Why we should listen to the 97%

[CrusaderFrank]

Yep, 74 of 79 climatologists sure is a big number.

As noted prior, the denialist camp prefers to pretend that the several other surveys do not exist. A very large majority of climate scientists accept AGW. Regardless of what nonsense yous spew, that is a fact.

Science is not done like this

"Show me Global Warming!"

 

[Abraham3]

Science is not done like this

Don't be stupid. By the opinions of the scientists in the field in question is EXACTLY how its done.

 

[Foxfyre]

Todd -

At the start of our discussion I suggested that you possibly lacked the cojones to actually in engage in debate.

The fact that you obviously did not know that the coal and nuclear industries have received three times the amount of subsidies solar and wind have received rather proves this is the case.

Having spend 10 pages wailing about the evils of subsidies, you then change your mind and suggest that subsidies either don't exist as a concept, or they aren't actually a problem.

I don't think you are terribly smart - but you are smart enough to know that your position makes absolutely no sense at all.

You either believe government should subsidide energy companies, or you believe it should not.

I suggest you go away and do a bit of reading about subsidies, and then decide what it is you actually believe.

On the upside, I don't remember when I have last so enjoyed a discussion here!

You forgot the rest of the paragraph from your source.

However, many of the "subsidies" available to the oil and gas industries are general business opportunity credits, available to all US businesses (particularly, the foreign tax credit mentioned above). The value of industry-specific subsidies in 2006 was estimated by the Texas State Comptroller to be just $3.06 billion – a fraction of the amount claimed by the Environmental Law Institute.[9] The balance of federal subsides, which the comptroller valued at $7.4 billion, came from shared credits and deductions, and oil defense (spending on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, energy infrastructure security, etc.).

Thanks for trying, it was very entertaining.
If you ever find a specific fossil fuel subsidy you'd like to discuss, please let me know.

Exactly right Toddster. I get so tired of the same old mantra from the left about 'oil company subsidies' when it is obvious they don't have a clue what they are talking about. But I'll post it the real skinny at least one more time. It is important to know the truth about these thing.

So to reinforce the info from Saigon's link:

If you were to survey people and ask the question “Should we subsidize oil companies?” — the overwhelming majority would undoubtedly respond “ No!” The idea that we are subsidizing oil companies generates outrage in many people, but in this article I will show why these subsidies aren’t going to go away any time soon.

The reason may surprise you.

So let’s ask the question in a different way: “Should we allow oil companies to take a tax deduction also available to any U.S. manufacturer such as Apple or Microsoft?” A lot of people will still answer “ No” to that question, but certainly fewer than answered “No” to the original question.

Now ask the question “Should farmers be allowed a fuel tax exemption for the fuel they use on the farm?” In this case, some people are going to say “ No”, but farmers are going to be near unanimous in saying “Yes!” Let’s ask one final question: “Should we fund programs like the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (HEAP) that help low-income families with their heating bills?” The irony in this question is that some of the people who are the most vehemently opposed to fossil fuel subsidies will argue that this is an important program that helps keep poor people from freezing to death in winter, and thus it would be inhumane to eliminate it.

Yet unless you answered “ No” to all four questions you support programs that have been specifically identified as fossil fuel subsidies.
The Surprising Reason That Oil Subsidies Persist: Even Liberals Love Them - Forbes

And more. . . .

The United States oil and natural gas industry does not receive taxpayer-subsidized payments.

Given the recent publicity surrounding this issue, this statement may come as a surprise, yet it is 100 percent true. Also true is that the industry pays more than $86 million to the government every single day and has an effective income tax rate of 41 percent. Why then have so many readily bought the notion that the taxpayers are supporting this highly profitable industry? . . . .

. . . . Deductions allowed for the U.S. oil and natural gas industry are often more restrictive when compared with other industries. For example, in 2004, Congress enacted the Section 199 Domestic Manufacturers Deduction to spur job creation and retention for all businesses that grow, extract, produce and manufacture goods in the United States. Contrary to assertions, this is not a deduction unique to oil and natural gas manufacturing. It applies to all qualifying industries, from newspapers to home builders, electric companies to movie studios and — logically — oil and gas companies.

Read more: The truth about America?s oil & gas companies ? Part II | The Daily Caller

Compare that effective 41% tax rate paid by oil companies with the effective 26% tax rate paid by most other companies in the Standard & Poor 500.
Morning Bell: The Truth Behind Oil Subsidies | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation

Bottom line: Despite the Administration’s rhetoric that has been so widely repeated in the press, the tax treatments in question are not “subsidies” that are in any way outside of the mainstream of tax treatments commonly available to all U.S. industries. Rather than being mostly a benefit to “big oil,” the repeal of these and other oil and gas industry-related tax provisions would mainly impact smaller independent producers and royalty owners. Such repeal would serve no legitimate public policy purpose, other than to unfairly discriminate via the tax code against one of the nation’s most productive – albeit easily demonized – manufacturing industries.
The truth about all those ?subsidies? for ?Big Oil? | AEIdeas

In the case of oil companies, the tax breaks in question are part of IRS Code Section 199, which allows any business to deduct certain expenses from their tax returns. The maximum allowable deduction is 9% of those expenses, and this is part of the tax code passed in 2004 under the American Jobs Creation Act.

The idea at the time was to make it possible for businesses to take some risks and if those risks didn't pan out to get a tax break to reduce the pain and cost. This in theory would encourage businesses to expand and hire more.

These tax breaks appy to all businesses, not just oil companies, but the tax code specifically states that oil companies can only get a 6% break, not a 9%. Naturally since this is the tax code its a bit more complicated than a straight cut in taxes, but that's the basic gist of the law.

Its this that the Obama administration, Demcorats in congress, and many Republicans are calling to end. It isn't some sinister loophole in the tax code that oil companies benefit from, it isn't some clever trick they are using to get rich, its just part of the law that any company can take advantage of.

Removing this tax break would not reduce the price of oil. It probably wouldn't even change the profits oil companies make, since it isn't a very big chunk of their tax bill and companies tend to pass on expenses like tax increases to customers anyway. What it would do is give the federal government more money to play with and the entire "oil company subsidies" line is a way to distract from the Obama administration's role in the price of gas.
About those oil company subsidies | WashingtonExaminer.com

I bet if you polled all the leftwingers at USMB, most especially the 'warmers', 97% of them would say that the oil companies receive obscene subsidies from our government. And that 97% would be about as valid as those 97% of scientists who do receive government subsidies and therefore say AGW is a problem.

 

[Abraham3]

This is copied from Yahoo but I did not get the URL before closing it.

Are you kidding



1. Intangible drilling costs. Firms engaged in the exploration and development of oil or gas properties may expense (deduct in the year paid or incurred) certain types of drilling expenditures from their taxes. These costs include wages, fuel, repairs, hauling, and supplies related to and necessary for drilling and preparing wells for the production of oil and gas. Other companies incurring similar types of costs must recover this cost over the life of the investment.

2. Deduction for tertiary injectants. Tertiary, or enhanced oil recovery, methods increase the amount of oil that a company can extract from a well by an additional 5 percent to 15 percent according to some research. This tax expenditure subsidizes the costs of tertiary injectants—the fluids, gases, and other chemicals that are pumped into oil and gas reservoirs as part of this process. The subsidy essentially gives companies government money for acting in ways that will enhance their profits. It allows companies to expense the costs of tertiary injectants, even though such costs should be recovered over time. Companies can alternatively choose to deduct these costs as an intangible drilling cost.

3. Percentage depletion allowance. Percentage depletion allows an independent oil company to deduct from its taxes about 15 percent from the revenue generated from a well, even if that amount exceeds the well’s total value. This means that oil companies take a deduction as long as a well is producing oil, without regard to how much, or whether, the well is still declining in value. Companies in other industries are only allowed to deduct an amount that represents the decline in their investment’s value that year.

4. Passive investments. The government generally only allows investors to deduct a limited amount of losses from “passive activities” such as renting land in order to prevent tax shelters. Yet oil and gas properties are exempt from this rule. This gives oil and gas companies a competitive edge over other types of energy companies.

5. Domestic manufacturing tax deduction. Companies that manufacture, produce, or extract oil and gas or any primary derivative receive a manufacturing subsidy provided that the product was made in the United States. But since removing this subsidy does not affect the production of oil, the subsidy does not significantly affect business decisions and eliminating the subsidy would not affect consumer prices. The subsidy is essentially a throwaway for oil companies. The tax expenditure is provided through a deduction for 9 percent of income, subject to a limit of 50 percent of the wages paid that are allocable to domestic production during the taxable year.

6. Geological and geophysical expenditures. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 created this tax subsidy, which allows companies to deduct the costs associated with searching for oil, recovering the costs over a two-year period.

7. Foreign tax credit. This credit is intended to prevent the double taxation of income that is taxed abroad but also subject to tax in the United States. Yet companies, particularly oil companies, have managed to exploit this subsidy even when they don’t pay income taxes abroad. In total, adjusting the rule would prevent companies from avoiding about $8.5 billion in taxes over a 10-year period.

8. Enhanced oil recovery credit. Companies receive a 15 percent income tax credit for the costs of recovering domestic oil when they use “enhanced oil recovery” methods to extract oil that is too viscous to be extracted by conventional primary and secondary water-flooding techniques. The EOR credit is nonrefundable and is allowed if the average wellhead price of crude oil (using West Texas Intermediate as the reference) in the year before the credit is claimed is below the statutorily established threshold price of $28 (as adjusted for inflation since 1990) in the year the credit is claimed. Oil prices in fiscal year 2006 were too high for companies to receive this subsidy, but the subsidy remains in existence. Its elimination is not expected to produce budget savings.

9. Marginal well production. This provision provides a subsidy for oil and gas produced from certain types of oil and gas wells. These wells include those that produce heavy oil and those with an average production within a statutorily specified range. Oil prices were too high for companies to receive this subsidy in fiscal year 2006, but the subsidy remains in existence. Its elimination is not expected to produce budget savings.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2…

 

[westwall]

Yep, 74 of 79 climatologists sure is a big number.

As noted prior, the denialist camp prefers to pretend that the several other surveys do not exist. A very large majority of climate scientists accept AGW. Regardless of what nonsense yous spew, that is a fact.

Who cares. The fact remains that the methodology used in those "surveys' is equally BS. The fraudsters can't do real facts or real science.

 

[westwall]

Science is not done like this

Don't be stupid. By the opinions of the scientists in the field in question is EXACTLY how its done.

Since when did "opinion" trump science? Since when did "opinion" replace empirical data?
Only in the addled brains of the fraudsters does climate modeling replace actual empirical data.

That's not science. That's science fiction, and Asimov, Heinlein and a whole host of other authors tell the stories much better.

 

[Foxfyre]

Are you kidding



1. Intangible drilling costs. Firms engaged in the exploration and development of oil or gas properties may expense (deduct in the year paid or incurred) certain types of drilling expenditures from their taxes. These costs include wages, fuel, repairs, hauling, and supplies related to and necessary for drilling and preparing wells for the production of oil and gas. Other companies incurring similar types of costs must recover this cost over the life of the investment.

2. Deduction for tertiary injectants. Tertiary, or enhanced oil recovery, methods increase the amount of oil that a company can extract from a well by an additional 5 percent to 15 percent according to some research. This tax expenditure subsidizes the costs of tertiary injectants—the fluids, gases, and other chemicals that are pumped into oil and gas reservoirs as part of this process. The subsidy essentially gives companies government money for acting in ways that will enhance their profits. It allows companies to expense the costs of tertiary injectants, even though such costs should be recovered over time. Companies can alternatively choose to deduct these costs as an intangible drilling cost.

3. Percentage depletion allowance. Percentage depletion allows an independent oil company to deduct from its taxes about 15 percent from the revenue generated from a well, even if that amount exceeds the well’s total value. This means that oil companies take a deduction as long as a well is producing oil, without regard to how much, or whether, the well is still declining in value. Companies in other industries are only allowed to deduct an amount that represents the decline in their investment’s value that year.

4. Passive investments. The government generally only allows investors to deduct a limited amount of losses from “passive activities” such as renting land in order to prevent tax shelters. Yet oil and gas properties are exempt from this rule. This gives oil and gas companies a competitive edge over other types of energy companies.

5. Domestic manufacturing tax deduction. Companies that manufacture, produce, or extract oil and gas or any primary derivative receive a manufacturing subsidy provided that the product was made in the United States. But since removing this subsidy does not affect the production of oil, the subsidy does not significantly affect business decisions and eliminating the subsidy would not affect consumer prices. The subsidy is essentially a throwaway for oil companies. The tax expenditure is provided through a deduction for 9 percent of income, subject to a limit of 50 percent of the wages paid that are allocable to domestic production during the taxable year.

6. Geological and geophysical expenditures. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 created this tax subsidy, which allows companies to deduct the costs associated with searching for oil, recovering the costs over a two-year period.

7. Foreign tax credit. This credit is intended to prevent the double taxation of income that is taxed abroad but also subject to tax in the United States. Yet companies, particularly oil companies, have managed to exploit this subsidy even when they don’t pay income taxes abroad. In total, adjusting the rule would prevent companies from avoiding about $8.5 billion in taxes over a 10-year period.

8. Enhanced oil recovery credit. Companies receive a 15 percent income tax credit for the costs of recovering domestic oil when they use “enhanced oil recovery” methods to extract oil that is too viscous to be extracted by conventional primary and secondary water-flooding techniques. The EOR credit is nonrefundable and is allowed if the average wellhead price of crude oil (using West Texas Intermediate as the reference) in the year before the credit is claimed is below the statutorily established threshold price of $28 (as adjusted for inflation since 1990) in the year the credit is claimed. Oil prices in fiscal year 2006 were too high for companies to receive this subsidy, but the subsidy remains in existence. Its elimination is not expected to produce budget savings.

9. Marginal well production. This provision provides a subsidy for oil and gas produced from certain types of oil and gas wells. These wells include those that produce heavy oil and those with an average production within a statutorily specified range. Oil prices were too high for companies to receive this subsidy in fiscal year 2006, but the subsidy remains in existence. Its elimination is not expected to produce budget savings.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2…

For heaven's sake Abraham, don't allow a group like Center for American Progress do your thinking for you. I bet you didn't even read the stuff you posted here, but if you really care about being right instead of pretending you know what you're talking about, take your article, paragraph by paragraph, and compare them to the articles I linked. And you'll see how the Center of American Progress words things to mean what a leftwing extremist wants to hear and not how things actually are.

I do that with ALL my sources before I trust them. And because I know some sources are more biased than others, I don't trust them even then unless I can find a collaboration for their opinion through at least one othe source I trust.

But your article so distorts the actual facts, you really should be embarrassed that you posted it.

 

[Abraham3]

For heaven's sake Abraham, don't allow a group like Center for American Progress do your thinking for you. I bet you didn't even read the stuff you posted here, but if you really care about being right instead of pretending you know what you're talking about, take your article, paragraph by paragraph, and compare them to the articles I linked. And you'll see how the Center of American Progress words things to mean what a leftwing extremist wants to hear and not how things actually are.

I do that with ALL my sources before I trust them. And because I know some sources are more biased than others, I don't trust them even then unless I can find a collaboration for their opinion through at least one othe source I trust.

But your article so distorts the actual facts, you really should be embarrassed that you posted it.

I find my article considerably more objective than yours. Heritage Foundation is at least as far to the right as my source is to the left. Your article fails to mention most of these items. Is their existence a subjective point?

 

[Abraham3]

Since when did "opinion" trump science? Since when did "opinion" replace empirical data?

When did I say any such thing?

Only in the addled brains of the fraudsters does climate modeling replace actual empirical data.

That's not science. That's science fiction, and Asimov, Heinlein and a whole host of other authors tell the stories much better.

Who do you believe is 'responsible' for tallying up the experimental results, the predictions successes or the falsifications failed? Is there an organization for that? Some government agency? The UN perhaps? Is it YOUR personal responsibility? Weren't you claiming to have a PhD? To be an experienced researcher? To WHOM did you report your findings? Who paid attention to your results. Whose OPINIONS mattered?

The twists and turns you folks have to put us all through to keep up this waste of a fight are just F-ing ridiculous.

 

[PrometheusBound]

Yep, 74 of 79 climatologists sure is a big number.

As noted prior, the denialist camp prefers to pretend that the several other surveys do not exist. A very large majority of climate scientists accept AGW. Regardless of what nonsense yous spew, that is a fact.

Who cares. The fact remains that the methodology used in those "surveys' is equally BS. The fraudsters can't do real facts or real science.

It was in the interest of the ruling class to have their Heirheads, the Environmentalists, to limit the development of resources in order to create artificial scarcity and gouge us for obscene profit margins. That has been done.

Now it is time to limit this controlled Warmalarmie fraud, because the rulers aren't going to benefit if it is taken seriously and shuts down too much.

 

[Foxfyre]

For heaven's sake Abraham, don't allow a group like Center for American Progress do your thinking for you. I bet you didn't even read the stuff you posted here, but if you really care about being right instead of pretending you know what you're talking about, take your article, paragraph by paragraph, and compare them to the articles I linked. And you'll see how the Center of American Progress words things to mean what a leftwing extremist wants to hear and not how things actually are.

I do that with ALL my sources before I trust them. And because I know some sources are more biased than others, I don't trust them even then unless I can find a collaboration for their opinion through at least one othe source I trust.

But your article so distorts the actual facts, you really should be embarrassed that you posted it.

I find my article considerably more objective than yours. Heritage Foundation is at least as far to the right as my source is to the left. Your article fails to mention most of these items. Is their existence a subjective point?

You can't use the Heritage Foundation alone. You need to compare your article with the information in ALL the links I provided, as well as with other really good information out there, and see how distorted the Center for American Progress information is compared with the whole big picture. I used one link from a Heritage source only. Even Saigon's link--Saigon is one of the most adament warmers in the forum--refuted the Center for American Progress dogma.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This is copied from Yahoo but I did not get the URL before closing it.

Are you kidding



1. Intangible drilling costs. Firms engaged in the exploration and development of oil or gas properties may expense (deduct in the year paid or incurred) certain types of drilling expenditures from their taxes. These costs include wages, fuel, repairs, hauling, and supplies related to and necessary for drilling and preparing wells for the production of oil and gas. Other companies incurring similar types of costs must recover this cost over the life of the investment.

2. Deduction for tertiary injectants. Tertiary, or enhanced oil recovery, methods increase the amount of oil that a company can extract from a well by an additional 5 percent to 15 percent according to some research. This tax expenditure subsidizes the costs of tertiary injectants—the fluids, gases, and other chemicals that are pumped into oil and gas reservoirs as part of this process. The subsidy essentially gives companies government money for acting in ways that will enhance their profits. It allows companies to expense the costs of tertiary injectants, even though such costs should be recovered over time. Companies can alternatively choose to deduct these costs as an intangible drilling cost.

3. Percentage depletion allowance. Percentage depletion allows an independent oil company to deduct from its taxes about 15 percent from the revenue generated from a well, even if that amount exceeds the well’s total value. This means that oil companies take a deduction as long as a well is producing oil, without regard to how much, or whether, the well is still declining in value. Companies in other industries are only allowed to deduct an amount that represents the decline in their investment’s value that year.

4. Passive investments. The government generally only allows investors to deduct a limited amount of losses from “passive activities” such as renting land in order to prevent tax shelters. Yet oil and gas properties are exempt from this rule. This gives oil and gas companies a competitive edge over other types of energy companies.

5. Domestic manufacturing tax deduction. Companies that manufacture, produce, or extract oil and gas or any primary derivative receive a manufacturing subsidy provided that the product was made in the United States. But since removing this subsidy does not affect the production of oil, the subsidy does not significantly affect business decisions and eliminating the subsidy would not affect consumer prices. The subsidy is essentially a throwaway for oil companies. The tax expenditure is provided through a deduction for 9 percent of income, subject to a limit of 50 percent of the wages paid that are allocable to domestic production during the taxable year.

6. Geological and geophysical expenditures. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 created this tax subsidy, which allows companies to deduct the costs associated with searching for oil, recovering the costs over a two-year period.

7. Foreign tax credit. This credit is intended to prevent the double taxation of income that is taxed abroad but also subject to tax in the United States. Yet companies, particularly oil companies, have managed to exploit this subsidy even when they don’t pay income taxes abroad. In total, adjusting the rule would prevent companies from avoiding about $8.5 billion in taxes over a 10-year period.

8. Enhanced oil recovery credit. Companies receive a 15 percent income tax credit for the costs of recovering domestic oil when they use “enhanced oil recovery” methods to extract oil that is too viscous to be extracted by conventional primary and secondary water-flooding techniques. The EOR credit is nonrefundable and is allowed if the average wellhead price of crude oil (using West Texas Intermediate as the reference) in the year before the credit is claimed is below the statutorily established threshold price of $28 (as adjusted for inflation since 1990) in the year the credit is claimed. Oil prices in fiscal year 2006 were too high for companies to receive this subsidy, but the subsidy remains in existence. Its elimination is not expected to produce budget savings.

9. Marginal well production. This provision provides a subsidy for oil and gas produced from certain types of oil and gas wells. These wells include those that produce heavy oil and those with an average production within a statutorily specified range. Oil prices were too high for companies to receive this subsidy in fiscal year 2006, but the subsidy remains in existence. Its elimination is not expected to produce budget savings.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2…

Which of these do you feel is a subsidy?

 

[Foxfyre]

Oh, I actually forgot about one major thing that the left fails to note among the mythical oil company subsides but is invariably (though probably unknowingly) included in the totals groups like the Center for American Progress are fond of using to demonize oil companies:

Along with farm fuel credits intended to help keep our food costs lower, and government help with fuel costs that go to low income families, a major expenditure is the oil the government buys that goes into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Do any of ya'll 97% supporters want us not to have that reserve? All of this stuff is included in the numbers that you so desperately want to believe are unfair oil subsidies to Big Oil.

 

[Abraham3]

As noted prior, the denialist camp prefers to pretend that the several other surveys do not exist. A very large majority of climate scientists accept AGW. Regardless of what nonsense you spew, that is a fact.

Who cares. The fact remains that the methodology used in those "surveys' is equally BS. The fraudsters can't do real facts or real science.

Saying it does not make it so.

 

[daveman]

Speaking of that 97%...

Lomborg On Cook 97% Survey: ?It Turns Out They Have Done Pretty Much Everything Wrong?

Here’s what Lomborg writes (my emphasis, links shortened):

Ugh. Do you remember the “97% consensus”, which even Obama tweeted?
Turns out the authors don’t want to reveal their data.

It has always been a dodgy paper (iopscience.iop.org/article). Virtually everyone I know in the debate would automatically be included in the 97% (including me, but also many, much more skeptical)….

The paper looks at 12,000 papers written in the last 25 years (see here, the paper doesn’t actually specify the numbers, notalotofpeopleknowthat/).

It ditches about 8,000 papers because they don’t take a position. They put people who agree into three different bins — 1.6% that explicitly endorse global warming with numbers, 23% that explicitly endorse global warming without numbers and then 74% that “implicitly endorse” because they’re looking at other issues with global warming that must mean they agree with human-caused global warming.

Voila, you got about 97% (actually here 98%, but because the authors haven’t released the numbers themselves, we have to rely on other quantative assessments).

Notice, that *nobody* said anything about *dangerous* global warming; this meme simply got attached afterwards (by Obama and many others).

Now, Richard Tol has tried to replicate their study and it turns out they have done pretty much everything wrong. And they don’t want to release the data so anyone else can check it. Outrageous.

They don't want to release their data to be checked?

Yep, that's climate "science", all right.

 

[Abraham3]

There were two studies of the literature. Both found 97-98% acceptance of AGW among climate scientists.

From Wikipedia's article on the Scientific Opinion of Climate Change

A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:
(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[118]
A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers, finding 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming and reporting:
Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.[119]
Additionally, the authors of the studies were invited to categorise their own research papers, of which 1,381 discussed the cause of recent global warming, and:
Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.

************************************************************************

I see numbers there. Why does your author think they hid the numbers?

 

[Abraham3]

From a different article in Wikipedia - a little more information on several of these surveys, including the one I posted that found less support among engineers and geoscientists.

Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2010

(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[14]
The methodology of the Anderegg et al. study was challenged in PNAS by Lawrence Bodenstein for "treat[ing] publication metrics as a surrogate for expertise". He would expect the much larger side of the climate change controversy to excel in certain publication metrics as they "continue to cite each other's work in an upward spiral of self-affirmation".[15] Anderegg et al. replied that Bodenstein "raises many speculative points without offering data" and that his comment "misunderstands our study’s framing and stands in direct contrast to two prominent conclusions in the paper.[16]
Farnsworth and Lichter, 2011

In an October 2011 paper published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, researchers from George Mason University analyzed the results of a survey of 489 scientists working in academia, government, and industry. The scientists polled were members of the American Geophysical Union or the American Meteorological Society and listed in the 23rd edition of American Men and Women of Science, a biographical reference work on leading American scientists. Of those surveyed, 97% 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.[17][18]
Lefsrud and Meyer, 2012

Lefsrud and Meyer surveyed members of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA), a professional association for the petroleum industry in Alberta. The aims of the study included examining the respondents' "legitimation of themselves as experts on 'the truth', and their attitudes towards regulatory measures."[19] Writing later, the authors added, "we surveyed engineers and geologists because their professions dominate the oil industry and their views on climate change influence the positions taken by governments, think tanks and environmental groups."[20]
The authors found that 99.4% agreed that the global climate is changing but that "the debate of the causes of climate change is particularly virulent among them." Analysing their responses, the authors labelled 36% of respondents 'comply with Kyoto', as "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."[19] Others they labelled 'nature is overwhelming' (24%), 'economic responsibility' (10%), 'fatalists' (17%) and 'regulation activists' (5%). Respondents giving these responses disagreed in various ways with mainstream scientific opinion on climate change, expressing views such as that climate change is 'natural', that its causes are unknown, that it is harmless, or that regulation such as that represented by Kyoto Protocol is in itself harmful.[19]
They found that respondents that support regulation ('comply with Kyoto' and 'regulation activists') were "significantly more likely to be lower in the organizational hierarchy, younger, female, and working in government", while those that oppose regulation ('nature is overwhelming' and 'economic responsibility') were "significantly more likely to be more senior in their organizations, male, older, geoscientists, and work in the oil and gas industry".[19] Discussing the study in 2013, the authors ask if such political divisions distract decision-makers from confronting the risk that climate change presents to businesses and the economy.[20]

John Cook et al, 2013

Cook et al examined 11,944 abstracts from the peer-reviewed scientific literature from 1991–2011 that matched the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. They found that, while 66.4% of them expressed no position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), of those that did, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. They also invited authors to rate their own papers and found that, while only 35.5% rated their paper as expressing no position on AGW, 97.2% of the rest endorsed the consensus. In both cases the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position was marginally increasing over time. They concluded that the number of papers actually rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.[21]

In their discussion of the results, the authors said that the large proportion of abstracts that state no position on AGW is as expected in a consensus situation,[22] adding that "the fundamental science of AGW is no longer controversial among the publishing science community and the remaining debate in the field has moved to other topics."[21]

 

[Abraham3]

John Cook, of Skeptical Science and lead author of the Environmental Research Letters study "The Consensus Project" was invited to write a letter for the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists on the issue.

Closing the consensus gap: Public support for climate policy | Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

Closing the consensus gap: Public support for climate policy

John Cook

Since the late 1980s, governments and policy makers have worked to develop policy to mitigate climate change. At the same time, opponents have worked to delay and prevent climate action—not just by attacking policy solutions, but also by attacking climate science. A key focus in this decades-long campaign has been to cast doubt on the scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming.

Why attack the consensus? In recent years, social scientists have started to put the pieces together. A study published in the journal Nature Climate Change in 2011, replicated by a 2013 study published in the journal Climatic Change, found that public perceptions about scientific agreement are linked to support for policy to mitigate climate change. When people think that scientists are still debating about what’s causing climate change, they’re less likely to support climate action.

Social scientists were not the first to come to this realization. Political consultant Frank Luntz advised Republicans in the 2000 presidential election to cast doubt on the consensus, arguing “should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.” More than a decade before social scientists observed the link between perceived consensus and support for climate policy, opponents of climate action understood this link and implemented communication strategies designed to erode public support for climate policy.

In fact, attacks on the consensus date back to the early 1990s. In 1991, the Western Fuels Association spent more than $500,000 on a campaign to “reposition global warming as theory (not fact).” More recently, an analysis of conservative columns published from 2007 to 2010 found that the most repeated climate myth was “there is no scientific consensus.”

These strategies have been effective. To this day, there is a significant “consensus gap” between public perception and the actual scientific consensus. A 2012 poll conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found 43 percent of Americans thought climate scientists were still in disagreement about whether the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity. I have conducted similar research, measuring perceived consensus in the United States and Australia. When Americans were asked what percentage of climate scientists agree on human-caused global warming, the average answer was 55 percent. When repeating this survey with Australians, I found that my own country doesn’t perform much better, with an average answer of 58 percent.

The misperception of a scientific community in disagreement is in stark contrast with reality. A 2009 study found that 97 percent of actively publishing climate scientists agree that humans are significantly changing global temperature. A 2010 analysis of public statements by climate scientists found the same 97 percent consensus. Science historian Naomi Oreskes did the seminal work on consensus in 2004; she analyzed the abstracts of 928 climate papers published between 1993 and 2003 and found none rejecting the consensus.

I recently led a citizen science effort, The Consensus Project, to continue and extend Oreskes’ analysis. We analyzed 21 years’ worth of climate research, resulting in the most comprehensive analysis yet done. We identified more than 4,000 peer-reviewed climate papers stating a position in their abstract on whether humans were causing global warming. Among these papers, 97 percent endorsed the consensus. To independently check our results, we asked the scientists who wrote the climate papers to rate their own research. Among papers self-rated by the authors as stating a position on human-caused global warming, 97 percent endorsed the consensus.

Our research went further than earlier studies and found that the consensus had already formed by the early 1990s. Agreement continued to strengthen over the 21-year period. While our sample was admittedly a small portion of the global climate science community, we nevertheless found more than 10,000 scientists in more than 80 countries publishing climate papers that endorse the consensus.

Although President Obama tweeted our research to more than 31 million followers on the day after it was published, and later mentioned the 97 percent consensus in his landmark speech calling for climate action, public perception has not yet caught up with the science. Many psychological barriers to climate action remain in place, and opponents continue to focus intensely on attacking the scientific consensus—which is indicative of its importance. Closing the consensus gap would remove a significant roadblock that has for two decades inhibited public support for climate action.

 

[kiwina]

My question is why should I listen to any of them, and who are they any way? If 97% of the experts say a plan will crash and only 3% say it will fly and the 3% are the ones who work on the plane I well fly it, they are tho ones that know what they are talking about. If an archaeollogist examims the runion of an English village that is a mile froM the North sea and on one side finds nothing but the remains of a boat, and if I have been showen a photo of a castle with a half mile of mud flats that were sea bed when it was built. Then a chemist comes a long later and clames that the plant is wormer now then ever before why should I give him any heed?
Like the Admrial said "give me the facts, I well make my own desion".
If the question was only to delvope aulterent power sorces then it would not be a problem. However, every time fule rates go up to force people to stop using petro the people who suffer are the people who produce our food. We have electric cars but where are the aulternet fuled tractors and trucks? With six billion people in this world horses can not keep up with the demands.
My responce is this if you want to delovep an alternet sorce then take some of the money that is being wasted in convinceing us and our repersentives to do some thing and do it yourself. This is America the land of I can, not Prussa the land of you have to do for me.

 

[westwall]

Speaking of that 97%...

Lomborg On Cook 97% Survey: ?It Turns Out They Have Done Pretty Much Everything Wrong?

Here’s what Lomborg writes (my emphasis, links shortened):

Ugh. Do you remember the “97% consensus”, which even Obama tweeted?
Turns out the authors don’t want to reveal their data.

It has always been a dodgy paper (iopscience.iop.org/article). Virtually everyone I know in the debate would automatically be included in the 97% (including me, but also many, much more skeptical)….

The paper looks at 12,000 papers written in the last 25 years (see here, the paper doesn’t actually specify the numbers, notalotofpeopleknowthat/).

It ditches about 8,000 papers because they don’t take a position. They put people who agree into three different bins — 1.6% that explicitly endorse global warming with numbers, 23% that explicitly endorse global warming without numbers and then 74% that “implicitly endorse” because they’re looking at other issues with global warming that must mean they agree with human-caused global warming.

Voila, you got about 97% (actually here 98%, but because the authors haven’t released the numbers themselves, we have to rely on other quantative assessments).

Notice, that *nobody* said anything about *dangerous* global warming; this meme simply got attached afterwards (by Obama and many others).

Now, Richard Tol has tried to replicate their study and it turns out they have done pretty much everything wrong. And they don’t want to release the data so anyone else can check it. Outrageous.

They don't want to release their data to be checked?

Yep, that's climate "science", all right.

The Scientific Method says......release all data and challenge anyone to find your results incorrect.

Climatology says......hide all data and do not release ANY OF IT lest our secrets are found out.