Remember me
▼ Content

Consensus


Consensus25-12-2014 19:05
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)


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.

Edited on 25-12-2014 19:06
25-12-2014 23:42
mywifesatan
★☆☆☆☆
(59)
you will notice that none of these polls that were only a small amount of scientists stated that the majority consensus is that agw accounts for all or even most of them warming.. but they will say things like they believe in agw...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.. 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...this is a graph from wikapedia that is completely fabricated.
26-12-2014 15:08
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
mywifesatan wrote:
you will notice that none of these polls that were only a small amount of scientists


What do you consider to be "a small amount of scientists"? How many scientists, worldwide, do you believe are actively conducting climate change research? Have you ever had a class in statistics and probability? Do you know anything about sampling?

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


The consensus position is that of the IPCC and that is that human activity is the primary cause of the global warming observed over the last 150 years. No one has ever suggested that it is the only cause. Have you not seen graphs like this one from AR4?:



Do you not see other factors identified here? Where did you ever get the idea that the IPCC was suggesting human activity was the sole cause of global warming?

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


With the exception of the paragraphs concerning Legates' nonsense, the text in the OP (the lead post in this thread) is mine. The lack of quotes, attributions and links should have made that obvious. The results of the various polls, surveys and studies I have reported here all concern the concurrence of active climate scientists with the consensus position noted above.

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..


The normal response rate for surveys of this sort - across all topics - is 10-15%
In all the surveys noted here, the view that we do not know enough or that the respondent did not know were available answers. And what is the source of your assertion? Are you aware of some OTHER survey that demonstrates a majority of scientists hold the view you claim and that because of that they do not participate in surveys? Or did this idea simply arise from your imagination?

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


If I search for anthropogenic global warming in Wikipedia, I am taken to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change which begins:

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).


If you think active climate scientists are not aware that the term AGW implies primarily human causation or that these surveys did not explicitly spell that out, you are working from a position of ignorance. Can I suggest you actually read - or at least skim through the article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change because it is obvious from your comments here that you have not as yet even glanced at it.

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


The graph leads the Wikipedia article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change and was created by user DragonsFlight, as noted in the details (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_science_opinion2.png) from actual study results that are also spelled out in the details and easily verifiable by you or anyone else - most of the data in graph is contained in my lead post. Your accusation that Wikipedia fabricated this graphic is uncalled for and unsupportable; just as was your previous and apparently abandoned claim that the 97% figure originated with the IPCC and was a lie.

It's not a good idea, in mature and reasoned discussions, to call anyone a liar without substantial proof. You have made that accusation repeatedly now and have yet to provide the slightest iota of evidence, much less proof. I suggest you amend your ways.
Edited on 26-12-2014 15:17
04-02-2015 03:53
greyviper
☆☆☆☆☆
(44)
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.


An interesting set of data right there. So far this is one of the most comprehensive set that I have seen with regards to polls on this topic. It goes to show that there is indeed an issue not like what the deniers have been babbling on for years.
04-02-2015 06:36
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
It is all paraphrased from Wikipedia, but thanks.
05-02-2015 11:19
Cornelius
☆☆☆☆☆
(17)
Hello there,

This is all good and well.
And I totally would have to agree that climate change is caused by humans (anthropogenic).

And that view has been established by a vast majority of the scientific community for quite some time now.

But we have only got to the halfway point so far. We've found the problem but not the true cause that creates the problem yet.

So when.....oh WHEN are we going to get onto the next stage?

If it has been determined that the activities of humans are the cause of global warming.....then isn't the next logical step to then start to investigate humans?
The first question could be: "What is it exactly that humans are actually doing that creates this effect on the environment so greatly to cause such damage?"

The true cause has not been found yet until this question can be answered! Once we have established out WHAT humans have been doing that is so destructive, we can then move onto WHY exactly have we been doing it for.

It's a logical sequence.

So why are we stalling in finding out what we are doing wrong?
Edited on 05-02-2015 11:27
06-02-2015 12:53
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
Humans are increasing the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. That has been known since before we realized temperatures were increasing. There is no mystery. There is no other half of the problem.
07-02-2015 06:17
Cornelius
☆☆☆☆☆
(17)
So I take it from what you are saying is, that the problem is all solved and that there should be no more increase in damage that scientists will find from now on?
Yet you say that humans are the cause. But if there has been no change in humans then it's only logical that there will be no change in the result of what we are doing, so damage will continue!

So the question still remains.

What is it that we 'do' as humans that has caused this gas problem that has caused temperature to rise therefore a snowball effect of damage?

If you say that humans are the cause......can you go a little deeper and tell me how and then why?
07-02-2015 13:56
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
I'm sorry, but most third graders know how humans are causing global warming. If you've got some point to make, please just make it.
08-02-2015 05:02
Cornelius
☆☆☆☆☆
(17)
he...he...he....you are assuming that I have made it past 3rd grade!

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

Just like your response.

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.

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.

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


p.s.

By the way, a 3rd grader only knows what the advised schooling curriculum allows it to know and what it's parents tell it from their own knowledge......which if often determined by the media. Two very limited sources of knowledge if you want to find the truth.
Nowhere in it's upbringing is it ever taught how to determine truth!

I prefer the pre-schoolers level of questions personally. They are always asking WHY? ....but why?
They always push the level of adults knowledge to the adult personal limits until the adult has to eventually 'I don't know', but I will try and find out".
08-02-2015 13:53
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
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.


The issues are not outside our personal lives and we "chime in" because science has firmly established the primary cause of the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years.

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.


I guarantee you your line of questioning frightens no one. I guarantee you that what you perceive as fear is simply a blank look of "what the F are you talking about???"

Cornelius said:
Just like your response.


If you understood me sufficiently from my brief post you would have seen disappointment and frustration, not fear.

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.


I think you already knew the answer and are pursuing this line of questioning because you are trolling for an emotional argument.

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.


That never even occurred to me. It never occurred to anyone reading the exchange. It seems to have occurred only to you.

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.


Feel free, but any question you post is open to the whole forum (there are no restrictions on this one and there is no "open to everyone" forum) and, to be honest, a new post "on that question" will very likely get you no more response than it already has. I do have a suggestion as to what you might do, though. You could try to actually comment on the Earth's climate and effects from human activities. If you'd like to discuss what it is about the human condition that leads or tends us to treat that question less than objectively, feel free. But I would appreciate it if you didn't attempt to start arguments via senseless rambling.


p.s.

By the way, a 3rd grader only knows what the advised schooling curriculum allows it to know and what it's parents tell it from their own knowledge......which if often determined by the media. Two very limited sources of knowledge if you want to find the truth.
Nowhere in it's upbringing is it ever taught how to determine truth!

I prefer the pre-schoolers level of questions personally. They are always asking WHY? ....but why?
They always push the level of adults knowledge to the adult personal limits until the adult has to eventually 'I don't know', but I will try and find out".
12-02-2015 08:02
Cornelius
☆☆☆☆☆
(17)
Hi Abraham3,

I don't feel that your suggestion is anything different to the question that I have already posed to you........yet you did not answer that question but instead made an attempt to put me down. (putting someone down is anger based response, and anger always is covering a fear of some kind)


Your next response in your 'pick apart method', neither offered anything related to the question that I have asked you or the topic. Instead offered some imaginative comments about 'trolling, attempting arguments, and suggestion of line of questioning that is fear based. (Yet my questions followed a rational sequence in problem solving) Maybe you feel that way if you were afraid of the question or the answer for some reason?
All I simply asked was a question. There is no sinister plan. There is no conspiracy.


I feel it is going to be difficult to have any sort of further exchange with you if you are not wanting to talk about an issue without having to put someone down.

So I'm going to have to leave it there.
12-02-2015 13:37
Abraham3Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(256)
What were you doing when claimed that you line of questioning had frightened me and put me on the spot? You initiated the personal attacks.
Edited on 12-02-2015 13:37
14-02-2015 18:25
greyviper
☆☆☆☆☆
(44)
Hi guys, if you have time, why not have a go with your ideas and knowledge at this site.

erissolver.com...its main goal is to gather collective intelligence from as many sources (persons
knowledgeable in certain disciplines) as possible on primary topics such as global warming and climate change. I believe this would be very much advantageous if we can poll together content on the problems and possible solutions that we currently face. I found this site unique (compared to how we discuss our ideas in traditional forum and discussion format), though a lot of improvements still needs to be done.




Join the debate Consensus:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Consensus607-08-2019 05:33
Scientific Consensus14126-05-2018 20:34
Consensus of Scientists and Proof30705-05-2017 20:09
Where the 97% consensus among scientists comes from3531-12-2016 12:53
THE GLOBAL COOLING CONSENSUS IN THE 1970s3414-03-2016 00:07
▲ 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