Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Instead of focusing on abstracts from climatology journals, this one was an on-line survey with responses from a variety of Earth Sciences. Thus this survey does not address the 97% figure directly, but it does get at the interesting question of agreement between Earth Scientists. Here are a few key quotes:
Question #2 on the survey was this: 2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
[...] Of our survey participants...more than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees.
[...] 82% answered yes to question 2. In general, as the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement with the two primary questions.
So the percentage of agreement is lower for Earth Scientists in general than for climatologists in particular, but it is also interesting that the level of agreement is correlated with education and level of specific expertise in climatology. Basically, as the level of education and specialization in climatology increases, so does the percentage of agreement that there is global warming, and that human activity is a significant cause of it.
The deniers are led by a cadre of scientists who have political connections and who have misled the public on lots of scientific issues including Global Warming
In their new book, Merchants of Doubt, historians Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway explain how a loose–knit group of high-level scientists, with extensive political connections, ran effective campaigns to mislead the public and deny well-established scientific knowledge over four decades. In seven compelling chapters addressing tobacco, acid rain, the ozone hole, global warming, and DDT, Oreskes and Conway roll back the rug on this dark corner of the American scientific community, showing how the ideology of free market fundamentalism, aided by a too-compliant media, has skewed public understanding of some of the most pressing issues of our era.
Instead of focusing on abstracts from climatology journals, this one was an on-line survey with responses from a variety of Earth Sciences. Thus this survey does not address the 97% figure directly, but it does get at the interesting question of agreement between Earth Scientists. Here are a few key quotes:
Question #2 on the survey was this: 2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
[...] Of our survey participants...more than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees.
[...] 82% answered yes to question 2. In general, as the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement with the two primary questions.
So the percentage of agreement is lower for Earth Scientists in general than for climatologists in particular, but it is also interesting that the level of agreement is correlated with education and level of specific expertise in climatology. Basically, as the level of education and specialization in climatology increases, so does the percentage of agreement that there is global warming, and that human activity is a significant cause of it.
What you present still does not provide a statistically sound evaluation of what either "all scientists" or "all climate scientists" support the currently popular AGW alarmism hypothesis. Also, as you note, it certainly does not support the 97% number, which hopefully we are in agreement now is without factual basis.
I realize you have probably not explored this question before to the level that you have just now. As I hope you and some others can now see, this 97% number is a fabricated falsehood which has been blindly accepted by a great many people, without any appreciable thought or evaluation, largely because of how many times it has been repeated by enthusiastic supporters of the AGW alarmism movement, after having first been instigated by certain initial promoters of this false idea.
And while there are certain ideas that are worthy of consideration and debate coming out of the AGW alarmism movement, this 97% falsehood is not the only false idea which is being routinely promoted by the supporters of the AGW alarmism hypothesis. Not by a long stretch.
I never met a liberal politician that didn't like a tax. If they can increase the amount of revenue to "combat global warming" they will do it.
And there is cooked data. Ignored ARGOS buoy data in favor of ships engine cooling water is cooking the books.
A carbon tax is a drop in the bucket in comparison to subsidies to fossil fuel companies, so what are you afraid of?
Tax-breaks, subsidized fuel prices and other government support amount to an incentive to pollute worth $115 per metric ton of carbon-dioxide, the agency said Monday in its Energy and Climate Change report. That compares with an average $7 cost to buy emission permits in carbon markets. Subsidies at 16 Times Carbon Prices Stymie Pollution Curbs - Bloomberg Business
A carbon tax is a drop in the bucket in comparison to subsidies to fossil fuel companies, so what are you afraid of?
The thing is, with a carbon tax the subsidies wouldn't even stop. All that would happen is that the revenues from the carbon tax would offset some other tax that could be cut. There would be tremendous incentives to develop carbon capture technologies as the businesses would want to augment their profit margins before the technology became commonplace enough to replace the tax with something else.
The only thing standing in the way is the risk of an oil stock crash, the Koch brothers with their fertilizers and the GOP... also, the people who have irrational fits every time they hear the word 'tax'.
There is no "global warming." The warmers are now the science deniers who refuse to admit the earth has not warmed in 15 years. Some of them tried to change the name to things like "climate change" and "global climate disruption." But the whole theory is based on a correlation that people pitched between co2 and warming. It's clear that this is not a cause and effect situation, or else the co2 increase would have had a corresponding warming increase over the past 15 years, which just didn't happen. They can take all the measurements they want at this point, but it doesn't change the fact that the whole basis of the theory is wrong.
Exactly. This haggling over percentages is a red herring. The basic point is that a strong majority of scientists, and an even stronger majority of climatologists in particular, agree that humans are a significant cause of global warming. This, in itself, is not a guarantee of anything. Majorities can be wrong. Still, it is generally not wise to bet against a majority of scientists.
The consensus on global warming is a lot like the consensus on evolution. When you look at the professional biological literature, you do not find any real debate about the ability of natural selection to explain the origins of species. The "debate" is entirely outside of the professional biology journals - the "debate" is in the mass media, politics, and some theological literature. The same is true with the "debate" over global warming.
The data is so strong that climatologists just don't bother trying to debate it in the professional climatology literature. Some of them probably debate it privately. I have no doubt that some politically conservative climatologists have scoured the data looking for cracks in the armor, and clearly some of them are skeptical of the consensus view, but the vast majority don't make any serious attempt to refute the consensus within the climatology literature - just as the vast majority of biologists don't attempt to refute the theory of evolution in the biology literature. Right or wrong, the consensus does, in fact, exist within the climatology literature.
I, for one, am often skeptical of consensus views. My background is in philosophy, and one of the central passions of philosophy is finding some way to show that something that seems "obviously true" might actually not be true at all. Philosophers live for that sort of thing. But in the case of global warming, I think the denialists are in a losing battle. In previous threads I've said that I think global warming is clearly happening, but I've been agnostic on the question of whether humans are a significant cause. But the more I see, the more I think that the "A" belongs in AGW. To be honest, I doubt that we will actually do much to stop the warming, but I support the efforts to try because they efforts might work, and even if we fail to stop or slow down the warming, the efforts to clean up the environment are good for lots of other reasons.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 06-17-2015 at 07:28 AM..
You mean the same NASA that continues to this moment to publish on its website the blatant flat out lie "that 97% of climate scientists agree" with the blatantly flawed AGW alarmism hypothesis, when in fact there has been no scientific, statistically sound poll that has been conducted that supports this claim? Here is the link:
That NASA? LOL. These people have outed themselves as propagandists, and are perpetrating falsehoods and lies on this topic at this very moment. As a result, they cannot be trusted on this.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
