Yes, 97%

And you haven't answered the question. The opinions of the experts in any field is a significant point in dealing with issues of that field. The opinions of the world's climate scientists are a very significant source of information by which the public can fulfill the obligations and responsibilities of an INFORMED electorate

The opinions of the experts in any field is a significant point in dealing with issues of that field.

Excellent point! The honest thing to do then is to stop saying 97% of scientists agree if you then narrow down your poll to only include 77 published climate researchers. You agree?
Just say 75/77 published climate researchers say humans are causing most global warming.
 
To those few of you from the outlands that might not know what Legates did with Cook's data:

Cook et al performend a study in which they identfied over 11,000 papers that had the word "global warming" or "global climate change" in their abstracts. He and his team then examined these papers and placed them into one of six categories regarding the expressed positions of their authors:

  • “Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of global warming”
  • “Explicit endorsement without quantification”
  • “Implicit endorsement”
  • “No opinion or uncertain”
  • “Implicit rejection”
  • “Explicit rejection without quantification”
  • “Explicit rejection with quantification”

The result was that 97% of the papers that expressed some position: categories 1-3 and 5-7 "endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming". Cook et al then contacted 8,547 of the authors of the examined papers and asked THEM to rate their papers. They got responses from 1,200 authors who were involved in the production of 2,142 papers. Of these author's self-ratings, 97% again endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

Now then, what did Legates do? Legates decided that the only papers that could be counted as having endorsed the consensus position were those that EXPRESSLY STATED as much. That number was quite low. He also decided that they should be put up against the number of ALL PAPERS EXAMINED. So that papers expressing no opinion whatsoever, either explicitly or implicitly, as to human or other causation to global warming, were counted by Legate's team as having explicitly rejected the idea.

Legates calculations are fundamentally meaningless. His contention of Cook's errors are utter nonsense. Even if you accept EVERY WORD Legates puts out, he does not address the author's self-rating results which almost exactly matched the results of Cook's team. That alone should tell ANYONE looking at this issue that Mr Legates is a liar and a fool.
 
And you haven't answered the question. The opinions of the experts in any field is a significant point in dealing with issues of that field. The opinions of the world's climate scientists are a very significant source of information by which the public can fulfill the obligations and responsibilities of an INFORMED electorate

The opinions of the experts in any field is a significant point in dealing with issues of that field.

Excellent point! The honest thing to do then is to stop saying 97% of scientists agree if you then narrow down your poll to only include 77 published climate researchers. You agree?
Just say 75/77 published climate researchers say humans are causing most global warming.

Are you being intentionally dense? Go back to the OP - the lead post - and READ IT.
 
Just amazing what they will do to sell this. It's pretty pathetic actually.
Scientist have been WRONG more than once. so if some of you want to bow and live your life on what they say, have at it and good luck
 
And you haven't answered the question. The opinions of the experts in any field is a significant point in dealing with issues of that field. The opinions of the world's climate scientists are a very significant source of information by which the public can fulfill the obligations and responsibilities of an INFORMED electorate

The opinions of the experts in any field is a significant point in dealing with issues of that field.

Excellent point! The honest thing to do then is to stop saying 97% of scientists agree if you then narrow down your poll to only include 77 published climate researchers. You agree?
Just say 75/77 published climate researchers say humans are causing most global warming.

Are you being intentionally dense? Go back to the OP - the lead post - and READ IT.

Are you being intentionally dense? Go back to the OP - the title of the thread- and READ IT
 
Does the BOLD help?

Surveys of scientists and scientific literature [Wikipedia]
Just over 97% of published climate researchers say humans are causing most global warming.[108][109][110]
Main article: Surveys of scientists' views on climate change
Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming. They have concluded that the majority of scientists support the idea of anthropogenic climate change.

In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[111] She analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Seventy-five per cent of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories (either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view); 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. None of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."

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. 97% of the scientists surveyed agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years; 84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring, and 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiated its occurrence. Catastrophic effects in 50–100 years would likely be observed according to 41%, while 44% thought the effects would be moderate and about 13 percent saw relatively little danger. 5% said they thought human activity did not contribute to greenhouse warming.[112][113][114][115]

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 different countries.[116] 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.[117]

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'.

To the question "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?", 67.1% said they very much agreed, 26.7% agreed to some large extent, 6.2% said to they agreed to some small extent (2–4), none said they did not agree at all. To the question "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" the responses were 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent, 15.1% to a small extent, and 1.35% not agreeing at all.

A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. The authors summarised the findings:

It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.[118]

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.[119]


A survey of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 2013 finds that only 2 of 10,885 reject anthropogenic global warming
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.[120]

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.

James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[121] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[122]
 
Does the BOLD help?

Surveys of scientists and scientific literature [Wikipedia]
Just over 97% of published climate researchers say humans are causing most global warming.[108][109][110]
Main article: Surveys of scientists' views on climate change
Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming. They have concluded that the majority of scientists support the idea of anthropogenic climate change.

In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[111] She analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Seventy-five per cent of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories (either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view); 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. None of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."

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. 97% of the scientists surveyed agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years; 84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring, and 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiated its occurrence. Catastrophic effects in 50–100 years would likely be observed according to 41%, while 44% thought the effects would be moderate and about 13 percent saw relatively little danger. 5% said they thought human activity did not contribute to greenhouse warming.[112][113][114][115]

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 different countries.[116] 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.[117]

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'.

To the question "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?", 67.1% said they very much agreed, 26.7% agreed to some large extent, 6.2% said to they agreed to some small extent (2–4), none said they did not agree at all. To the question "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" the responses were 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent, 15.1% to a small extent, and 1.35% not agreeing at all.

A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. The authors summarised the findings:

It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.[118]

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.[119]


A survey of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 2013 finds that only 2 of 10,885 reject anthropogenic global warming
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.[120]

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.

James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[121] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[122]

Yes, 97%

The title was unhelpful.

Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures

And you forgot to bold the proof for the title.

97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change)

AGW is now ACC? LOL!
 
Surveys of scientists and scientific literature [Wikipedia]
Just over 97% of published climate researchers say humans are causing most global warming.[108][109][110]
Main article: Surveys of scientists' views on climate change
Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming. They have concluded that the majority of scientists support the idea of anthropogenic climate change.

In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[111] She analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Seventy-five per cent of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories (either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view); 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. None of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."

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. 97% of the scientists surveyed agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years; 84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring, and 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiated its occurrence. Catastrophic effects in 50–100 years would likely be observed according to 41%, while 44% thought the effects would be moderate and about 13 percent saw relatively little danger. 5% said they thought human activity did not contribute to greenhouse warming.[112][113][114][115]

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 different countries.[116] 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.[117]

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'.

To the question "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?", 67.1% said they very much agreed, 26.7% agreed to some large extent, 6.2% said to they agreed to some small extent (2–4), none said they did not agree at all. To the question "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" the responses were 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent, 15.1% to a small extent, and 1.35% not agreeing at all.

A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. The authors summarised the findings:

It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.[118]

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.[119]


A survey of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 2013 finds that only 2 of 10885 reject anthropogenic global warming
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.[120]

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.

James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[121] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[122]

Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

Fucking hilarious!

Thank for boiling the BS for us.
 
Was that just too much for you to wade through? Try reading it in little pieces; a few sentences every evening. Get some rest before you start. Drink plenty of fluids. Stay committed. You'll make it.
 
Surveys of scientists and scientific literature [Wikipedia]
o 928 abstracts
o 489 randomly selected members
o 373
responses
o 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists
o 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change"
o Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and
82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature.
o 1,372 climate researchers
o 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change
)
o the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.
o 2 of 10,885 reject anthropogenic global warming
o 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.
o authors of the studies were invited to categorise their own research papers
o 1,381 discussed the cause of recent global warming
o 97.2% endorsed the consensus.
o 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.
o 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors
o only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming

Should I assume the problem really is reading skills?
 
You can assume what you want

and I think we can assume you're a brainwashed member of the GloBULL warming cult

as you see, it's not working to well on the majority of the people in the country

that's why we are getting all the doomsday fearmongering how it could affect the trout coming at us fast and furious now

you see how they put it folks, IT COULD affect them and then it might not

Scientist don't ever have to worry about BEING WRONG, They can have it both ways and still get grant money from taxpayers. what a gig eh?
 
What a stupid ass you are, Staph. So, all the scientists in the nations around the world that are reporting the affects of global warming and confirming the physics involved are on US Government grants? Or are you stating that all the nations in the world, including the US, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the EU, are in on a global conspiracy to lie to all of us? Are you truly that stupid?
 
Interesting, I have been attending a university part time for two years now, and have yet to meet a scientist there that states that AGW is not real. Some, in fact, are rather alarmist in their views. Particularly those that deal with the cryosphere.
 
This whole 97% stuff is beyond bogus........citing 97% of a handful of scientists is so intellectually dishonest, its not even real.

I'll tell you whats impressive.......the tens of thousands of scientists, masters and PHD level who say without reservation that AGW is total crap. And why do they say that? Because the climate scientists completely ignore statistical error and spit on traditional scientific method. Which makes it fake science.:boobies::boobies::eusa_dance:
 
And you haven't answered the question. The opinions of the experts in any field is a significant point in dealing with issues of that field. The opinions of the world's climate scientists are a very significant source of information by which the public can fulfill the obligations and responsibilities of an INFORMED electorate

You may want to investigate the fact that "the public" doesn't find the pushed agenda of the global warming INDUSTRY to be important at all.
 
Interesting, I have been attending a university part time for two years now, and have yet to meet a scientist there that states that AGW is not real. Some, in fact, are rather alarmist in their views. Particularly those that deal with the cryosphere.

.....and university faculty is largely comprised of who? HINT: they are paid for, and tenured, by the government. They rely almost entirely on grants. Said faculty draws upon almost entirely on left-leaning advocates. Hand in glove, self-serving.....and, very profitable!!! As many people say, follow the money!! Old rocks have the wisdom of the earth, but you with the same moniker seem awful compliant with the self-serving "alarmists." Strange, that dichotomy....
 
Since my major is geology, and the professors I see are mostly people involved in science, they really aren't pushing left or right agendas.

That you are bone ignorant of the sciences, as are most 'Conservatives', simply reinforces the perception that you people know nothing but your wishes and emotions.
 
Since my major is geology, and the professors I see are mostly people involved in science, they really aren't pushing left or right agendas.

That you are bone ignorant of the sciences, as are most 'Conservatives', simply reinforces the perception that you people know nothing but your wishes and emotions.

"You people?" "Know nothing?" You just proved my point, and you don't have a clue as to how or why. I'll not send my kids to your university.

Based on this single post of yours, logic tells me you will never be an objective geologist. You already have a bias (proven above), which science IS NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE. And you must be very young, to not understand agendas or the money behind it. Like I said, you don't express the wisdom of your moniker. Prove me wrong, and I will be happy. Heck, I'm happy either way..... But I got you pegged, pal!!!
 
So you understand what drives the fossil fuel industry to attempt to create a false controversy; to convince the voting public that the science is uncertain, the matter undecided and that strong arguments may be made by either side.
 

Forum List

Back
Top