Yes, 97%

[CrusaderFrank]

These 97% stories are worse than cockroaches. It doesn't matter how many times you squash them, useful idiots like crick simply starts another thread about them.

I would say the useless idiocy is the persistence of deniers in claiming such majorities don't exist. I could put a survey up here performed by god himself of a hundred million climate scientists from all the planets of the galaxy and the first response would read "75 out of 79, yeah, that's something."

I'd be convinced of you could reproduce your theory in a lab.

We can create mini black holes in a lab and conditions a few nanoseconds after the Big Bang. How come you never show any experiments that control for a 120PPM increase in CO2?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

Post you lab work that controls for a 120PPM increase in CO2

 

[Crick]

Gosh Frank, that's off topic, but have you looked in the thread entitled "CO2 Experiments Posted Here"?

 

[IanC]

The Doran poll was based on two simple questions. Has the earth been warming; and if yes to the first question, has mankind contributed to that warming.

Its been a while since I investigated this poll But I belie. 77 of 79 said yes to the first question. Two said no, probably because the time frame was not specified. Eg this interglacial on the whole is teensing down. These two were not counted in the second question because they did not answer it.

I don't know of any promenent skeptics that deny some 20th century warming, or that man's land use and fuel burning has not had some impact on that increase. So, depending on how you define it, there is close to 100% consensus. It is only when you start asking more specific questions that the consensus falls apart. Someone may agree with mannade warming but disagree with high feedbacks or any of the other unsubstantiated doomsday conclusions of the CO2 theory. The warmers act as if anyone who believes in any part of the theory also believes in every other part. This is obviously not true.

 

[skookerasbil]

nobody cares about the 97%...........


[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/EIA-annual-outlook-2011-2040-2.png.html][/URL]

 

[Crick]

The Doran poll was based on two simple questions. Has the earth been warming; and if yes to the first question, has mankind contributed to that warming.

Its been a while since I investigated this poll But I belie. 77 of 79 said yes to the first question. Two said no, probably because the time frame was not specified. Eg this interglacial on the whole is teensing down. These two were not counted in the second question because they did not answer it.

I don't know of any promenent skeptics that deny some 20th century warming, or that man's land use and fuel burning has not had some impact on that increase. So, depending on how you define it, there is close to 100% consensus. It is only when you start asking more specific questions that the consensus falls apart. Someone may agree with mannade warming but disagree with high feedbacks or any of the other unsubstantiated doomsday conclusions of the CO2 theory. The warmers act as if anyone who believes in any part of the theory also believes in every other part. This is obviously not true.

The consensus found in several of the studies aligns a very high majority of climate scientists with the IPCC's position that human activity is the primary cause of warming experienced this century. At least three different studies found that the greater a scientists knowledge of the workings of the climate, the greater the likelihood that they would concur with the IPCC position. The less they knew, the more likely they would deny it.

And just out of curiosity Ian, why do YOU bring up the Doran (77 out of 79) study? If you're looking for statistical validity, why not examine one of the many other studies involving far larger samples? Eh? Is it that you know Doran to be as valid as any other or that you hope to play on the lay view that it is undersampled?

 

[Stephanie]

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.

it's shameful is what it is. and it's sickening they don't care

 

[Crick]

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.

it's shameful is what it is. and it's sickening they don't care

Shameful? I refer you to numerous, peer reviewed studies of this topic that all find, very consistently, that a very high majority of active climate scientists concur with the IPCC position that human activity is fhe primary cause of warming observed in the last 150 years and particularly in the last 50; and you think that's shameful?

And to what do you refer? I presume it is to the Global Warming Petition Project. Do you understand how flawed a survey that is? Out of their over 30,000 signatures, 34 claim to be climate scientists. Their definition of a scientist is absurd. And the portion of scientists, by THEIR definition, that their petition contains, is pathetic compared to the work and expertise that went into the production and review of the IPCC assessment reports.
"The IPCC AR4 WG1 report was written and reviewed by approximately 2000 scientists. If we assume that the 20,000 AGU members who claim to be atmospheric scientists, ocean scientists, or hydrologists represent the pool of potential experts in climate science in the U.S., then approximately 10% of all climate scientists were directly involved in creating the over 1000 page report.

That compares to less than 1% of all OISM “scientists” who mailed a pre-printed postcard"

Before you start throwing terms around like "shameful", you ought to check your facts a little more closely.

 

[Stephanie]

shamefully dishonest. I have never seen them go this far to fool the people

SNIP:
About that overwhelming 97-98% number of scientists that say there is a climate consensus…
Anthony Watts / July 18, 2012
Larry Bell writes in his weekly Forbes column about that oft repeated but less than truthy “98% of all scientists” statistic. Supposedly, this was such an easy and quick to do survey, it was a no-brainer according to the two University of Illinois researchers who conducted it:
To maximize the response rate, the survey was designed to take less than 2 minutes to complete, and it was administered by a professional online survey site ( www.questionpro.com ) that allowed one-time participation by those who received the invitation.
I think it is hilarious that so few people who cite this survey as “proof” of consensus actually look into the survey and the puny response numbers involved. So, I decided to graph the data to give some much needed perspective. Apparently, the majority of AGU members polled didn’t think this poll on climate change consensus was worth returning. – Anthony

That Scientific Global Warming Consensus…Not! – Forbes
By Larry Bell
So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.

That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)
The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation?
Read the whole article: That Scientific Global Warming Consensus…Not! – Forbes
Here’s the survey as it appeared in EOS:
EOS, TRANSACTIONS AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION, VOL. 90, NO. 3, PAGE 22, 2009 doi:10.1029/2009EO030002
BRIEF REPORT
Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

ALL of it here:
About that overwhelming 97-98 number of scientists that say there is a climate consensus 8230 Watts Up With That ​

 

[Crick]

Stephanie, I believe I have posted for you on prior occasions the numerous other studies available, most with larger samples involved.

And do you really think Anthony Watts is the fellow whose opinion you should listen to on science matters? Were you aware that he never graduated from college. It's not even certain that he ever attended ANY college. He is NOT an expert on any branch of science. He was a TV weatherman who got into weather graphics at the right time and made himself a nice pot of money.

But let's get back to where ELSE that 97% of active climate scientists (not, as Watts says we claim "98% of all scientists") has come from.

Surveys of scientists and scientific literature

Summary of opinions from climate and earth scientists regarding climate change.

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.[13]

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.[14] 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.[15]

References

1. 
   
   
   • Anderegg, William R L; James W. Prall, Jacob Harold, and Stephen H. Schneider (2010)."Expert credibility in climate change". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 107 (27): 12107–9.Bibcode:2010PNAS..10712107A. doi:10.1073/pnas.1003187107. PMC 2901439.PMID 20566872. Retrieved 22 August 2011.
   • Jump up^ Doran consensus article 2009
   • Jump up^ John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli, Sarah A Green, Mark Richardson, Bärbel Winkler, Rob Painting, Robert Way, Peter Jacobs. Andrew Skuce (15 May 2013). "Expert credibility in climate change". Environ. Res. Lett. 8 (2): 024024. Bibcode:2013ERL.....8b4024C.doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024.
   • Jump up^ Naomi Oreskes (December 3, 2004 (Erratum January 21, 2005)). "Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" (PDF). Science 306 (5702): 1686.doi:10.1126/science.1103618. PMID 15576594. (see also for an exchange of letters to Science)
   • Jump up^ Lavelle, Marianne (2008-04-23). "Survey Tracks Scientists' Growing Climate Concern". U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved 2010-01-20.
   • Jump up^ Lichter, S. Robert (2008-04-24). "Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don't Trust the Media's Coverage of Climate Change". Statistical Assessment Service, George Mason University. Retrieved 2010-01-20.
   • Jump up^ ""Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change" at Journalist's Resource.org".
   • Jump up^ Stephen J. Farnsworth, S. Robert Lichter (October 27, 2011). "The Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change". International Journal of Public Opinion Research. Retrieved December 2, 2011.
   • Jump up^ Bray, Dennis; von Storch, Hans (2009). "A Survey of the Perspectives of Climate Scientists Concerning Climate Science and Climate Change".
   • Jump up^ Bray, D.; von Storch H. (2009). "Prediction' or 'Projection; The nomenclature of climate science". Science Communication 30 (4): 534–543. doi:10.1177/1075547009333698.
   • Jump up^ Doran, Peter T.; Maggie Kendall Zimmerman (January 20, 2009). "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change". EOS 90 (3): 22–23.Bibcode:2009EOSTr..90...22D. doi:10.1029/2009EO030002.
   • Jump up^ Anderegg, William R L; James W. Prall, Jacob Harold, and Stephen H. Schneider (2010)."Expert credibility in climate change". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 107 (27): 12107–9.Bibcode:2010PNAS..10712107A. doi:10.1073/pnas.1003187107. PMC 2901439.PMID 20566872.
   • Jump up^ Cook, J.; Nuccitelli, D.; Green, S.A.; Richardson, M.; Winkler, B.; Painting, R.; Way, R.; Jacobs, P.; Skuc, A. (2013). "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature". Environ. Res. Lett. 8 (2): 024024. Bibcode:2013ERL.....8b4024C.doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024.
   • Jump up^ Plait, P. (11 December 2012). "Why Climate Change Denial Is Just Hot Air". Slate. Retrieved 14 February 2014.
   • Jump up^ Plait, P. (14 January 2014). "The Very, Very Thin Wedge of Denial". Slate. Retrieved 14 February 2014.

 

[whitehall]

Climate researchers? What the hell is a "climate researcher? Is it a graduate student copying manuscripts in order to get a good grade? Some techno bureaucrat trying to get his thesis published? Rush Limbaugh can be considered to be a "climate researcher". Why wasn't his opinion added to the pot? It's all opinion and you gotta have faith in the religion of global warming even though your senses tell you it's getting cooler.

 

[Crick]

A researcher in this context would be someone conducting original research. Rush Limbaugh would not qualify. Neither would your "grad student copying manuscripts" or "some techno bureaucrat trying to get his thesis published". These are qualified, professional researchers (masters and doctorates) conducting original research in the field of climate science. I think that's simple and obvious enough. Is there some reason you want to disparage this group? Can't think of a better comeback?

The results of research are not "opinions". They are data and the conclusions drawn from those data, with the justification via logic, reasoning and expert knowledge lain out.

Faith is not required where evidence is present and there are enormous amounts of evidence supporting AGW.

 

[whitehall]

A researcher in this context would be someone conducting original research. Rush Limbaugh would not qualify. Neither would your "grad student copying manuscripts" or "some techno bureaucrat trying to get his thesis published". These are qualified, professional researchers (masters and doctorates) conducting original research in the field of climate science. I think that's simple and obvious enough. Is there some reason you want to disparage this group? Can't think of a better comeback?

The results of research are not "opinions". They are data and the conclusions drawn from those data, with the justification via logic, reasoning and expert knowledge lain out.

Faith is not required where evidence is present and there are enormous amounts of evidence supporting AGW.

Does the scientific community assume that every article published about global warming is based on "original research" just because the author has a masters or a doctorate degree? The ultimate global warming guru who started the whole magilla had no background in environmental science. Al Gore was just another leftie politician but the Nobel Prize people awarded him the "Peace Prize" for what amounts to self grandizing blame America rhetoric based on a crazy theory with no scientific data. When you take the pompous self promoting bull shit by bull shit pseudo "scientists" and wannabe "scientists out of the equation the whole warming theory falls apart.

 

[Kosh]

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the media, and Al Gore repeatedly say that the science of global warming is settled and that only a radical fringe group of corporate-sponsored scientists disagree with the scientific consensus that man is causing global warming. Over $50 billion has been spent to support that believe. However, even as far back as 2003 a survey was conducted among all climate scientists (those actually having climate PhDs and working specifically on climate issues) showed that there was barely a majority, let alone a consensus that man was causing global warming. When the question was asked, "was the scientific debate about climate change over," less than half of the respondents agreed with the question. An equal number disagreed. This is far from a consensus among scientists who can actually speak to the issue.

In 2001 a voluntary petition was sent to all scientists in the United States stating that, among other things, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." At that time, 17,000 scientists signed it. When the same petition was sent out in 2008, 31,000 scientists signed it, almost double the number in 2001. Nine thousand of these had PhD's in the physical sciences. This compares to only about 60 (not 2500) that support the IPCC's man-caused theory. More are signing every day. The IPCC's, media's, and Gore's instance that there is a consensus among scientists that the science is settled is completely false, designed to hide the fact that the entire effort is politically, not scientifically, motivated. Every effort is made to silence the dissenters, yet more and more scientists are speaking out because the actual science supporting man-caused warming is non-existent.

Once again the AGW cult points to their high priests that funnel the trillions of research (tax payer) dollars into the AGW church.

 

[Crick]

Does the scientific community assume that every article published about global warming is based on "original research" just because the author has a masters or a doctorate degree?

No. That would be based on the content of the paper. It is relatively common for submitted research papers to be rejected for publication because they do not represent original research.

The ultimate global warming guru who started the whole magilla had no background in environmental science.

Despite the fact that I am grateful for the work Gore has done toward educating the public regarding man made global warming, neither the validity nor the significance of anthropogenic warming is dependent on him in any way. Any discussion of the man in that context is a meaningless waste of time.

When you take the pompous self promoting bull shit by bull shit pseudo "scientists" and wannabe "scientists out of the equation the whole warming theory falls apart.

That statement is complete nonsense. As several studies have demonstrated, the VAST majority of all journal-published climate science studies have provided further supporting evidence supporting the theory of AGW.

For instance:
In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes ... analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003... None of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position,

and

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.

and


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.

​

The above information is from Wikipedia's article "Scientific Opinion on Climate Change" and has been posted here on numerous occasions. I would be VERY surprised if you had not seen it before which makes it difficult to understand why you would make such a ridiculous and unsupportable statement.

​

 

[SSDD]

Stephanie don't expect much in the way of honestly from Crick. He's a natural born liar of the highest order

 

[Crick]

You are an ass. And your qualifications to speak in any discussion of science topics is absolutely nil.

 

[Rotagilla]

wikipedia isn't a reliable source...anyone can insert anything into wikipedia, and as long as the "others" agree, it stays.

wikipedia distorts or covers up more truth than it "reveals".

 

[Crick]

I'm afraid you are repeating a common misconception.

How Accurate Is Wikipedia

 

[Stephanie]

Stephanie don't expect much in the way of honestly from Crick. He's a natural born liar of the highest order

because he can post a lot studies that can be rebutted with another one (of course he ignores those) we are suppose to believe he is an expert
all I see him as is being brainwashed and rude on top of that or he must be making money off the scam.