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

[Crick]

What percentage of climate scientists do you believe accept AGW as valid and why?

 

[flacaltenn]

What percentage of climate scientists do you believe accept AGW as valid and why?

I would never ask that [stupid] question. It conveys little to no information because it is phrased so nebulously.. Are we talking the ocean-boiling, NY drowning, Malaria spreading, killer storm making, giant fuel bomb exploding AGW ---??? or something less than 2degC which is what 1/2 of climate scientists seem to believe according to Farnsworth/Lichtner?

 

[IanC]

What percentage of climate scientists do you believe accept AGW as valid and why?

I would never ask that [stupid] question. It conveys little to no information because it is phrased so nebulously.. Are we talking the ocean-boiling, NY drowning, Malaria spreading, killer storm making, giant fuel bomb exploding AGW ---??? or something less than 2degC which is what 1/2 of climate scientists seem to believe according to Farnsworth/Lichtner?

exactly, this is not a yes/no type of question. most skeptics believe that the globe has warmed and that CO2 is a GHG that is capable of disturbing radiation equilibriums. that does not mean that they have to believe the catastrophic predictions put forth by many sources such as the IPCC.

 

[bedowin62]

From the 97% of the planet's countries that are EXEMPT from any carbon-reduction standards?

 

[Crick]

What percentage of climate scientists do you believe accept AGW as valid and why?

I would never ask that [stupid] question. It conveys little to no information because it is phrased so nebulously.. Are we talking the ocean-boiling, NY drowning, Malaria spreading, killer storm making, giant fuel bomb exploding AGW ---??? or something less than 2degC which is what 1/2 of climate scientists seem to believe according to Farnsworth/Lichtner?

exactly, this is not a yes/no type of question. most skeptics believe that the globe has warmed and that CO2 is a GHG that is capable of disturbing radiation equilibriums. that does not mean that they have to believe the catastrophic predictions put forth by many sources such as the IPCC.

The problem is not the question. The problem is your deliberate, willful misinterpretation of the definition of AGW.

The critical point of AGW is that the PRIMARY (largest, majority, most significant, most notable) cause of the warming we have experienced since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is anthropogenic. Whether or not you believe THAT to be true IS a god damned yes or no question. The bullshit you all try to throw in the way tells me you care nothing about the truth.

 

[asterism]

I would never ask that [stupid] question. It conveys little to no information because it is phrased so nebulously.. Are we talking the ocean-boiling, NY drowning, Malaria spreading, killer storm making, giant fuel bomb exploding AGW ---??? or something less than 2degC which is what 1/2 of climate scientists seem to believe according to Farnsworth/Lichtner?

exactly, this is not a yes/no type of question. most skeptics believe that the globe has warmed and that CO2 is a GHG that is capable of disturbing radiation equilibriums. that does not mean that they have to believe the catastrophic predictions put forth by many sources such as the IPCC.

The problem is not the question. The problem is your deliberate misinterpretation of the definition of AGW.

The critical point of AGW is that the PRIMARY (largest, majority, most significant, most notable) cause of the warming we have experienced since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is anthropogenic. Whether or not you believe THAT to be true IS a god damned yes or no question. The bullshit you all try to throw in the way tells me nothing except you want to win no matter the truth.

What percentage of physicians have or had the opinion that fish oil supplements were safe and beneficial?

Plasma Phospholipid Fatty Acids and Prostate Cancer Risk in the SELECT Trial

Opinions of scientists are not necessarily correct. The consensus of researchers is meaningless without context.

Fish Oil Supplement Research Remains Murky - Scientific American

 

[flacaltenn]

I would never ask that [stupid] question. It conveys little to no information because it is phrased so nebulously.. Are we talking the ocean-boiling, NY drowning, Malaria spreading, killer storm making, giant fuel bomb exploding AGW ---??? or something less than 2degC which is what 1/2 of climate scientists seem to believe according to Farnsworth/Lichtner?

exactly, this is not a yes/no type of question. most skeptics believe that the globe has warmed and that CO2 is a GHG that is capable of disturbing radiation equilibriums. that does not mean that they have to believe the catastrophic predictions put forth by many sources such as the IPCC.

The problem is not the question. The problem is your deliberate misinterpretation of the definition of AGW.

The critical point of AGW is that the PRIMARY (largest, majority, most significant, most notable) cause of the warming we have experienced since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is anthropogenic. Whether or not you believe THAT to be true IS a god damned yes or no question. The bullshit you all try to throw in the way tells me nothing except you want to win no matter the truth.

The answer to even THAT question is not yes/no.. It's in the Farnsworth survey you cited..

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.

That's NOT 97% is it Crickham? And furthermore -- to me the weasel word "significant" could mean anything from 25% to 75% .... Huge cloud over that "yes/no" isn't there?

 

[Crick]

I take all of those terms to mean the larges of all causes. Probably the purpose of all those superlative adjectives.

And why don't you just call me Abe. When you say "Crickham I don't know who you're speaking to and when I figure it out, it makes you seem juvenile.

I'm really tired of bandying bullshit with the lot of you. A very large majority of the world's climate scientists believe that human activities are the primary cause of the warming we've experienced. Attempting to deny that is a waste of your time unless your true aim is to demonstrate your own ignorance.

 

[Crick]

What percentage of physicians have or had the opinion that fish oil supplements were safe and beneficial?

I couldn't care less as it has no bearing whatsoever on anything under discussion here.

Opinions of scientists are not necessarily correct. The consensus of researchers is meaningless without context.

Speaking of meaningless.

 

[IanC]

I would never ask that [stupid] question. It conveys little to no information because it is phrased so nebulously.. Are we talking the ocean-boiling, NY drowning, Malaria spreading, killer storm making, giant fuel bomb exploding AGW ---??? or something less than 2degC which is what 1/2 of climate scientists seem to believe according to Farnsworth/Lichtner?

exactly, this is not a yes/no type of question. most skeptics believe that the globe has warmed and that CO2 is a GHG that is capable of disturbing radiation equilibriums. that does not mean that they have to believe the catastrophic predictions put forth by many sources such as the IPCC.

The problem is not the question. The problem is your deliberate, willful misinterpretation of the definition of AGW.

The critical point of AGW is that the PRIMARY (largest, majority, most significant, most notable) cause of the warming we have experienced since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is anthropogenic. Whether or not you believe THAT to be true IS a god damned yes or no question. The bullshit you all try to throw in the way tells me you care nothing about the truth.

I get that you want to blame Man's Sin for something, anything. hahahaha

doubling CO2 results in ~ 1C surface increase, by simplstic calculation with all other factors remaining the same. CO2 may indeed be responsible for much of the temperature rise during the last 150 years.

solar radiation varies in tenths of a percent. but billions of years ago there was still liquid water even though the Sun was 30% less active. hmmmm.......what is the exact rate of radiation that leads to no warming or cooling?

clouds affect albedo. small changes in cloud cover at the equator produce large changes in reflected solar SW. large changes in ice at the poles do not. excess energy retained by CO2 may simply increase clouds, or alternately change the timing of cloud formation.

there is very little precise information about the amount of energy in the heatsinks of the earth. oceans and the atmosphere hold heat but they also transport heat polewards for easier egress.

satellite data over the last fifty years has been very useful, and will continue to improve. but it is far from perfect, either in precision or accuracy. for instance satellite measurements say that we are retaining more than 5W/m2. yet the oceans are not boiling. scientists have adjusted this to 0.85W by hand so that the number is more 'reasonable'. yet fools like crickham believe with all their hearts that we know what the energy budget is because the satellites told us. hahahahaha

I believe that we will get much better at understanding the climate. but the best first step would be to stop trying to shoehorn all the data into the CO2 theory. collect the data first and let the hypotheses emerge.

 

[Crick]

The data hasn't been shoehorned into AGW. AGW arose from the data.

 

[Crick]

I get that you want to blame Man's Sin for something, anything. hahahaha

While I see that you want to give him a free pass.

 

[IanC]

AUSTRALIA’S peak body of earth scientists has declared itself unable to publish a position statement on climate change due to the deep divisions within its membership on the issue.

After more than five years of debate and two false starts, Geological Society of Australia president Laurie Hutton said a statement on climate change was too difficult to achieve.

doesnt sound like 97% consensus to me

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The data hasn't been shoehorned into AGW. AGW arose from the data.

They decided man made climate change was happening then cherry picked the data to support it.

 

[flacaltenn]

AUSTRALIA’S peak body of earth scientists has declared itself unable to publish a position statement on climate change due to the deep divisions within its membership on the issue.

After more than five years of debate and two false starts, Geological Society of Australia president Laurie Hutton said a statement on climate change was too difficult to achieve.

doesnt sound like 97% consensus to me

Hey [MENTION=21028]IanC[/MENTION] --- That little admission needs it's own Thread.. Wouldn't want our Warmer buds to miss the meltdown of their "consensus" deceptions..

 

[Crick]

Geologists? You think geologists are representative of climate scientists on this issue? You think geologists are even sufficiently knowledgeable on this issue that anyone should pay them any particular mind? How much geology is involved in our climate? Ice cores?

I would have expected more from you. The geologists association was the last major science organization to make a statement accepting AGW. That, of course, might well be due to the vast majority of them being employed in the oil business and the rest in mining - mostly coal mining.

And you've got the nerve to suggest climate scientists do science with their pocketbooks.

 

[flacaltenn]

Besides the fact that you have a very limited and warped view of what geologists do -- you should rethink the significance of their contributions to Climate science. And besides, GoldiRocks uses that AGU statement on GWarming twice a week as proof of consensus.

Don't look now -- but ALL those statements never meant what you kiddies thought they meant in terms of consensus. And the worker bees are tired of being misrepresented in those political press releases..

 

[Crick]

1) Geologists have VERY limited input into global climate research
2) Geologists know diddly-squat about atmospheric processes
3) Geologists largest employer, by far, is the fossil fuel industry
4) The 97% figure is the percentage OF CLIMATE SCIENTISTS who accept AGW
5) You've been a numbskull lately.

 

[IanC]

AUSTRALIA’S peak body of earth scientists has declared itself unable to publish a position statement on climate change due to the deep divisions within its membership on the issue.

After more than five years of debate and two false starts, Geological Society of Australia president Laurie Hutton said a statement on climate change was too difficult to achieve.

doesnt sound like 97% consensus to me

Hey [MENTION=21028]IanC[/MENTION] --- That little admission needs it's own Thread.. Wouldn't want our Warmer buds to miss the meltdown of their "consensus" deceptions..

I dont know that enough of the back story is out for a full blown discussion is in order yet.

A more interesting developement is Tol's reanalysis of Cook2012 97% consensus paper

Abstract

A claim has been that 97% of the scientific literature endorses anthropogenic climate change (Cook et al., 2013. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 024024). This claim, frequently repeated in debates about climate policy, does not stand. A trend in composition is mistaken for a trend in endorsement. Reported results are inconsistent and biased. The sample is not representative and contains many irrelevant papers. Overall, data quality is low. Cook׳s validation test shows that the data are invalid. Data disclosure is incomplete so that key results cannot be reproduced or tested.

Conclusion and policy implications

The conclusions of Cook et al. are thus unfounded. There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct. Cook et al., however, failed to demonstrate this. Instead, they gave further cause to those who believe that climate researchers are secretive (as data were held back) and incompetent (as the analysis is flawed).

It will take decades or longer to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to zero—the only way to stabilize its atmospheric concentration. During that time, electoral fortunes will turn. Climate policy will not succeed unless it has broad societal support, at levels comparable to other public policies such as universal education or old-age support. Well-publicized but faulty analyses like the one by Cook et al. only help to further polarize the climate debate.

the Cook paper is the one that the University of Queensland is throwing out threats of lawsuits if anyone uses the data found lying around at SkepticalScience. why any scientific paper is so afraid of independent confirmation is beyond me. perhaps it wouldnt be confirmation.

 

[SSDD]

1) Geologists have VERY limited input into global climate research
2) Geologists know diddly-squat about atmospheric processes
3) Geologists largest employer, by far, is the fossil fuel industry
4) The 97% figure is the percentage OF CLIMATE SCIENTISTS who accept AGW
5) You've been a numbskull lately.

Climate scientists are scientists like phrenologists are scientists. It is a soft science...it is a career you pursue if you aren't smart enough to become a meteorologist.