Remember me
▼ Content

97% signed on to what?


97% signed on to what?19-08-2014 03:42
just sayin
☆☆☆☆☆
(23)
i keep reading in this forum anywhere from 97-99% agree in human cause climate change....the 97% came from a group of specialists half of which weren't even scientists but engineers...they were invited and awarded financially for their signatures.

if anybody has a link to what exactly this panel of whatevers agreed to in signature it would be most appreciated...as far as i know they could have just agreed that the greenhouse effect was real and nothing about human causes climate change

97% of a panel of invited whatevers is somehow 99% of total scientists agree on human caused climate change? Does anyone understand that this panel doesn't represent Anything at all...and all the other scientists aren't accounted for.. i know of many scientists who don't believe in this..

do you know you can lose your career by denying this theory...so obviously they lay low

the leading climatologist at MIT and the one at Princeton outwardly refute human caused climate change..they are only maybe the best two climatologists in the country...even world perhaps
Edited on 19-08-2014 03:45
21-08-2014 03:02
just sayin
☆☆☆☆☆
(23)
the atat and reports from both consensus studies were completely manipulated
07-09-2014 20:03
Madison
☆☆☆☆☆
(22)
just sayin wrote:
i keep reading in this forum anywhere from 97-99% agree in human cause climate change....the 97% came from a group of specialists half of which weren't even scientists but engineers...they were invited and awarded financially for their signatures.


Funny, this is exactly the case for all the deniers letters signed by so called scientists. Maybe they have a Ph.D in archeology or engineering, and the oil lobby can pump up the numbers of signatures. But when it comes to real science, the story is different.
Read this: http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
27-11-2014 13:39
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
The 97% figure comes from multiple polls, surveys and studies. The statistics have not been manipulated. The numbers are valid. Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is WIDELY accepted by active climate scientists.

See

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change
17-12-2014 01:05
mywifesatan
★☆☆☆☆
(59)
97% came from the ipcc..there was no monitored pole....the ipcc figure is a fraud..attendees have written multiple reports and complaints on how the ipcc completely fabricated this figure in there report
18-12-2014 17:38
orogenicman
★☆☆☆☆
(57)
mywifesatan wrote:
97% came from the ipcc..there was no monitored pole....the ipcc figure is a fraud..attendees have written multiple reports and complaints on how the ipcc completely fabricated this figure in there report


You repeatedly post unsupported accusations, and then expect us to respect you and take you seriously. In what universe does this kind of behavior get respected and taken seriously?


'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.'
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
18-12-2014 17:47
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
quote]mywifesatan said:
97% came from the ipcc..there was no monitored pole....the ipcc figure is a fraud..attendees have written multiple reports and complaints on how the ipcc completely fabricated this figure in there report
[/quote]

I'm sorry but this statement is simply false. The oft-quoted 97% figure is NOT being quoted from the IPCC. The IPCC has conducted no polls and is not the source of any such figures.
18-12-2014 19:59
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
Read the references linked in post at 27-11-2014 17:39
18-12-2014 20:46
mywifesatan
★☆☆☆☆
(59)
the Ipcc has indeed claimed a 97% consensus in the past that was completely fabricated and there was also the Cook survey from Australia which had the same 97% consensus which was completely fabricated as well. of course i could prove this to you but as i said in the other thread....please produce that one study and i will answer all of your questions in a respectful manner


ps...please give me something a little better then the wikapedia page...I don't know if that was supposed to be a joke for me to take a wikapedia source seriously...I would take a New York times or a Huff post article over that..and I use those newspapers for firestarter as far as environmental issues go
Edited on 18-12-2014 20:50
18-12-2014 21:56
orogenicman
★☆☆☆☆
(57)
Claims made with no supporting documentation aren't worth the words with which they are made. So unless you can back up your claim, it is meaningless. We've pointed this out to you before, but you've ignored it.
18-12-2014 22:47
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
Here are the references to the first Wikipedia link. And, no, it was not a joke.

References
"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level." IPCC, Synthesis Report, Section 1.1: Observations of climate change, in IPCC AR4 SYR 2007.
IPCC, "Summary for Policymakers", Detection and Attribution of Climate Change, «It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century» (page 15) and «In this Summary for Policymakers, the following terms have been used to indicate the assessed likelihood of an outcome or a result: (...) extremely likely: 95–100%» (page 2)., in IPCC AR5 WG1 2013.
IPCC, Synthesis Report, Section 2.4: Attribution of climate change, in IPCC AR4 SYR 2007."It is likely that increases in GHG concentrations alone would have caused more warming than observed because volcanic and anthropogenic aerosols have offset some warming that would otherwise have taken place."
[Notes-SciPanel] America's Climate Choices: Panel on Advancing the Science of Climate Change; National Research Council (2010). Advancing the Science of Climate Change. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. ISBN 0-309-14588-0. (p1) ... there is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations. * * * (p21-22) Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.
"Summary for Policymakers", 1. Observed changes in climate and their effects, in IPCC AR4 SYR 2007
"Summary for Policymakers", 2. Causes of change, in IPCC AR4 SYR 2007
^ Jump up to: a b c Parry, M.L., et al., "Technical summary", Industry, settlement and society, in: Box TS.5. The main projected impacts for systems and sectors, in IPCC AR4 WG2 2007
IPCC, "Summary for Policymakers", Magnitudes of impact, in IPCC AR4 WG2 2007
"Synthesis report", Ecosystems, in: Sec 3.3.1 Impacts on systems and sectors, in IPCC AR4 SYR 2007
^ Jump up to: a b c Julie Brigham-Grette (September 2006). "Petroleum Geologists' Award to Novelist Crichton Is Inappropriate" (PDF). Eos 87 (36). Bibcode:2006EOSTr..87..364B. doi:10.1029/2006EO360008. Retrieved 2007-01-23. The AAPG stands alone among scientific societies in its denial of human-induced effects on global warming.
^ Jump up to: a b AAPG Climate Change June 2007
^ Jump up to: a b Oreskes 2007, p. 68
Ogden, Aynslie and Cohen, Stewart (2002). "Integration and Synthesis: Assessing Climate Change Impacts in Northern Canada" (PDF). Retrieved 2009-04-12.
"Warming 'very likely' human-made". BBC News (BBC). 2007-02-01. Retrieved 2007-02-01.
Rosenthal, Elisabeth; Revkin, Andrew C. (2007-02-03). "Science Panel Calls Global Warming 'Unequivocal'". New York Times. Retrieved 2010-08-28. the leading international network of climate scientists has concluded for the first time that global warming is 'unequivocal' and that human activity is the main driver, 'very likely' causing most of the rise in temperatures since 1950
Stevens, William K. (2007-02-06). "On the Climate Change Beat, Doubt Gives Way to Certainty". New York Times. Retrieved 2007-02-06. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said the likelihood was 90 percent to 99 percent that emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, spewed from tailpipes and smokestacks, were the dominant cause of the observed warming of the last 50 years. In the panel's parlance, this level of certainty is labeled "very likely." Only rarely does scientific odds-making provide a more definite answer than that, at least in this branch of science, and it describes the endpoint, so far, of a progression.
"U.N. Report: Global Warming Man-Made, Basically Unstoppable". Fox News. Retrieved 2012-07-30.
Downloads.globalchange.gov
"Impacts of a Warming Arctic: Arctic Climate Impact Assessment New Scientific Consensus: Arctic Is Warming Rapidly". UNEP/GRID-Arendal. 2004-11-08. Retrieved 2010-01-20.
"ACIA Display". Amap.no. Retrieved 2012-07-30.
^ Jump up to: a b c The literature has been assessed by the IPCC, e.g., see:
Adger, W.N., et al., Ch 17: Assessment of Adaptation Practices, Options, Constraints and Capacity, in IPCC AR4 WG2 2007
Barker, T., et al., Technical summary, in IPCC AR4 WG3 2007
^ Jump up to: a b 2009 Joint Science Academies' Statement
^ Jump up to: a b "Question 1", 1.1, in IPCC TAR SYR 2001, p. 38
Summary, in US NRC 2001, p. 4
Doha Declaration on Climate, Health and Wellbeing. This statement has been signed by numerous medical organizations, including the World Medical Association.
Arnold, D.G., ed. (March 2011), The Ethics of Global Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 9781107000698
"Editorial: The Science of Climate Change". Science 292 (5520): 1261. May 18, 2001. doi:10.1126/science.292.5520.1261.
^ Jump up to: a b The Science of Climate Change, The Royal Society
Joint science academies' statement: Global response to climate change, 2005
2007 Joint Science Academies' Statement
^ Jump up to: a b "Joint statement by the Network of African Science Academies (NASAC) to the G8 on sustainability, energy efficiency and climate change" (PDF). Network of African Science Academies. 2007. Retrieved 2012-08-28.
2008 Joint Science Academies' Statement
"Stanowisko Zgromadzenia Ogólnego PAN z dnia 13 grudnia 2007 r" (in Polish). Polish Academy of Sciences. Retrieved 2009-06-16. Note: As of 16 June 2009, PAS has not issued this statement in English, all citations have been translated from Polish.
^ Jump up to: a b AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change www.aaas.org December 2006
FASTS Statement on Climate Change, 2008 "Global climate change is real and measurable. Since the start of the 20th century, the global mean surface temperature of the Earth has increased by more than 0.7°C and the rate of warming has been largest in the last 30 years. Key vulnerabilities arising from climate change include water resources, food supply, health, coastal settlements, biodiversity and some key ecosystems such as coral reefs and alpine regions. As the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases increases, impacts become more severe and widespread. To reduce the global net economic, environmental and social losses in the face of these impacts, the policy objective must remain squarely focused on returning greenhouse gas concentrations to near pre-industrial levels through the reduction of emissions. The spatial and temporal fingerprint of warming can be traced to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, which are a direct result of burning fossil fuels, broad-scale deforestation and other human activity."
^ Jump up to: a b Committee on the Science of Climate Change, Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council (2001). Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions. Washington DC: National Academy Press. ISBN 0-309-07574-2.
Wratt, David; Renwick, James (2008-07-10). "Climate change statement from the Royal Society of New Zealand". The Royal Society of New Zealand. Retrieved 2010-01-20.
Gray, Louise (May 29, 2010). "Royal Society to publish guide on climate change to counter claims of 'exaggeration'". The Daily Telegraph (London).
^ Jump up to: a b "New guide to science of climate change". The Royal Society. Retrieved 9 June 2010.
Harrabin, Roger (27 May 2010). "Society to review climate message". BBC News. Retrieved 9 June 2010.
Gardner, Dan (8 June 2010). "Some excitable climate-change deniers just don't understand what science is". Montreal Gazette. Retrieved 9 June 2010.[dead link]
European Academy of Sciences and Arts Let's Be Honest
European Science Foundation Position Paper Impacts of Climate Change on the European Marine and Coastal Environment — Ecosystems Approach, 2007, pp. 7–10 "There is now convincing evidence that since the industrial revolution, human activities, resulting in increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases have become a major agent of climate change. These greenhouse gases affect the global climate by retaining heat in the troposphere, thus raising the average temperature of the planet and altering global atmospheric circulation and precipitation patterns. While on-going national and international actions to curtail and reduce greenhouse gas emissions are essential, the levels of greenhouse gases currently in the atmosphere, and their impact, are likely to persist for several decades. On-going and increased efforts to mitigate climate change through reduction in greenhouse gases are therefore crucial."
Panel Urges Global Shift on Sources of Energy
"InterAcademy Council". InterAcademy Council. Retrieved 2012-07-30.
"InterAcademy Council". InterAcademy Council. Retrieved 2012-07-30.
"InterAcademy Council". InterAcademy Council. Retrieved 2012-07-30.
http://www.caets.org/nae/naecaets.nsf/(weblinks)/WSAN-78QL9A?OpenDocument
American Chemical Society Global Climte Change "Careful and comprehensive scientific assessments have clearly demonstrated that the Earth's climate system is changing rapidly in response to growing atmospheric burdens of greenhouse gases and absorbing aerosol particles (IPCC, 2007). There is very little room for doubt that observed climate trends are due to human activities. The threats are serious and action is urgently needed to mitigate the risks of climate change. The reality of global warming, its current serious and potentially disastrous impacts on Earth system properties, and the key role emissions from human activities play in driving these phenomena have been recognized by earlier versions of this ACS policy statement (ACS, 2004), by other major scientific societies, including the American Geophysical Union (AGU, 2003), the American Meteorological Society (AMS, 2007) and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS, 2007), and by the U. S. National Academies and ten other leading national academies of science (NA, 2005)."
American Institute of Physics Statement supporting AGU statement on human-induced climate change, 2003 "The Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics has endorsed a position statement on climate change adopted by the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Council in December 2003."
American Physical Society Climate Change Policy Statement, November 2007 "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes. The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now. Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth's climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.
AIP science policy document., 2005 "Policy: The AIP supports a reduction of the green house gas emissions that are leading to increased global temperatures, and encourages research that works towards this goal. Reason: Research in Australia and overseas shows that an increase in global temperature will adversely affect the Earth's climate patterns. The melting of the polar ice caps, combined with thermal expansion, will lead to rises in sea levels that may impact adversely on our coastal cities. The impact of these changes on biodiversity will fundamentally change the ecology of Earth."
EPS Position Paper Energy for the future: The Nuclear Option, 2007 "The emission of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, among which carbon dioxide is the main contributor, has amplified the natural greenhouse effect and led to global warming. The main contribution stems from burning fossil fuels. A further increase will have decisive effects on life on earth. An energy cycle with the lowest possible CO
2 emission is called for wherever possible to combat climate change."
"AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate". Agu.org. Retrieved 2012-07-30.
"Human-induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action". Position Statement. American Geophysical Union. Retrieved 14 August 2013.
ASA, CSSA, and SSSA Position Statement on Climate Change
"EFG Website | Home". Eurogeologists.de. 2011-08-10. Retrieved 2012-07-30.
EFG Carbon Capture and geological Storage
http://www.egu.eu/statements/position-statement-of-the-divisions-of-atmospheric-and-climate-sciences-7-july-2005.html
http://www.egu.eu/statements/egu-position-statement-on-ocean-acidification.html
"The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Global Climate Change". Geosociety.org. Retrieved 2012-07-30.
"Geological Society - Climate change: evidence from the geological record". Geolsoc.org.uk. Retrieved 2012-07-30.
IUGG Resolution 6
http://www.nagt.org/index.html
http://nagt.org/nagt/organization/ps-climate.html
"AMS Information Statement on Climate Change". Ametsoc.org. 2012-08-20. Retrieved 2012-08-27.
"Statement". AMOS. Retrieved 2012-07-30.
CFCAS Letter to PM, November 25, 2005
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Letter to Stephen Harper (Updated, 2007)
http://www.rmets.org/news/detail.php?ID=332
WMO's Statement at the Twelfth Session of the Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.
AMQUA "Petroleum Geologists' Award to Novelist Crichton Is Inappropriate"
^ Jump up to: a b INQUA Statement On Climate Change.
AAWV Position Statement on Climate Change, Wildlife Diseases, and Wildlife Health "There is widespread scientific agreement that the world's climate is changing and that the weight of evidence demonstrates that anthropogenic factors have and will continue to contribute significantly to global warming and climate change. It is anticipated that continuing changes to the climate will have serious negative impacts on public, animal and ecosystem health due to extreme weather events, changing disease transmission dynamics, emerging and re-emerging diseases, and alterations to habitat and ecological systems that are essential to wildlife conservation. Furthermore, there is increasing recognition of the inter-relationships of human, domestic animal, wildlife, and ecosystem health as illustrated by the fact the majority of recent emerging diseases have a wildlife origin."
AIBS Position Statements "Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver."
Scientific societies warn Senate: climate change is real, Ars Technica, October 22, 2009
Letter to US Senators, October 2009
Global Environmental Change — Microbial Contributions, Microbial Solutions (PDF), American Society For Microbiology, May 2006 They recommended "reducing net anthropogenic CO
2 emissions to the atmosphere" and "minimizing anthropogenic disturbances of" atmospheric gases. Carbon dioxide concentrations were relatively stable for the past 10,000 years but then began to increase rapidly about 150 years ago...as a result of fossil fuel consumption and land use change. Of course, changes in atmospheric composition are but one component of global change, which also includes disturbances in the physical and chemical conditions of the oceans and land surface. Although global change has been a natural process throughout Earth's history, humans are responsible for substantially accelerating present-day changes. These changes may adversely affect human health and the biosphere on which we depend. Outbreaks of a number of diseases, including Lyme disease, hantavirus infections, dengue fever, bubonic plague, and cholera, have been linked to climate change."
Australian Coral Reef Society official letter, 2006, archived from the original on 22 March 2006 Official communique regarding the Great Barrier Reef and the "world-wide decline in coral reefs through processes such as overfishing, runoff of nutrients from the land, coral bleaching, global climate change, ocean acidification, pollution", etc.: There is almost total consensus among experts that the earth's climate is changing as a result of the build-up of greenhouse gases. The IPCC (involving over 3,000 of the world's experts) has come out with clear conclusions as to the reality of this phenomenon. One does not have to look further than the collective academy of scientists worldwide to see the string (of) statements on this worrying change to the earth's atmosphere. There is broad scientific consensus that coral reefs are heavily affected by the activities of man and there are significant global influences that can make reefs more vulnerable such as global warming....It is highly likely that coral bleaching has been exacerbated by global warming."
Institute of Biology policy page 'Climate Change' "there is scientific agreement that the rapid global warming that has occurred in recent years is mostly anthropogenic, ie due to human activity." As a consequence of global warming, they warn that a "rise in sea levels due to melting of ice caps is expected to occur. Rises in temperature will have complex and frequently localised effects on weather, but an overall increase in extreme weather conditions and changes in precipitation patterns are probable, resulting in flooding and drought. The spread of tropical diseases is also expected." Subsequently, the Institute of Biology advocates policies to reduce "greenhouse gas emissions, as we feel that the consequences of climate change are likely to be severe."
SAF Forest Management and Climate Change, 2008 "Forests are shaped by climate....Changes in temperature and precipitation regimes therefore have the potential to dramatically affect forests nationwide. There is growing evidence that our climate is changing. The changes in temperature have been associated with increasing concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO
2) and other GHGs in the atmosphere."
SAF Forest Offset Projects in a Carbon Trading System, 2008 "Forests play a significant role in offsetting CO
2 emissions, the primary anthropogenic GHG."
Wildlife Society Global Climate Change and Wildlife "Scientists throughout the world have concluded that climate research conducted in the past two decades definitively shows that rapid worldwide climate change occurred in the 20th century, and will likely continue to occur for decades to come. Although climates have varied dramatically since the Earth was formed, few scientists question the role of humans in exacerbating recent climate change through the emission of greenhouse gases. The critical issue is no longer "if" climate change is occurring, but rather how to address its effects on wildlife and wildlife habitats." The statement goes on to assert that "evidence is accumulating that wildlife and wildlife habitats have been and will continue to be significantly affected by ongoing large-scale rapid climate change." The statement concludes with a call for "reduction in anthropogenic (human-caused) sources of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions contributing to global climate change and the conservation of CO
2- consuming photosynthesizers (i.e., plants)."
AAP Global Climate Change and Children's Health, 2007 "There is broad scientific consensus that Earth's climate is warming rapidly and at an accelerating rate. Human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels, are very likely (>90% probability) to be the main cause of this warming. Climate-sensitive changes in ecosystems are already being observed, and fundamental, potentially irreversible, ecological changes may occur in the coming decades. Conservative environmental estimates of the impact of climate changes that are already in process indicate that they will result in numerous health effects to children. Anticipated direct health consequences of climate change include injury and death from extreme weather events and natural disasters, increases in climate-sensitive infectious diseases, increases in air pollution–related illness, and more heat-related, potentially fatal, illness. Within all of these categories, children have increased vulnerability compared with other groups."
ACPM Policy Statement Abrupt Climate Change and Public Health Implications, 2006 "The American College of Preventive Medicine (ACPM) accept the position that global warming and climate change is occurring, that there is potential for abrupt climate change, and that human practices that increase greenhouse gases exacerbate the problem, and that the public health consequences may be severe."
American Medical Association Policy Statement, 2008 "Support the findings of the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, which states that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that these changes will negatively affect public health. Support educating the medical community on the potential adverse public health effects of global climate change, including topics such as population displacement, flooding, infectious and vector-borne diseases, and healthy water supplies."
American Public Health Association Policy Statement ''Addressing the Urgent Threat of Global Climate Change to Public Health and the Environment'', 2007 "The long-term threat of global climate change to global health is extremely serious and the fourth IPCC report and other scientific literature demonstrate convincingly that anthropogenic GHG emissions are primarily responsible for this threat....US policy makers should immediately take necessary steps to reduce US emissions of GHGs, including carbon dioxide, to avert dangerous climate change."
AMA Climate Change and Human Health — 2004, 2004 They recommend policies "to mitigate the possible consequential health effects of climate change through improved energy efficiency, clean energy production and other emission reduction steps."
AMA Climate Change and Human Health — 2004. Revised 2008., 2008 "The world's climate – our life-support system – is being altered in ways that are likely to pose significant direct and indirect challenges to health. While 'climate change' can be due to natural forces or human activity, there is now substantial evidence to indicate that human activity – and specifically increased greenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions – is a key factor in the pace and extent of global temperature increases. Health impacts of climate change include the direct impacts of extreme events such as storms, floods, heatwaves and fires and the indirect effects of longer-term changes, such as drought, changes to the food and water supply, resource conflicts and population shifts. Increases in average temperatures mean that alterations in the geographic range and seasonality of certain infections and diseases (including vector-borne diseases such as malaria, dengue fever, Ross River virus and food-borne infections such as Salmonellosis) may be among the first detectable impacts of climate change on human health. Human health is ultimately dependent on the health of the planet and its ecosystem. The AMA believes that measures which mitigate climate change will also benefit public health. Reducing GHGs should therefore be seen as a public health priority."
World Federation of Public Health Associations resolution "Global Climate Change", 2001 "Noting the conclusions of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other climatologists that anthropogenic greenhouse gases, which contribute to global climate change, have substantially increased in atmospheric concentration beyond natural processes and have increased by 28 percent since the industrial revolution....Realizing that subsequent health effects from such perturbations in the climate system would likely include an increase in: heat-related mortality and morbidity; vector-borne infectious diseases,... water-borne diseases...(and) malnutrition from threatened agriculture....the World Federation of Public Health Associations...recommends precautionary primary preventive measures to avert climate change, including reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and preservation of greenhouse gas sinks through appropriate energy and land use policies, in view of the scale of potential health impacts...."
WHO Protecting health from climate change, 2008, p. 2, retrieved 2009-04-18
Statement supporting AGU statement on human-induced climate change, American Astronomical Society, 2004 "In endorsing the "Human Impacts on Climate" statement [issued by the American Geophysical Union], the AAS recognizes the collective expertise of the AGU in scientific subfields central to assessing and understanding global change, and acknowledges the strength of agreement among our AGU colleagues that the global climate is changing and human activities are contributing to that change."
ASA Statement on Climate Change, November 30, 2007 "The ASA endorses the IPCC conclusions.... Over the course of four assessment reports, a small number of statisticians have served as authors or reviewers. Although this involvement is encouraging, it does not represent the full range of statistical expertise available. ASA recommends that more statisticians should become part of the IPCC process. Such participation would be mutually beneficial to the assessment of climate change and its impacts and also to the statistical community."
Policy Statement, Climate Change and Energy, February 2007 "Engineers Australia believes that Australia must act swiftly and proactively in line with global expectations to address climate change as an economic, social and environmental risk... We believe that addressing the costs of atmospheric emissions will lead to increasing our competitive advantage by minimising risks and creating new economic opportunities. Engineers Australia believes the Australian Government should ratify the Kyoto Protocol."
IAGLR Fact Sheet The Great Lakes at a Crossroads: Preparing for a Changing Climate, February 2009 "While the Earth's climate has changed many times during the planet's history because of natural factors, including volcanic eruptions and changes in the Earth's orbit, never before have we observed the present rapid rise in temperature and carbon dioxide (CO
2). Human activities resulting from the industrial revolution have changed the chemical composition of the atmosphere....Deforestation is now the second largest contributor to global warming, after the burning of fossil fuels. These human activities have significantly increased the concentration of "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere. As the Earth's climate warms, we are seeing many changes: stronger, more destructive hurricanes; heavier rainfall; more disastrous flooding; more areas of the world experiencing severe drought; and more heat waves."
IPENZ Informatory Note, Climate Change and the greenhouse effect, October 2001 "Human activities have increased the concentration of these atmospheric greenhouse gases, and although the changes are relatively small, the equilibrium maintained by the atmosphere is delicate, and so the effect of these changes is significant. The world's most important greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide, a by-product of the burning of fossil fuels. Since the time of the Industrial Revolution about 200 years ago, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased from about 280 parts per million to 370 parts per million, an increase of around 30%. On the basis of available data, climate scientists are now projecting an average global temperature rise over this century of 2.0 to 4.5°C. This compared with 0.6°C over the previous century – about a 500% increase... This could lead to changing, and for all emissions scenarios more unpredictable, weather patterns around the world, less frost days, more extreme events (droughts and storm or flood disasters), and warmer sea temperatures and melting glaciers causing sea levels to rise. ... Professional engineers commonly deal with risk, and frequently have to make judgments based on incomplete data. The available evidence suggests very strongly that human activities have already begun to make significant changes to the earth's climate, and that the long-term risk of delaying action is greater than the cost of avoiding/minimising the risk."
AAPG Position Statement: Climate Change from dpa.aapg.org
"Climate :03:2007 EXPLORER". Aapg.org. Retrieved 2012-07-30.
Sunsetting the Global Climate Change Committee, The Professional Geologist, March/April 2010, p. 28
"American Geological Institute Climate Statement". 12 Feb 1999. Archived from the original on July 2012. Retrieved July 2012.
AIPG Climate Change Letters sent to U.S. Government Officials
"AIPG Climate Change and Domestic Energy Statement", The Professional Geologist, January/February 2010, p. 42
"The Professional Geologist publications". Archived from the original on July 2012. Retrieved July 2012.
"Climate Change and Society Governance", The Professional Geologist, March/April 2010, p. 33
billobrien.coml. "Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences (CFES)". Geoscience.ca. Retrieved 2012-07-30.
Graham Lloyd (June 4, 2014). "Earth scientists split on climate change statement". The Australian. Retrieved June 4, 2014.(subscription required)
Anderegg, William R L; Prall, James W.; Harold, Jacob; Schneider, Stephen H. (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.
Doran consensus article 2009
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.
Naomi Oreskes (December 3, 2004). "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)
Lavelle, Marianne (2008-04-23). "Survey Tracks Scientists' Growing Climate Concern". U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved 2010-01-20.
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.
""Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change" at Journalist's Resource.org".
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.
Bray, Dennis; von Storch, Hans (2009). "A Survey of the Perspectives of Climate Scientists Concerning Climate Science and Climate Change".
Bray, D.; von Storch H. (2009). "Prediction' or 'Projection; The nomenclature of climate science". Science Communication 30 (4): 534–543. doi:10.1177/1075547009333698.
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.
Anderegg, William R L; Prall, James W.; Harold, Jacob; Schneider, Stephen H. (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.
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.
Plait, P. (11 December 2012). "Why Climate Change Denial Is Just Hot Air". Slate. Retrieved 14 February 2014.
Plait, P. (14 January 2014). "The Very, Very Thin Wedge of Denial". Slate. Retrieved 14 February 2014.
Oreskes, Naomi (2007). "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change: How Do We Know We're Not Wrong?". In DiMento, Joseph F. C.; Doughman, Pamela M. Climate Change: What It Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren. MIT Press. pp. 65–66. ISBN 978-0-262-54193-0.
US NRC (2008). Understanding and Responding to Climate Change. A brochure prepared by the US National Research Council (US NRC). Washington DC, USA: US National Academy of Sciences.
Joint Science Academies' Statement
"Climate Change Research: Issues for the Atmospheric and Related Sciences Adopted by the AMS Council 9 February 2003". Ametsoc.org. 2003-02-09. Retrieved 2012-07-30.
"Australian Coral Reef Society". Australian Coral Reef Society. Retrieved 2012-07-30.
Australian Coral Reef Society official letter, June 16, 2006
IPCC TAR SYR (2001), Watson, R. T.; and the Core Writing Team, ed., Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report, Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-80770-0 (pb: 0-521-01507-3).
IPCC AR4 WG2 (2007), Parry, M.L.; Canziani, O.F.; Palutikof, J.P.; van der Linden, P.J.; and Hanson, C.E., ed., Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-88010-7 (pb: 978-0-521-70597-4).
IPCC AR4 WG3 (2007), Metz, B.; Davidson, O.R.; Bosch, P.R.; Dave, R.; and Meyer, L.A., ed., Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change, Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-88011-4 (pb: 978-0-521-70598-1).
IPCC AR4 SYR (2007), Core Writing Team; Pachauri, R.K; and Reisinger, A., ed., Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report (SYR), Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC, ISBN 92-9169-122-4.
US NRC (2001), Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions. A report by the Committee on the Science of Climate Change, US National Research Council (NRC), Washington, D.C., USA: National Academy Press, ISBN 0-309-07574-2, archived from the original on 5 June 2011
Edited on 18-12-2014 22:51
18-12-2014 22:48
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
Here are the references to the second Wikipedia link.

References[edit]
Jump up ^ T. R. Stewart, J. L. Mumpower, P. Reagan-Cirincione, "Scientists' Agreement and Disagreement about Global Climate Change: Evidence from Surveys", 15.
Jump up ^ Albandy.edu
Jump up ^ R. Nixon, "Limbaughesque Science", citing a press release by Gallup in the San Francisco Chronicle, 9/27/92.
Jump up ^ Steve Rendall, "The Hypocrisy of George Will", FAIR report, citing the San Francisco Chronicle, 9/27/92.
Jump up ^ Bray, Dennis; Hans von Storch (1999). "Climate Science: An Empirical Example of Postnormal Science" (PDF). Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 80 (3): 439–455. Bibcode:1999BAMS...80..439B. doi:10.1175/1520-0477(1999)080<0439:CSAEEO>2.0.CO;2. ISSN 1520-0477. Retrieved 2007-09-04.
Jump up ^ Citizens For a Sound Economy Foundation
Jump up ^ Climate scientists' views on climate change: a survey
Jump up ^ Naomi Oreskes (January 21, 2005) [December 3, 2004]. "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 to: a b c Bray, Dennis; von Storch, Hans (2010). "A Survey of the Perspectives of Climate Scientists Concerning Climate Science and Climate Change".
Jump up ^ Bray, Dennis (August 2010). "The scientific consensus of climate change revisited". Environmental Science & Policy 13 (5). doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2010.04.001. Retrieved December 1, 2014., copy online at [1]
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. Copy available online at [2], retrieved Nov. 30, 2014
^ Jump up to: a b 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 to: a b c William R. L. Anderegg, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold, and Stephen H. Schneider (April 9, 2010). "Expert credibility in climate change". Proceedings of the National Academy of S ciences of the United States of America. Retrieved June 23, 2010.
^ Jump up to: a b Scientists 'Convinced' of Climate Consensus More Prominent Than Opponents, Says Paper by Eli Kintisch, "Science Insider", Science (journal), 21 June 2010
Jump up ^ Bodenstein, Lawrence (December 28, 2010). "Regarding Anderegg et al. and climate change credibility". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 107 (52): E188. Bibcode:2010PNAS..107E.188B. doi:10.1073/pnas.1013268108.
Jump up ^ Anderegg, William R. L.; coauthors (December 28, 2010). "Reply to Bodenstein: Contextual data about the relative scale of opposing scientific communities". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 107 (52): E189. Bibcode:2010PNAS..107E.189A. doi:10.1073/pnas.1015419108.
Jump up ^ ""Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change" at Journalist's Resource.org".
^ Jump up to: a b c 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. Paywalled; full test online here, retrieved Nov. 30, 2014. From Table I, "Q: In your opinion, is human-induced greenhouse warming now occurring?" Yes, 84%. No, 5%. Don't Know, 12%
^ Jump up to: a b c d Lefsrud, L. M.; Meyer, R. E. (2012). "Science or Science Fiction? Professionals' Discursive Construction of Climate Change". Organization Studies 33 (11): 1477. doi:10.1177/0170840612463317. edit
^ Jump up to: a b "Risk Management Approach Could Motivate Climate Change Action", Lianne Lefsrud and Renate Meyer, Social Science Space, March 19, 2013
^ Jump up to: a b Cook, John; Dana Nuccitelli, Sarah A Green, Mark Richardson, Bärbel Winkler, Rob Painting, Robert Way, Peter Jacobs and Andrew Skuce (May 2013). "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature". Environmental Research Letters (IOP Publishing) 8 (2). Bibcode:2013ERL.....8b4024C. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024.
Jump up ^ http://www.skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-discredited.htm
Jump up ^ Oreskes, Naomi (2007). "The scientific consensus on climate change: how do we know we're not wrong?". Climate Change: What It Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. p. 72. Retrieved 9 August 2013.
18-12-2014 22:49
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
MyWifeSatan, where are YOUR references?

I'd also like to see chapter and verse from ARx referencing 97% support among climatologists.

And, of course, we're still waiting to see the science that leads you to conclude CO2 is irrelevant and that the world's glacial mass has been increasing.
Edited on 18-12-2014 23:05
18-12-2014 22:59
mywifesatan
★☆☆☆☆
(59)
I just wanted you to site me that study from before..you cannot find that nor will you admit that it doesn't exist..the whole agw theory would rest on such a study....i really don't have time and energy to debate someone who thinks wikipedia is a good source or has credible references for anything let alone this debate...I have to make a living. besides my other interests....so I am bowing out...happy trails..and try not to leave any stone unturned
Edited on 18-12-2014 23:01
18-12-2014 23:21
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
Goodbye.
07-01-2015 21:32
spicez
☆☆☆☆☆
(17)
97 Articles Refuting The "97% Consensus"

All "97% Consensus" Studies Refuted by Peer-Review
08-01-2015 01:04
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
Both your links go to the same place.

I note that your linked article has been up for over two weeks but has not a single comment. I guess that means everyone agrees.
08-01-2015 04:44
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
97 refutations? I'm sorry, but that is a complete joke.

But if you'd like to ignore Cook, Nuccitelli et al, you only have 9 or 10 more peer polls, surveys and peer reviewed studies giving similar results to refute. And only one - the completely laughable Legates nonsense - that says ANYTHING different.

The vast majority of active climate scientists accept AGW as valid. The people complaining that this consensus doesn't exist or that these surveys are invalid or those who rejected AGW all along. They've got a very big stick in the fire: these surveys show the rest of us how far out in left field deniers actually are.
Edited on 08-01-2015 04:59
08-01-2015 05:37
spicez
☆☆☆☆☆
(17)
By now you realised that those are 2 different links. However you wont correct that until I point it out because you are a dishonest person.

Also, back handed dismisal, because an article got not comments during the holidays. The content is what I'm presenting, not the peanut gallery.

I do ignore Cook and Nuccitelli. Everytime I read the drivel they write for their team, I feal dirty from propaganda. The lies Nuccitelli and Cook put out there just boggles the mind.

Your last sentence is just diatribe. You could repeat the same exact things but of your side.
There is no science on your side, only propaganda. Your SKS bullshit is the biggest of them all and loosing traffic every year, because people realise the bullshit it puts out.

The links I posted refute more than just cook, they refute the pillars of what is the fake "concensus" you keep talking about:

Oreskes (2004)
Doran & Zimmerman (2009)
Anderegg et al. (2010)
Cook et al. (2013)

I've seen a few of your posts around the net and people either completely ignore you or take you for what you are, a propagandist of the lies forced on us by the political AGW crowd.

You know as much as I do the bullshit that passes for Peer Review in climate science and they guarded gate that it is as well. But I know you'l defend it, till your dying breath.

And why the fuck do you switch between Abraham3 and 4? Bah, who cares. I honnestly, should just ignore you. But I feel sorry for those that read your crap and dont have the knowledge to not believe your lies.
08-01-2015 13:41
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
spicez wrote:
By now you realised that those are 2 different links. However you wont correct that until I point it out because you are a dishonest person.


Both links go to the same blog to issues 3 days apart. When I first visited them, they went to the same "issue".

spicez wrote:
Also, back handed dismisal, because an article got not comments during the holidays. The content is what I'm presenting, not the peanut gallery.


I noted that it got no comments over the sixteen days since it was first posted - a period when many people were home from work with lots of spare time - because I had never heard of the blog and it's a good indicator that it has an exceedingly small readership.

spicez wrote:
I do ignore Cook and Nuccitelli.


Your post says precisely the opposite.

spicez wrote:
Everytime I read the drivel they write for their team, I feal dirty from propaganda. The lies Nuccitelli and Cook put out there just boggles the mind.


Give us a quote from them and prove its a lie.

spicez wrote:
Your last sentence is just diatribe. You could repeat the same exact things but of your side.


I found it very handy that the 97 had been categorized for us. It allowed significant weighting and prioritization. It quickly allowed an objective determination that the entire set was a collection of pure shite.

spicez wrote:
There is no science on your side, only propaganda.


Virtually every iota of the science is on MY side because that is what determines what IS my side. There is a very good reason 97% of active climate scientists and even higher percentage of published works explicitly or implicitly accepts AGW - and why such a vanishingly small number reject it - and that is because your statement is demonstrably false.

spicez wrote:
Your SKS bullshit is the biggest of them all and loosing traffic every year, because people realise the bullshit it puts out.


Give us a quote from them and prove that it's "bullshit".

spicez wrote:
The links I posted refute more than just cook, they refute the pillars of what is the fake "concensus" you keep talking about:

Oreskes (2004)
Doran & Zimmerman (2009)
Anderegg et al. (2010)
Cook et al. (2013)


They say they do, but they never actually produce their results. Would you happen to have other links that actually show the results they claim to have found?

spicez wrote:
I've seen a few of your posts around the net and people either completely ignore you or take you for what you are, a propagandist of the lies forced on us by the political AGW crowd.


That sounds amazingly like a comment that justsayin/mywifesatan would make. And it has no more validity, value or merit now then when it was first posted.

spicez wrote:
You know as much as I do the bullshit that passes for Peer Review in climate science and they guarded gate that it is as well. But I know you'l defend it, till your dying breath.


I know it's a common accusation from those whose science fails to pass muster.

spicez wrote:
And why the fuck do you switch between Abraham3 and 4?


Very likely for the same reason justsayin switched to mywifesatan: our host has failed to provide a means of recovering an account with a forgotten password. He did try to help me get 3 back but since both were linked to the same email address, it was apparently hopeless.

spicez wrote:
Bah, who cares.


No one, unless they were attempting a "dishonest" and "backhanded dismisal" (sic).

spicez wrote:
I honnestly, should just ignore you.


Feel free to do so; at least until you actually have something substantive to bring to the discussion.

spicez wrote:
But I feel sorry for those that read your crap and dont have the knowledge to not believe your lies.


Or the knowledge of proper syntax.

Tell you what. Why don't you look through your 97 and pick out two or three of what you consider to be the strongest critiques of the the consensus surveys and we can look at them in detail? It could be Dr Tol, it could be Fox News, it could be Anthony Watts. Sound good? Sound reasonable? Sound like what two reasonably intelligent individuals might take a shot at?
08-01-2015 19:59
branner
AdministratorProfile picture☆☆☆☆☆
(33)
Please keep a civilized language when discussing on Climate-Debate.com. More and more people are visiting the site these days, but to get them participating in the debate, it's important with rational arguments instead of personal attacks.

Abraham, I've written to you again regarding merging the two profiles. It should still be possible to fix.

Happy New Year from your admin
09-01-2015 00:40
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
Sorry about that. I will watch my tongue.
09-01-2015 13:27
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
Aside from the validity of their criticisms, the claim that "all" surveys establishing a consensus on AGW among climate scientists had been refuted by peer reviewed work is demonstrably false. Missing from such comments are:

STATS, 2007
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. The survey found 97% agreed that global temperatures have increased during the past 100 years; 84% say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; and 84% believe global climate change poses a moderate to very great danger.[9] [10]

Bray and von Storch, 2008
Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, of the Institute for Coastal Research at the Helmholtz Research Centre in Germany, conducted an online survey in August 2008, of 2,059 climate scientists from 34 different countries, the third survey on this topic by these authors.[11] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 375 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18%. The climate change consensus results were published by Bray,[12] and another paper has also been published based on the survey.[13]
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'.[11]
In the section on climate change impacts, questions 20 and 21 were relevant to scientific opinion on climate change. Question 20, "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?" Answers: 67.1% very much convinced (7), 26.7% to some large extent (5–6), 6.2% said to some small extent (2–4), none said not at all. Question 21, "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" Answers: 34.6% very much convinced (7), 48.9% being convinced to a large extent (5–6), 15.1% to a small extent (2–4), and 1.35% not convinced at all (1).[11]

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 998 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, and 489 returned completed questionnaires. Of those who replied, 97% agreed that global temperatures have risen over the past century. 84% agreed that "human-induced greenhouse warming is now occurring," 5% disagreed, and 12% didn't know.[19][20]
When asked "What do you think is the % probability of human-induced global warming raising global average temperatures by two degrees Celsius or more during the next 50 to 100 years?'': 19% of respondents answered less than 50% probability, 56% said over 50%, and 26% didn't know.[20]
When asked what they regard as "the likely effects of global climate change in the next 50 to 100 years," on a scale of 1 to 10, from Trivial to Catastrophic: 13% of respondents replied 1 to 3 (trivial/mild), 44% replied 4 to 7 (moderate), 41% replied 8 to 10 (severe/catastrophic), and 2% didn't know.[20]

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."[21] 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."[22]
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." Analyzing 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."[21] 'Regulation activists' (10%) "diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life." Skeptical of anthropogenic warming (sum 51%) they labelled 'nature is overwhelming' (24%), 'economic responsibility' (10%), and 'fatalists' (17%). 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.[21]
They found that respondents that support regulation (46%) ('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".[21] 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.[22]

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.[28] This was a follow-up to an analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[29]

And, of course, aside from Legates' fantasy, you have NO surveys, polls or studies showing anything different. A rejection letter does not count as being published in a peer reviewed journal. Your authors claim that their findings refute various studies but we have yet to see what their findings actually were. That might be a good first step.
Edited on 09-01-2015 13:27
09-01-2015 16:11
spicez
☆☆☆☆☆
(17)
I didint have time to read all of those. But I downloaded the full Farnsworth and Lichter 2008 study.

1. 92% worked on the IPCC (cant really say that is an unbiased group of survey responders);
2. Over 30% to 50% of them havent published anything at all, expect have their names on the IPCC;
3. Now considering #1, 65% responded that climate change sciences have been
influenced by external politics in the last 10 years;
4. At least 44% do not think climate science has remained a value-neutral science;
5. 40-45% think the state of theoretical understanding of climate change phenomena is inadequate;
6. Overwhelming majority believes the models do not deal adequately with influence of clouds (which is one of the #1 pillars of forcings supposedly causing the warming), also precipitation, extreme events.
7. About 50% say there is not enough certainty to attribute recent climate related disasters to climate change;
8. In the impacts and adaption section most of the questions relate to asking scientists if their voices are more important than the public and politicians. I'll leave it up to you to guess how they responded.

I'm sorry I dont have time to go through it all as I have to leave.

But honestly, this survey can be used to say climate change is real and humans have an influence. (which I and almost all skeptics agree with).

But it definitely cannot be used to state climate science is settled, that 97% or even 65% of climate scientists agree on climate change science and how accurate it is.

The science is most definitely not settled and your own survey here shows that.
10-01-2015 14:53
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
spicez wrote:
I didint have time to read all of those. But I downloaded the full Farnsworth and Lichter 2008 study.


Could you give us a link? My searches found that, although the study was mentioned in a number of public venues, the study itself seemed to be exclusively at http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/10/27/ijpor.edr033.short?rss=1 who demand payment to read the full article. If you have a cost-free source to the article, I'd love to read it.

spicez wrote:
1. 92% worked on the IPCC (cant really say that is an unbiased group of survey responders);


I think, again, you indicate here a misunderstanding of how the IPCC works to produce its assessment reports. The IPCC employs a relatively small number of people. The majority of people actually conducting work for the IPCC do so on a volunteer basis. Anthony Watts and Christoper Monckton are both such volunteers. Others, based on their expertise in the field, are asked to provide their assistance with the work (Watts and Monckton nominated themselves). Those have included scientists not in agreement with the consensus view. Richard Tol, who was heavily represented in the "97 articles refuting the 97%" was one such. Thus the likelihood that the most prominent climate researchers (and that was what Farnsworth and Lichter were looking for) would be involved with the IPCC was quite high and does NOT, in and of itself, indicate a predilection to support the consensus view.

spicez wrote:
2. Over 30% to 50% of them havent published anything at all, expect have their names on the IPCC;


"30% to 50%"? That's a rather vague figure for a professional survey. It's also more than a little difficult to accept given that, by design, the survey "collected the opinions of scientists in the earth, space, atmospheric, oceanic or hydrological sciences. The 489 survey respondents — representing nearly half of all those eligible according to the survey's specific standards — work in academia, government or industry, and are members of prominent professional organizations"

spicez wrote:
3. Now considering #1, 65% responded that climate change sciences have been
influenced by external politics in the last 10 years;


Did they state that they believed their own opinions on the existence of anthropogenic global warming had been influenced by politics?

spicez wrote:
4. At least 44% do not think climate science has remained a value-neutral science;


Considering its cost to society, both to ignore and to consider, that is hardly surprising.

spicez wrote:
5. 40-45% think the state of theoretical understanding of climate change phenomena is inadequate;


No one has ever suggested it was complete and when they say inadequate, for what purpose do they refer? Are you suggesting that some significant portion of these respondents do not believe it adequate to advise public policy?

spicez wrote:
6. Overwhelming majority believes the models do not deal adequately with influence of clouds (which is one of the #1 pillars of forcings supposedly causing the warming), also precipitation, extreme events.


Clouds have always been a weakness in climate science but they are not as poorly understood as they once were. And your comment about forcing is uninformed. In the diagram below, on which side of the diagram do you find clouds?

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/fig/figure2-20-l.png

spicez wrote:
7. About 50% say there is not enough certainty to attribute recent climate related disasters to climate change;


But we are not talking about climate related disasters. We are talking about whether or not a consensus exists among active climate scientists that the primary cause of the global warming experienced over the last 150 years is human in origin: GHG emissions and deforestation.

spicez wrote:
8. In the impacts and adaption section most of the questions relate to asking scientists if their voices are more important than the public and politicians. I'll leave it up to you to guess how they responded.


Again, this is not the topic of our discussion here.

spicez wrote:But honestly, this survey can be used to say climate change is real and humans have an influence. (which I and almost all skeptics agree with).


I am very glad to hear you say so. I have to disagree with you, however, on the position of "almost all skeptics", although we may be talking about different groups of people.

spicez wrote:
But it definitely cannot be used to state climate science is settled, that 97% or even 65% of climate scientists agree on climate change science and how accurate it is.

The science is most definitely not settled and your own survey here shows that.


You are not just shifting the goalposts, you have moved them to a different field. It has never been contended that all of climate science is "settled". The term is applied, in this discussion, to the validity of the AGW theory: that human activity is the primary cause of recent global warming. On THAT question, the results of this survey fall in line with all of the several other surveys, polls and studies: a very strong majority of active climate scientists believe AGW to be a valid description of the behavior of the Earth's climate in the face of human GHG emissions and deforestation. Among active climate scientists, there simply is no longer a debate on the validity of AGW.

And, I feel very much that am unable to hold up my end of this discussion, not having access to the same information as you. Can you please provide the link you used to see these results of the Farnsworth & Lichter study?
Edited on 10-01-2015 15:01
10-01-2015 19:22
spicez
☆☆☆☆☆
(17)
Firstly, I would like to apologize for a major copy paste error.

And I should have written the Bay and von Storch 2008 study. NOT the Farnsworth.

Major mistake, and I'm sorry.

The paper in question is here:

You will have to copy paste this, because it doesnt end in a URL tag.
https://www.academia.edu/2365610/A_Survey_of_Climate_Scientists_Concerning_Climate_Science_and_Climate_Change

Login with facebook or Google+ necessary to have access to studies.
11-01-2015 03:44
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
spicez wrote:
1. 92% worked on the IPCC (cant really say that is an unbiased group of survey responders);
2. Over 30% to 50% of them havent published anything at all, expect have their names on the IPCC;


The details of this survey do not support these two claims.
11-01-2015 03:57
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
The details of this survey do support the contention that a large majority of active climate scientists believe AGW to be valid: that the primary cause of global warming seen in the last 150 years is anthropogenic.
11-01-2015 05:04
spicez
☆☆☆☆☆
(17)
Abraham3 wrote:
spicez wrote:
1. 92% worked on the IPCC (cant really say that is an unbiased group of survey responders);
2. Over 30% to 50% of them havent published anything at all, expect have their names on the IPCC;


The details of this survey do not support these two claims.


Actually, on point #1, you are completely right. I for some reason read the graph wrong and inverted them. it would be 92% werent lead authers of the IPCC and 75% werent authors nor reviewers.

My mistake, thanks for correcting it.


About point 2, my contention about the IPCC aside (since I retract that). 30% have published 0 to 5 papers about climate change and about 50% have published 0 to 5 papers in other fields.

In such a survey, 0 should be a category on its own. Its completely ludicrous to have 0 bunched in with 5. And the only reason for that, is if they knew that many of them had not published papers.

I know for a fact there where many lead authors, reviewers and author in the IPCC that were either undergraduates or as of yet unpublished scientists.

So, you are right, my 30 to 50% merits some explaining. And IMO, unless they separate 0 from 1to5, I think its fair to assume they haven't published anything.
11-01-2015 13:25
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
Good enough.




Join the debate 97% signed on to what?:

Remember me

▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact