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

[Crick]

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:
Rex Murphy on Climategate - YouTube
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!

You are so completely full of shit your text has turned brown.

The only folks disputing the greenhouse effect are denier whack jobs. If you don't mind being considered a denier whack job, carry on MacDuff.

The only folks disputing that the acceptance of AGW among climate scientists is in the high 90s are denier whack jobs. If you don't mind being considered a denier whack job, carry on MacDuff.

The only people buying Benngston's paranoid fantasies are denier whack jobs. You know the rest.

Once upon a time I thought you prided yourself on your knowledge of physical science. You've cast that out the window.

Whack job.

 

[westwall]

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:
Rex Murphy on Climategate - YouTube
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!

You are so completely full of shit your text has turned brown.

The only folks disputing the greenhouse effect are denier whack jobs. If you don't mind being considered a denier whack job, carry on MacDuff.

The only folks disputing that the acceptance of AGW among climate scientists is in the high 90s are denier whack jobs. If you don't mind being considered a denier whack job, carry on MacDuff.

The only people buying Benngston's paranoid fantasies are denier whack jobs. You know the rest.

Once upon a time I thought you prided yourself on your knowledge of physical science. You've cast that out the window.

Whack job.

The only whack job is you. You willfully ignore loads of empirical data and instead choose to believe computer model fictions that have been proven false. Whack job you most certainly are.

That's why you have lost the argument......you never had one!

 

[IanC]

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.

why do you keep putting up Bray and von Storch when their poll does not support your claim? and their comments are explicit about the difficulty of defining the difference between skeptic and warmer.

 

[Crick]

I collected the names of everyone whose work was reported in the two pertinent Wikipedia articles. Let's just say I was not cherry picking.

 

[Crick]

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change#Bray_and_von_Storch.2C_2008


Bray and von Storch, 2008

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 different countries.[11] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 373 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18.2%. No paper on climate change consensus based on this survey has been published yet (February 2010), but one on another subject has been published based on the survey.[12]

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

In the section on climate change impacts, questions 20, 21 were relevant to scientific opinion on climate change. Question 20 "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?" got 67.1% very much convinced, 26.7% to some large extent (5–6), 6.2% said to some small extent (2–4), none said not at all. Question 21 "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" received 34.6% very much convinced, 48.9% being convinced to a large extent (5–6), 15.1% to a small extent (2–4), and 1.35% not convinced at all.
******************************************
67.1+26.7+6.2 = 100.0% GW is taking place to at least some small extent.
34.6+48.9+15.1 - 98.65% future warming will be anthropogenic to at least some small extent.

I don't see a conflict between their results and my claim. There are lower numbers of support if that's what you're looking for. All you need do is go back in time.

 

[IanC]

I collected the names of everyone whose work was reported in the two pertinent Wikipedia articles. Let's just say I was not cherry picking.

that is totally understandable the first time. after you have been shown that it is false to group them into the '97% consensus' bandwagon then it is unethical to continue to propagate a falsehood. you are starting to resemble Old Rocks, in that your stories never change even when they are shown to be less than honest. it is your right to say anything you want, this is just a message board, but I hope you deduct penalty points from your personal moral bank account each time you choose propaganda over truth.

 

[Crick]

Did you read the Bray and VonStorch excerpt I posted? Their work does not conflict with my expressed opinion. Having been informed of the facts, then, I expect you to stop posting falsehoods.

;-)

 

[IanC]

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change#Bray_and_von_Storch.2C_2008


Bray and von Storch, 2008

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 different countries.[11] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 373 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18.2%. No paper on climate change consensus based on this survey has been published yet (February 2010), but one on another subject has been published based on the survey.[12]

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

In the section on climate change impacts, questions 20, 21 were relevant to scientific opinion on climate change. Question 20 "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?" got 67.1% very much convinced, 26.7% to some large extent (5–6), 6.2% said to some small extent (2–4), none said not at all. Question 21 "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" received 34.6% very much convinced, 48.9% being convinced to a large extent (5–6), 15.1% to a small extent (2–4), and 1.35% not convinced at all.
******************************************
67.1+26.7+6.2 = 100.0% GW is taking place to at least some small extent.
34.6+48.9+15.1 - 98.65% future warming will be anthropogenic to at least some small extent.

I don't see a conflict between their results and my claim. There are lower numbers of support if that's what you're looking for. All you need do is go back in time.

whoooooooa now buddy. how are you interpreting that question? the majority of skeptics are in that area of anthropogenic warming to some small extent. I read the poll a few years ago. there is a considerable spread in opinion, even though it was pre-climategate and pre-pause. I suggest you read it too.

 

[IanC]

I looked at another name on your list- Lianne Lefsrud

from her paper-

The ensuing debate is often caricatured as a war between two sides – ‘you either believe in climate change or you don’t’ – especially in North America. We find that virtually all respondents (99.4%) agree that the climate is changing. However, there is considerable disagreement as to cause, consequences, and lines of action

Frame 1: Comply with Kyoto
The largest group of APEGA respondents (36%) draws on a frame that we label ‘comply with Kyoto’. In their diagnostic framing, they express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause. Supporters of the Kyoto Protocol consider climate change to be a significant public risk and see an impact on their personal life. In their prognostic framing, they tend to fear that the risks are greater in extent (i.e., global and regional) and in magnitude (i.e., changes to both the average state and variability of the climate) than other groups

Frame 2: Nature is overwhelming
The second largest group (24%) express a ‘nature is overwhelming’ frame. In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth. Their focus is on the past: ‘If you think about it, global warming is what brought us out of the Ice Age.’ Humans are too insignificant to have an impact on nature: ‘It is a mistake to think that human activity can change this… It would be like an ant in a bowling ball who thinks it can have a significant influence the roll of the ball.’ More than others, they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives

Frame 3: Economic responsibility
Ten percent of respondents draw on an ‘economic responsibility’ frame. They diagnose climate change as being natural or human caused. More than any other group, they underscore that the ‘real’ cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable. Similar to the ‘nature is overwhelming’ adherents, they disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal life. They are also less likely to believe that the scientific debate is settled and that the IPCC modeling is accurate. In their prognostic framing, they point to the harm the Kyoto Protocol and all regulation will do to the economy. For them, any solution must protect the economy. More than others, they invoke the public interest and the need to promote an informed debate and to educate others, and recommend enhancing efficiency and competitiveness

Frame 4: Fatalists
‘Fatalists’, a surprisingly large group (17%), diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused. ‘Fatalists’ consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They are sceptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling: ‘The number of variables and their interrelationships are almost unlimited – if anyone thinks they have all the answers, they have failed to ask all of the questions.’

Frame 5: Regulation activists
The last group (5%) expresses a frame we call ‘regulation activists’. This frame has the smallest number of adherents, expresses the most paradoxical framing, and yet is more agentic than ‘comply with Kyoto’. Advocates of this frame diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life. Advocates do not significantly vary from the mean in how they consider the magnitude, extent, or time scale of climate change. They are also sceptical with regard to the scientific debate being settled and are the most indecisive whether IPCC modeling is accurate:

feel free to find another one of her surveys that fits your views better

 

[IanC]

odd- I didnt know they had an earlier one as well-

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

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

from the same wiki page-

STATS, 2007[edit]
In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. The survey found 97% agreed that global temperatures have increased during the past 100 years; 84% say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; and 84% believe global climate change poses a moderate to very great danger.[9] [10]

is believing that temperature has gone up the same as believing in AGW or CAGW?

Bray and von Storch, 2008[edit]
Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 different countries.[11] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 373 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18.2%. No paper on climate change consensus based on this survey has been published yet (February 2010), but one on another subject has been published based on the survey.[12]

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

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

too bad they didnt include the questions on models, the IPCC and the ability to make forecasts

 

[Crick]

The point of this ridiculous argument is that AGW is deemed valid by a very high percentage (>95%) of climate scientists. If you'd like to start moving the goal posts, feel free, but it won't help your rep any.

 

[flacaltenn]

I collected the names of everyone whose work was reported in the two pertinent Wikipedia articles. Let's just say I was not cherry picking.

I believe that. What you were doing was LAZY MINDLESS collecting of unrelated factoids.
In fact CrickHAM, if you were doing real research -- you'd be LYING.. For instance, pulled at random...

The 97 percent: Three key papers quantifying scientific concensus on climate change Journalist's Resource: Research for Reporting, from Harvard Shorenstein Center

“The Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change”
Farnsworth, Stephen J.; Lichter, S. Robert. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, October 2011. doi: 10.1093/ijpor/edr033.

Findings: Of the 489 scientists surveyed, 97% agreed 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.”

So ONE of key points of ONE of your list of Heroes actually tells that that 55% of the scientists surveyed consider the EFFECTS of Global Warming to be "moderate or little danger". AND ONLY 56% feel there's a 50.50 chance of 2 degC temp rise..

Do you read any of this? Or are you just making a collage of ignorance???

 

[flacaltenn]

The point of this ridiculous argument is that AGW is deemed valid by a very high percentage (>95%) of climate scientists. If you'd like to start moving the goal posts, feel free, but it won't help your rep any.

There are no goal posts in CandyLand..
Game over...

 

[Crick]

So ONE of key points of ONE of your list of Heroes actually tells that that 55% of the scientists surveyed consider the EFFECTS of Global Warming to be "moderate or little danger". AND ONLY 56% feel there's a 50.50 chance of 2 degC temp rise..

Do you read any of this? Or are you just making a collage of ignorance???

AGW does not specify any particular level of danger from global warming nor any specific temperature increase. As you are well aware, this is your attempt to move the goal posts.

 

[IanC]

Did you read the Bray and VonStorch excerpt I posted? Their work does not conflict with my expressed opinion. Having been informed of the facts, then, I expect you to stop posting falsehoods.

;-)

here is the actual von Storch and Bray survey.

A Survey of Climate Scientists Concerning Climate Science and Climate Change | Hans von Storch - Academia.edu

I will leave it up to you to decide whether it conforms to my description of the results, or yours.

 

[IanC]

my comment from four years ago-

Old 09-28-2010, 10:17 AM
IanC's Avatar
IanC IanC is online now
Registered User
Member #21028

Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,869
Thanks: 811
Thanked 1,594 Times in 1,203 Posts
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 484

I posted a survey of scientists to show that there is indeed consensus on the general terms of AGW. As the questions become more specific the concensus drops off quickly.

To avoid becoming pariahs in their field it is much easier to agree with the general idea because no one can argue that CO2 is going up and that CO2 is a GHG. But as the questions start to delve into the amount of knowledge known and the amount of knowldge needed in specific areas, they are allowed to show skepticism without being labelled a 'denier'. And they do.

 

[flacaltenn]

my comment from four years ago-

Old 09-28-2010, 10:17 AM
IanC's Avatar
IanC IanC is online now
Registered User
Member #21028

Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,869
Thanks: 811
Thanked 1,594 Times in 1,203 Posts
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 484

I posted a survey of scientists to show that there is indeed consensus on the general terms of AGW. As the questions become more specific the concensus drops off quickly.

To avoid becoming pariahs in their field it is much easier to agree with the general idea because no one can argue that CO2 is going up and that CO2 is a GHG. But as the questions start to delve into the amount of knowledge known and the amount of knowldge needed in specific areas, they are allowed to show skepticism without being labelled a 'denier'. And they do.

But you and I --- are not allowed to do the same..

 

[westwall]

I collected the names of everyone whose work was reported in the two pertinent Wikipedia articles. Let's just say I was not cherry picking.

I believe that. What you were doing was LAZY MINDLESS collecting of unrelated factoids.
In fact CrickHAM, if you were doing real research -- you'd be LYING.. For instance, pulled at random...

The 97 percent: Three key papers quantifying scientific concensus on climate change Journalist's Resource: Research for Reporting, from Harvard Shorenstein Center

“The Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change”
Farnsworth, Stephen J.; Lichter, S. Robert. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, October 2011. doi: 10.1093/ijpor/edr033.

Findings: Of the 489 scientists surveyed, 97% agreed 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.”

So ONE of key points of ONE of your list of Heroes actually tells that that 55% of the scientists surveyed consider the EFFECTS of Global Warming to be "moderate or little danger". AND ONLY 56% feel there's a 50.50 chance of 2 degC temp rise..

Do you read any of this? Or are you just making a collage of ignorance???

Actually it's a collage of dishonesty and ignorance. This is old abe we're talking about here.

 

[Crick]

I collected the names of everyone whose work was reported in the two pertinent Wikipedia articles. Let's just say I was not cherry picking.

I believe that. What you were doing was LAZY MINDLESS collecting of unrelated factoids.
In fact CrickHAM, if you were doing real research -- you'd be LYING.. For instance, pulled at random...

The 97 percent: Three key papers quantifying scientific concensus on climate change Journalist's Resource: Research for Reporting, from Harvard Shorenstein Center

“The Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change”
Farnsworth, Stephen J.; Lichter, S. Robert. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, October 2011. doi: 10.1093/ijpor/edr033.

Findings: Of the 489 scientists surveyed, 97% agreed 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.”

So ONE of key points of ONE of your list of Heroes actually tells that that 55% of the scientists surveyed consider the EFFECTS of Global Warming to be "moderate or little danger". AND ONLY 56% feel there's a 50.50 chance of 2 degC temp rise..

Do you read any of this? Or are you just making a collage of ignorance???

Actually it's a collage of dishonesty and ignorance. This is old abe we're talking about here.

As I pointed out, neither of those issues have anything to do with AGW. Therefore, you are the one lying here. Two knowledgeably, willfully lying moderators. Wonderful message board this.

 

[flacaltenn]

Subject: Evil Lying Moderators (2)

OUCH.... !!!! ..........................

But I noticed you never addressed the contents of that Farnsworth/Lichtner "poll" you cited. It did have a 97% number in it, so you
probably thought it was significant..