Consensus

Wikipedia, Survey of Scientist's Views on Global Warming
In Science & Education in August 2013 David Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the corpus used by Mr. Cook. In their assessment, "inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1% consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3% endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic."
However, as the paper took issue in the definition of consensus, the definition of consensus was split into several levels: In the end, of all the abstracts that took a position on the subject, 22.97% and 72.50% were found to take an explicit but unquantified endorsement position or an implicit endorsement position, respectively. The 0.3% figure represents abstracts taking a position of "Actually endorsing the standard definition" of all the abstracts (1.02% of all position-taking abstracts), where the "standard definition" was juxtaposed with an "unquantified definition" drawn from the 2013 Cook et al. paper as follows:
The unquantified definition: ''The consensus position that humans are causing global warming''
The standard definition: As stated in their introduction, that ''human activity is very likely causing most of the current warming (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW)''
Criticism was also subjected to the "arbitrary" disclusion of non-position-taking abstracts as well as other issues of definitions.
Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils-Axel Mörner, who question the consensus, were cited in a Wall Street Journal article by Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer disputing the 97% figure, as Climate scientists who assert that Cook misrepresented their work.

mywifesatan wrote:
you will notice that none of these polls that were only a small amount of scientists

mywifesatan wrote:
stated that the majority consensus is that agw accounts for all or even most of them warming..

mywifesatan wrote:
but they will say things like they believe in agw.

mywifesatan wrote:
..the fact is the majority of scientists who are asked to be polled will not give an answer at all because they don't think there is enough evidence either way....those scientists are not included in the poll..

mywifesatan wrote:
saying you believe that agw is taking place in no way means you think it's responsible for most of the warming or that ipcc projections are valid

Attribution of recent climate change is the effort to scientifically ascertain mechanisms responsible for recent changes observed in the Earth's climate. The effort has focused on changes observed during the period of instrumental temperature record, when records are most reliable; particularly on the last 50 years, when human activity has grown fastest and observations of the troposphere have become available. The dominant mechanisms (to which recent climate change has been attributed) are anthropogenic, i.e., the result of human activity. They are:

o increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases
o global changes to land surface, such as deforestation
o increasing atmospheric concentrations of aerosols.

There are also natural mechanisms for variation including climate oscillations, changes in solar activity, and volcanic activity.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), it is "extremely likely" that human influence was the dominant cause of global warming between 1951 and 2010. The IPCC defines "extremely likely" as indicating a probability of 95 to 100%, based on an expert assessment of all the available evidence.

Multiple lines of evidence support attribution of recent climate change to human activities:

o A basic physical understanding of the climate system: greenhouse gas concentrations have increased and their warming properties are well-established.
o Historical estimates of past climate changes suggest that the recent changes in global surface temperature are unusual.
o Computer-based climate models are unable to replicate the observed warming unless human greenhouse gas emissions are included.
o Natural forces alone (such as solar and volcanic activity) cannot explain the observed warming.

The IPCC's attribution of recent global warming to human activities is a view shared by most scientists, and is also supported by 196 other scientific organizations worldwide (see also: scientific opinion on climate change).

mywifesatan wrote:
...this is a graph from wikapedia that is completely fabricated.

Abraham3 wrote:


Studies of climate scientist's views on global warming and its causes

1) Ten years ago, science historian Naomi Oreskes analyzed the abstracts of 928 papers published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003. Twenty-five percent of the papers studied methodology or paleoclimatic issue and took no explicit or implicit position on the current global warming issue. Of the remaining 75% of papers, ALL explicitly or implicitly accepted anthropogenic climate change.

2) Three years later, in 2007, on behalf of George Mason University's Statistical Assessment Service, Harris Interactive (a market research firm and source of the Harris Poll), conducted a survey of 489 individuals randomly selected from the American Meteorological Society (AMS) or the American Geophysical Union (AGU). Their survey found that 97% agreed that global temperatures had increased. 84% agreed that this warming was induced by human activity while 5% said they thought human activity had not contributed to greenhouse warming.

3) In August of 2008, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch surveyed 2,058 climate scientists from 34 different nations and received responses from 373 of them (18.2%). One question was "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?" All respondents answered that they were so convinced to at least some extent. Zero of the respondents answered that they did not agree at all. A second question was "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?", 98.65% agreed to some extent. 1.35% stated that they did not agree at all.

4) Peter Doran and Maggie Zimmerman of the University of Illinois at Chicago polled 10,257 Earth scientists. They received responses 3,146 of them (30.7%). They analyed these responses for the demographics of the respondents. 79 respondents were climatologists for whom more than 50 percent of their peer-reviewed publications had concerned climate change. Of these 79 climate change experts, 77 believed that human activity had been a significant factor in changing global temperatures. This poll is frequently mentioned by AGW deniers who seem to believe - or intend to give the impression - that all of AGW is based on the opinion of 77 climatologists. The conclusion of Doran and Zimmerman was that the more someone knew about the climate and climate change, the more likely it was to believe that human activity was the primary cause of global warming.

5) That conclusion was supported by a 2010 paper by Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneide, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS) which reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 publishing climate scientists. The study found that 97-98% of the most actively publishing researchers accepted AGW and that "the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of anthropogenic climate change are substantially below that of the convinced researchers".

6) In 2013, a paper published in Environmental Research Letters found 4,014 abstracts out of 11,944 examined that contained the terms "global warming" or "global climate change". Out of these 4,014, 97.1% accepted AGW as valid

7) Former National Physical Science Consortium executive director James Powell performed an analysis 13,950 articles on climate change and global warming published in peer-reviewed journals between 1991 and 2012. 24 of them (0.17%) rejected AGW. A second analysis by Powell examined 2,258 articles by 9,136 authors published in the 13 months between November 2012 and December 2013. 9,135 of the 9,136 authors accepted AGW.

8) October 2011: in a follow-up to their 2007 study, researchers Farnsworth and Lichter from George Mason University did an analysis of 998 scientist-members of either American Geophysical Union or the American Meteorological Society paper who had all been lsited in the 23rd edition of American Men and Women of Science. Of the 489 who returned completed questionnaires, 97% agreed that global temperatures have risen over the past century and 84% agreed that "human-induced greenhouse warming is now occurring," 5% disagreed. 85% of respondents regarded the "likely effects of global climate change" as moderate to severe/catastrophic

9)

Wikipedia, Survey of Scientist's Views on Global Warming
In Science & Education in August 2013 David Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the corpus used by Mr. Cook. In their assessment, "inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1% consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3% endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic."
However, as the paper took issue in the definition of consensus, the definition of consensus was split into several levels: In the end, of all the abstracts that took a position on the subject, 22.97% and 72.50% were found to take an explicit but unquantified endorsement position or an implicit endorsement position, respectively. The 0.3% figure represents abstracts taking a position of "Actually endorsing the standard definition" of all the abstracts (1.02% of all position-taking abstracts), where the "standard definition" was juxtaposed with an "unquantified definition" drawn from the 2013 Cook et al. paper as follows:
The unquantified definition: ''The consensus position that humans are causing global warming''
The standard definition: As stated in their introduction, that ''human activity is very likely causing most of the current warming (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW)''
Criticism was also subjected to the "arbitrary" disclusion of non-position-taking abstracts as well as other issues of definitions.
Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils-Axel Mörner, who question the consensus, were cited in a Wall Street Journal article by Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer disputing the 97% figure, as Climate scientists who assert that Cook misrepresented their work.

Cornelius said:
The point is when we talk about the material problems, everyone seems comfortable to chime in, because the issues are outside our personal lives.

Cornelius said:
When we have to talk about the 'human problem' it asks us to look a little more closer to home...... and it seems blank faces of fear pop up.

Cornelius said:
Just like your response.

Cornelius said:
You avoided any real answer to my question (because I feel that you don't really know, which is ok by me) but instead, attempted to put me down by suggesting my level of intelligence is not even up to 3rd grade standard......which I'm ok with incidentally......I don't know a lot about many things.

Cornelius said:
And I didn't mean to put you on the spot with that question either. So I'm sorry if you felt that I did.

Cornelius said:
It would probably be best if I start a new post on that question and open it up to the whole forum instead.