus come from" thread, not the "no one can show CO2 warming the atmosphere" thread.

That`s right, it was for kiddies, just like you !
And no scientist would try and "pull this off" as an experiment which is supposed to prove that CO2 is causing a temperature increase as large as the IPCC models would have it.
Now you say it`s "off the topic", after it`s been debunked. Well let me remind you that you posted that idiotic "off topic" video here which filled you with glee.
"off topic" or not, what it did show is how stupid you were when you posted that video as "proof" how 380 ppm CO2 is supposed to cause the kind of catastrophic climate change with a mere 1/80 of what the IPCC exaggerations are based on...and that includes doubling the ppm to over 700 ppm !
But according to Cook who came up with this 97% consensus nonsense amongst tree-ring and mud-bug counters and various "save the planet" fringe groups who are as clue-less as you are when it comes to physics it does !...even though every model their so called consensus approved so far failed miserably....because besides being a spectroscopic artifact it`s also a pseudo science & political artifact.
Real science never had any problems backing a hypothesis with solid data and controlled experiments. But just as soon as any scientist who has been involved in climate modelling and reviewing the data voices any doubts the entire "97 % consensus" lynch mob goes on a with hunt.
First and foremost the liar who claims there is a 97% consensus and secondly the media, followed up with a publication ban on what scientists like Bengsston had to say...
In any real science the raw data has to be disclosed and if you claim you "lost it" as was the case with the climate gate scandal, then you are done!
The hacked e-mails clearly showed that thing is a swindle but could not be prosecuted as a criminal offense because in the British legal system even intentional "mistakes" can`t be prosecuted as fraud.
The rest of the world had this take on it:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Am3-HpSnE9Y]Rex Murphy on Climategate - YouTube[/ame]
And before you go off on a tangent, no the CBC is not a "right wing" institution. Canada`s nationals news is about as left wing as it can get when it comes to politics, but they do draw the line when it comes to outright lies!

 

[polarbear]

Anyone that tells me that the combined Land/ocean global temperature chart shows a warming the past 15 years...Has probably failed Freshman math. Climate at a Glance | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) Flat as a table!


Making the argument that the energy is going 2000 meters below the surface of the ocean doesn't make much sense.

Recently published charts are flat, because after the e-mail scandal it`s pretty tough to claim a second time, that the raw data have "been lost" again.
After the scandal made world wide news, they did "reconstruct" the data they chose to delete rather than disclosing it and you now have to wonder if the fractional deg T rise before the hiatus was real or "constructed".
Would the IRS take their word for it if we were talking about "reconstructed" expense receipts instead of temperature?
I think not!