|Where the 97% consensus among scientists comes from15-02-2011 23:00|
|See, for a summary, the following web page:|
Several surveys have been done on the subject of the acceptance among scientists about global climate change and humanity's role in global warming. Each survey consistently around 97% consensus among the scientists studying climate and climate change.
Another summary is found here:
"A new poll among 3,146 earth scientists found that 90 percent believe (sic) global warming is real, while 82 percent agree that human activity (has) been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures."
This was among American scientists, out of 85 countries that have science organizations studying climate.
"...climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role."
Other surveys showed the same thing: close to 100% consensus among scientists. Such as:
"Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of Anthropogenic Climate Change are substantially below that of the convinced researchers."
And yet another survey:
"The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position."
There are over 550 science organizations in the world, in 85 countries, that are studying climate and related science venues. None of them have stated they reject the scientists' consensus opinion regarding climate change and humanity's role in global warming.
|RE: 97% Consensus15-02-2011 23:33|
|See http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/09/97-consensus-plummets-to-347.html for a thorough refutation of the "97% Consensus" claim.|
|RE: Rebuttal to 97% consensus claim16-02-2011 18:45|
|Here is the definitive rebuttal - rather than 97% of all scientists, it's really 75 anonymous researchers!|
|Hayduke: I strictly stay away from political pages. Usually they are propaganda, and more than frequently they mislead and distract.|
If its full of inflammatory or derisive language, its probably not good.
I avoid both greens and skeptics for this reason.
The closest you get to real proper science is published papers. Peer reviewed is the real deal. That's where the 97% consensus comes from. Published papers.
If a different means of measurement is desired well... I'm sure Exxon would like this opened up to any old blogger. (Then we'd have misleading statements made like so; http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/fast-recovery-of-thick-arctic-ice-d6-e19.php )
Compare your posts about the hockey stick.. and real data from environment Canada.
Now look at how the sea Ice is changing.
I'd take everything on that hockeyschtick blog and toss it on this actual evidence alone. Facts and actual measurements completely disagree with what its saying.
Edited on 12-05-2011 08:31
|Keep using that 97% figure if you wish. But if I where you I would try and find something else.|
|The fact is that AGW is accepted science among virtually every climatologist on the planet and a very strong majority of all other scientists to boot. That has been established by numerous polls, surveys and studies both of the scientists opinions and the findings of their work - large and small - done by an assortment of scientists, historians and statisticians. Legates attempt to refute that point is completely laughable. I would be embarrassed to have to rely on such work.
Edited on 22-11-2014 23:41
|The fact is, Abraham3, that you do not care enough about the subject tu actually research it with an open mind, yet still feel justified in repeating tired propaganda points used by media, politicians and a few scientists who are pushing this mantra for funding and other reasons.|
The fact is, almost, if not, all of the papers, surveys and polls you mentioned have been shown to be misleading, incorrect or down right fraudulent.
You should be embarrassed to be supporting such obvious lies.
Please point out errors in Legates paper instead of pointing and snickering if you want to be taken seriously.
You haven't the faintest idea how much or about what I care. What I am repeating is not "tired propaganda". It is the position of mainstream science on the topic of AGW and is supported by thousands and thousands of peer reviewed studies, papers and articles. It is the position examined and accepted by the vast, vast majority of climate scientists and very large margin of all other scientists as well. The views of media and politicians regarding the establishment of the likeliest theory are utterly irrelevant.
Really? You don't say. That is amazing! And where have they been so shown and by whom?
Tell you what. Why don't we start with the polls, surveys and studies mentioned in Wikipedia's Scientific opinion on climate change "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change. Let us know which of those are obvious lies and give us some links to where it is so shown. Then we can move on to Surveys of Scientist's Views on Climate Change", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change, where we will find a few more. I'm looking forward to seeing the material to which you refer.
Surely you jest. No one wanting to be taken seriously would consider contending that the rate of AGW acceptance among active climate scientists is less than 1%. If you'd care for more detail as to his failings, try:
Edited on 23-11-2014 04:26
BTW, attacking me personally, as you did, simply tells your entire readership that you find my arguments threatening and lack the material that might counter them. So, thanks.
|I think you are quite thin skinned if you take what i say as a personnal attack. In any case I realise there is no point replying to you. You did not read the link I posted, and considering the lame rebuttals you posted and linked, you would have probably brushed them aside anyways.|
Its obvious you believe in CAGW, to the extent that nothing would deter you otherwise. I read your links and see no substance, I guess you see something different.
There is no point in me debating you or you debating me and I think you know that.
As I have no more time to waste on this, unlike you who seem to be eager for more banter. I'll leave you to believe the unbelievelable. That 97% of climate scientist think the end of the world us upon us.
|I am not surprised that you have no desire for further debate. That you should think me "thin-skinned" supports the charge that you attacked me personally; you simply think I over reacted to it. |
97% or more of publishing climate scientists accept AGW as valid. Rejection of that point is unsupportable
CAGW is a denier construction.
Accepting AGW as valid does not require a belief that the end of the world is upon us.
Have a nice day.
|Follow the money. I am willing to bet that 97% of the 97% make there living on the global warming theory and would easily switch sides if that's where the money is.|
|I will take you up on that bet. The consensus among active climate scientists that the primary cause of the warming observed over the last century and a half is human activities; primarily the emissions of greenhouse gases, is based on the science. It is not a result of greed or group think or peer pressure or a vast conspiracy to gain control over people's lives.|
So, how much?
|The point is, all the money is in pro global warming. Also when a consensus fact. It was only a few years ago when the consensus was marriage was between one woman and one man.|
|"The money" is on research: On increasing our knowledge of the multivariate processes of the Earth's climate, on determining the scale and trend of changes it seems to be undergoing, identifying the causes of those changes and what humanit might be able to do to make thingis better for us and our descendants. That all that research has found overwhelming evidence that we are warming and that the primary cause is human GHG emissions and deforestation is not in response to the money, it is what the research has found.|
Scientists do not get rich from research grants. It is not money they put in their pockets. It pays for the conduct of their research. Getting such grants, conducting the research and convincing respectable, peer-reviewed journals to publish the work is what allows scientists to KEEP their jobs and put that money - their salaries - into their pockets.
That public opinion changes, regarding, same sex marriage, regarding the legalization of marijuana, regarding who they want in the White House and representing them in Congress, regarding whether or not they want to send their children to fight on foreign soil and a million other topics, is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Or do you believe same sex marriages are being legalized because of money? Personally, as with science, I think it is a result of an increase in knowledge.
|The money is on research to prove it is happening is exactly what I am talking about. How much money do you think is available to research the opposing consensus that it is not caused by humans. And there is a consensus of scientist that do not agree with you. The co-founder of the weather channel has changed his view on man made global warming. I also understand some of these temperature sensors around the world to measure are located in parking lots that are asphalt and that is not an accurate reading. Also what about the leaked emails from that research center in England stating that showed the information they reported was falsified to prove their findings.|
I brought up gay marriage to show you that a consensus is not scientific. Science is based on fact not consensus. Their is a consensus on how far the sun is from the earth but there is no way of knowing for sure.
I w0nder how do I get a share of the m0ney you are talking of? I believe that there are changes in earth's natural cycle of warming up or cooling d0wn because of human activities such as emission of GHG as what Abraham3 have menti0ned. In sh0rt, I am on the pr0 side...s0 h0w d0 I get this m0ney?,,,I seem t0 be interested...
What evidence do you have to support that position? And, again, scientists do not get to put research grant money into their pockets.
All research is conducted to investigate questions and those questions are normally based on hypotheses. If the majority of hypotheses and the majority of research conclusions support AGW, the most likely cause is that AGW is an accurate description of the behavior of the the Earth's contemporary climate. A great deal of research has been conducted looking for other causes: cosmic rays, solar irradiance changes, clouds, orbital changes, other sources of CO2, other GHGs, you name it. Your charge is simply without a basis.
For starters, you need to look up the definition of "consensus". There are certainly climate scientists who disagree with the IPCC and do not believe human GHG emissions are responsible for the observed warming. But they have grown extremely few and far between. They are a very long ways from forming a consensus.
I'm sure he has. But thousands of actively researching climate scientists - the vast majority of them - believe human GHG emissions and deforestation to the primary cause. The numbers of them who do has only increased as time has gone by and the evidence has mounted. And John Coleman, the man you're talking about, received a journalism degree in 1957 and has spent his entire career doing television weather reports. He has no training in any form of science and has never conducted one iota of research.
I'm sorry, but you have a very long way to go to catch up with the contemporary conversations. Both NOAA and a university group called BEST (Berkely Earth Surface Temperature) have researched the effects of poor sensor placement and the urbanization of formerly satisfactory weather station sites. You might want to look into what they both found.
One of the more common responses to comments about the consensus among climate scientists is that an appeal to authority is logically invalid and that science is not a democratic process. But if you look into these, you will find that an appeal to authority is completely valid if: the group in question actually are the experts in the field under question and if a consensus (a strong majority) actually exists. This is precisely the case with AGW. And, honestly, which do you think more likely to be correct: a view held by 97% of the experts or a view held by 1 percent?
Scientific knowledge is based on the application of the scientific method. That method includes (as a basic and fundamental component) the review of ones peers. The peers of climate science, based on the objective research that has been conducted, have accepted that humans are the primary cause of the warming observed over the last 150 years.
A good point, sort of. Natural science is based on evidence, logic, reason, knowledge. It does not, because it can not, rely on proof.
The money is on research to prove it is happening is exactly what I am talking about. How much money do you think is available to research the opposing consensus that it is not caused by humans. And there is a consensus of scientist that do not agree with you. The co-founder of the weather channel has changed his view on man made global warming. I also understand some of these temperature sensors around the world to measure are located in parking lots that are asphalt and that is not an accurate reading. Also what about the leaked emails from that research center in England stating that showed the information they reported was falsified to prove their findings.
I brought up gay marriage to show you that a consensus is not scientific. Science is based on fact not consensus. Their is a consensus on how far the sun is from the earth but there is no way of knowing for sure.
Hello - I am a climate scientist. I have skills in project management, I can write reports, I have mathematical skills, lab skills and programming skills. I could make a lot more money doing something other than climate research in academia! But I am not a climate scientist for the money. Most of my friends earn more money than me. Most climate scientists could earn more money doing something else. We choose to be climate scientists because we are passionate about science, we want to make a meaningful contribution to society and we are interested in Earth science.
It is very hard to get funding for our research. In my country, the success rate for proposals to our main environmental science funding body has dropped from about 20% to about 10% in the last few years. We do not write proposals trying to prove that climate change is real. We write proposals so that we can learn more about various parts of the Earth system.
If I could irrefutably prove that climate change was either not happening, or not caused by humans (or both!) using scientific evidence, I would become famous within the scientific community over-night.
Climate change is not about belief. Do you believe in gravity? Climate change is a political debate, not a scientific debate. There is no one in the department that I work in that disputes that climate change is caused by burning fossil fuels, and I have never met anyone at any climate science project meetings or conferences who does not endorse the scientific consensus that climate change is real. I'm sure that there are a few climate scientists out there that do dispute the science, but I do not know any of them, and they are in the overwhelming minority.
I'm afraid that I cannot really respond to your other comments appropriately because you have not provided any scientific evidence on which your opinions are based.
|Dear climate scientist, you mention that "there is no one in the department that I work in that disputes that climate change is caused by burning fossil fuels".|
Can you explain what is wrong with the statement below.
CO2 is a LAGGING factor: Any legitimate scientist knows that correlation is NOT causation. So the increases show up AFTER the causation. Most legitimate climate scientists now recognize and admit this. Hence, with no currently identified forcing factor to any "perceived" climate change, man's contribution is minimal.
It is quite hard to respond to your comment specifically, since you have not provided any sources for your information.
However, generally, I can say that there are many things wrong with the statement that you wrote.
Please can you provide a source that explains how 'legitimate' climate scientists recognize that increases in GHGs the atmosphere only ever occur after the climate has changed, and that the increases in GHGs in the atmosphere over the past 100-150 yrs are in fact a so-called 'lagging factor'?
Here is a very reliable source that disagrees with your statement; it is known as the IPCC 5th assessment report, which is endorsed by the World Meteorological Organization and the UN, was written and compiled by over 800 scientists with earth science specialisms voluntarily (we do not get paid extra for contributing to the IPCC reports, but do it in our free time), and is available to download for free here:
I would like to refer you to the summary for policy makers document from the working group 1 report, which makes the following statements:
"It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period."
"Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes (see Figure SPM.6 and Table SPM.1). This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century."
I would also like to point out that these sentences were only included in the IPCC report once they had been agreed on by all participating country members of the IPCC, including climate scientists and policy makers.
In addition to the IPCC report, which is a rather large and lengthy read, here are several other lines of evidence from independent measurements/sources that demonstrate that recent climate change is caused by increases in anthropogenic greenhouse gases:
Satellite measurements of changes in the planet's outgoing long-wave radiation spectra (Harries, J. E., Brindley, H. E., Sagoo, P. J., and Bantges, R. J.: Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997, Nature, 410, 355-357, 10.1038/35066553, 2001.)
Long term decrease in the global 13C/12C ratio of atmospheric CO2 (Keeling, C. D., Mook, W. G., and Tans, P.: Recent trends in the 13C/12C ratio of atmospheric carbon dioxide, Nature, 277, 1979.)
Long-term decrease in the global 14C/12C ratio of atmospheric CO2 (Suess, H. E.: Radiocarbon Concentration in Modern Wood, Science, 122, 415-417, 10.1126/science.122.3166.415-a, 1955.) This 1955 publication is pretty old now, but the findings have been independently verified more recently by other authors, such as Martin Manning, and Heather Graven.
From my own research field, I can confirm that the amount of atmospheric O2 is definitely decreasing with a ratio that we would expect from fossil fuel combustion. Any CO2 release to the atmosphere from the oceans, volcanoes or from the terrestrial biosphere would not decrease atmospheric O2 in this way. For example, when a volcano emits CO2, there is no corresponding decrease in atmospheric O2, but when fossil fuel is combusted, O2 is consumed, with a ratio of about 1.4 moles O2 consumed per mole CO2 produced, depending on fossil fuel type.
I hope these sources will help to explain to you why your statement is not correct, but if you have any further questions, please let me know.
|Please find attached why the IPCC has lost all credibility from the majority of the population.|
I have hundreds more articles like this if you have not seen them.
|Hi arthur18. |
I'm afraid I cannot see any attachments to your post. But please do not attach blog post entries or newspaper/other media articles, as these tend to be very unreliable sources of information. If you have any statements from science institutions, or peer-reviewed articles from scientific journals, or any other reliable sources of information which state that the IPCC has 'lost all credibility' then I would be very interested in seeing these.
|Sorry but I don't have any scientific evidence. If however, a newspaper prints false information it can be asked to remove it or it can be sued for defamation. If we cannot trust newspaper articles, maybe we should sack all journalists and put them on the unemployment heap. |
You can doubt newspaper articles just as much as many are now doubting the so called consensus and the data that is continually modified. We may soon find out why this was really happening.
|arthur18 - please see my reply in the 'There is still no Global Warming science' thread.|
|It seems like the 97% consensus has been debunked.|
Maybe the new term should be "Science of Climate Almost Mastered" or it can be used as an acronym.
|arthur18: The 97% consensus number is likely wrong for climatologists, it is much nearer 100%. I was at an AMS meeting in Atlanta a few years ago when a plenary session with many thousands of climatologists were listening to a talk by the CEO of Duke Energy. He confidently asked for a show of hands of how many of us believed in AGW. A forest of hands went up. He than asked for a show of hands on those who don't believe in AGW, no hands went up. He next asked for a show of hands of those that were not sure, a few hands went up (I note mainly from a group of TV meteorologists, one I recognized from my local Faux station). The level of consensus shown there completely rattled the rest of his presentation. |
Similar unanimity is shown if you look at the scientific literature, A quote from a 2004 paper (Science 3 December 2004: Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686):
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
And the evidence has only gotten stronger since.
|RE: The 97% consensus04-09-2015 04:01|
|DRKTS - A show of hands? A quote from a 2004 paper? You are kidding aren't you?|
I guess you still believe the Mann hockey stick graph. I guess alarmists aren't real keen on facts.
The great 20th Century physicist, Richard Feynman, wrote in his autobiography: 'Details that could
throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can –
if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong – to explain it. If you make a theory, for example,
and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well
as those that agree with it.'
|The New American ... since when was that a peer-reviewed science journal? That is just a bunch of unsubstantiated accusations from a politically biased source. |
Do I believe in the Mann Hockey Stick? Yes, and so does anyone who understand the data. The National Academy for example which gave sworn testimony to congress that its conclusions were basically correct. Also the 16 independent analyses that found essentially the same result using different data and analysis techniques.
Don't like the 2004 paper? OK How about Doren et al. paper (2009) found 97% of 79 scientists agreed with AGW. Sample too small? Ok, how about the Anderegg et al. paper (2010) with 97.5% but polling 908 climatologists. Still not good enough? OK, let's try Cook et al (2013) with a 98.5% approval of a sample of 10,306?
And you thought that scientists don't like facts. We love 'em!
Stop quoting WUWT and make your own arguments. Feynman never expressed any views with respect to global warming, he died before it became an issue, so don't try to quote him on that subject. I actually know Feynman's sister, Joan, who is a top rank scientist in her own right. We worked together for a short while on a reconstruction of solar activity and global temperatures as it relates to the development of early civilizations. Did not amount to much unfortunately, so I bowed out. Joan on the other hand did study climate, and I am sure she would support the AGW theory, like Carl Sagan did and Neil deGrass Tyson does. If you don't believe me, ask her, the last I heard she is still alive, though now retired from JPL.
|Scientists love facts so much that they like to keep their so called data to themselves like Mann and Briffa. We now know what they were hiding.|
I notice Gergis and Marcott didn't get a gig on the above graph. Hmmm, I wonder why.
The reason I quoted Feynman was because he believed in questioning science and not trying to hide the facts like the so called climate scientists.
So when is that tipping point coming?
Mann has made his data available. NOAA has a climate data center where you can get their data and all other data sets world wide, station by station from the raw data to the 1st and 2nd level processed data. (look up "NOAA NCDC")
I am not sure what you are talking about Briffa for, he published his data in the Transactions of the Royal Society in 2008, what more do you want?
All scientists question. Feynman is just stating the scientific method. What he did not do was question well established science just for the sake of it, in fact he taught it. Have you read his Lectures in Physics? It is brilliant stuff but nowhere do you see him saying here is the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum, now don't believe it. He would have scoffed at the pseudoscience being promulgated by the AGW denial industry.
Briffa only made his data available after pressure from The Royal Society, as McIntyre had been requesting the data for eight years without any success but I'm sure you already knew that. This is not how real science is supposed to work.
When you say "well established science" I can only assume that you are not referring to climate science, and if you are, you might like to actually put your full name to that statement as well as the organisation you work for.
No comments about Gergis and Marcott I see. Like with Briffa, you can pretend you don't know whats going on.
The Royal Society (which my wife used to work for) does not work that way, in fact I checked for a reference from the Royal Society to Briffa asking him to release the data, and found none.
McIntyre could not have written the papers he did unless he had full access to the data. What he was demanding was much more than the data but the lab notes, all communications to other researchers, and the codes used in the analyses. He also demanded that they be fully annotated and explained. That would have taken years to put together, it was a way several of the denier community have tried to harass climate researchers by wasting their time on such foolish requests.
I tell you what, why not make that request of the scientists after the organizations like WUWT et al. publish their funding sources and the oil, gas, and coal magnates reveal who they have been funding and with how much?
|The 97% number illustrated by John Oliver in this hilarious clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg.|
|@Madison - yes, and I think it's time to ask all the M2C2 (man-made climate change) deniers:|
1. Which is greater, 5 or 15?
2. Do owls exist?
3. Are there hats?
|SO low is support among the scientific community for AGW that only 219 of them signed the Bali Letter (produced by the UN IPCC Bali conference).|
Hardly a consensus.
climate scientist wrote:
sealover posted existing posts:existing posts deleted
Is this the face of the new round of spamming?
|Into the Night★★★★★
IBdaMann wrote:sealover posted existing posts:existing posts deleted
Seems to be. This is the kind of thing that got trafn banned.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
|Scientists say Florida Keys coral reefs are already bleaching as water temperatures hit record highs||14||29-07-2023 20:14|
|New Type of Entanglement Lets Scientists 'See' Inside Nuclei||78||16-06-2023 18:15|
|30,000 SCIENTISTS SIGN PETITION ON GLOBAL WARMING, CLAIMING THAT THERE IS NO SETTLED SCIENCE||2||02-11-2022 23:15|
|Climate change for the non-scientists||30||01-12-2020 06:18|
|A Post On Quora Explaining What is Wrong With The 97% Consensus Studies||2||08-03-2020 18:17|