Yes, 97%

[CrusaderFrank]

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

You mean the thread where you don't post any experiments? Yeah

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

Pointing at the Weather channel and shrieking "ManMade Global Warming on Display, DENIER!!!" is neither research nor evidence nor a lab experiment

 

[jon_berzerk]

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!

the lefties will fall for anything

--LOL

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How does 97% of any group "Believe" in AGW without any lab work?

How?

 

[jon_berzerk]

How does 97% of any group "Believe" in AGW without any lab work?

How?

just because

 

[skookerasbil]

Far, far more scientists DONT conform with the AGW model.........its not even close!!!


Oh and ummm.........ahhh hemmm.......peer reviewed survey here!!!! >>>>

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis - Forbes






The AGW mental cases are pwned again!!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooops

 

[CrusaderFrank]

 

[Crick]

Far, far more scientists DONT conform with the AGW model.........its not even close!!!

Oh and ummm.........ahhh hemmm.......peer reviewed survey here!!!! >>>>

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis - Forbes

The AGW mental cases are pwned again!!!!

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooooooooops!!!!!

The people surveyed here ALL WORK IN THE FUCKING OIL INDUSTRY.

 

[skookerasbil]

Far, far more scientists DONT conform with the AGW model.........its not even close!!!

Oh and ummm.........ahhh hemmm.......peer reviewed survey here!!!! >>>>

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis - Forbes

The AGW mental cases are pwned again!!!!

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooooooooops!!!!!

The people surveyed here ALL WORK IN THE FUCKING OIL INDUSTRY.

Of course they do s0n........or course they do!!!



Except Duke University says socialists are liars and cheaters >>>


Socialists Are Cheaters Says New Study - Hit Run Reason.com

 

[Kosh]

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

Another looking in the mirror moment from the AGW cult member.

 

[Crick]

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

Another looking in the mirror moment from the AGW cult member.

Let me guess - you think SSDD's ideas about radiative heat transfer, about relativity and quantum mechanics, about photons, about the Second Law of Thermodynamics - you think they're all spot on. Right?

 

[SSDD]

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

Another looking in the mirror moment from the AGW cult member.

Let me guess - you think SSDD's ideas about radiative heat transfer, about relativity and quantum mechanics, about photons, about the Second Law of Thermodynamics - you think they're all spot on. Right?

F'ing idiot...I don't have any ideas about those things at all. All I have is the statement of the second law which says that energy won't spontaneously move from cool to warm and every observation ever made backs up that statement....I keep asking for the measured observations which would result in the law being reworded...none have been forthcoming.

You must really be feeling insecure to attempt a stupid assed dodge like that.

 

[IanC]

Credentials are an odd commodity. Having an advanced degree guarantees a certain amount of competency but not having one does not rule out a mastery of any particular subject.

Does McIntyre's top of his class mathematics degree and a career working with statistics trump Michael Mann's dodgy unreleased methods and a newly minted PhD? Apparently that is more a political question than anything else.

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

Egad, what a stupid ass you truly are. There were thousands of scientists doing research connected to weather and climate prior to Al Gore using layman's language to interpret their results. And he presented much of the scientific data in his movie that the theory was based on.

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

LOL. No, Crick is overly polite, considering the replys he gets. I am not. I am quite willing to call braindead ignoramouses like you for what they are.

You have been given repeatedly what the scientists are finding, and all you do is repeat nonsense from an obese junkie, a fake english lord, and an undegreed ex-TV weatherman.

 

[Old Rocks]

Credentials are an odd commodity. Having an advanced degree guarantees a certain amount of competency but not having one does not rule out a mastery of any particular subject.

Does McIntyre's top of his class mathematics degree and a career working with statistics trump Michael Mann's dodgy unreleased methods and a newly minted PhD? Apparently that is more a political question than anything else.

And what is each of those peoples standing within the scientific community? And how do you think that Hansen stacks up against McIntyre?

 

[Crick]

Credentials are an odd commodity. Having an advanced degree guarantees a certain amount of competency but not having one does not rule out a mastery of any particular subject.

Does McIntyre's top of his class mathematics degree and a career working with statistics trump Michael Mann's dodgy unreleased methods and a newly minted PhD? Apparently that is more a political question than anything else.

How about a comparison between the number of papers these two fellows have gotten published in peer reviewed journals and the number of citations made from them? How about a comparison between how much paid research each has done? How about a comparison between how each has advanced and succeeded in their chosen careers?

 

[IanC]

Credentials are an odd commodity. Having an advanced degree guarantees a certain amount of competency but not having one does not rule out a mastery of any particular subject.

Does McIntyre's top of his class mathematics degree and a career working with statistics trump Michael Mann's dodgy unreleased methods and a newly minted PhD? Apparently that is more a political question than anything else.

How about a comparison between the number of papers these two fellows have gotten published in peer reviewed journals and the number of citations made from them? How about a comparison between how much paid research each has done? How about a comparison between how each has advanced and succeeded in their chosen careers?

Mcintyre did very well in his chosen field. He has made a pretty big splash in several of his hobbies as well.

 

[Crick]

What field was that? Mining? That's not statistics and that's not climate science. He's very close to unpublished. Mann is a department head, an IPCC heavyweight, widely published and widely cited. Comparing the two is ridiculous.