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.
Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?
About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second. The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.
Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement.
...""Most members of the public think meteorologists know climate, but most of them actually study very short-term phenomenon."
Between March 19 through May 28, 2007 Harris Interactive conducted a mail survey of a random sample of 489 self-identified members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union who are listed in the current edition of American Men and Women of Science.
Scientists agree that humans cause global warming Ninety-seven percent of the climate scientists surveyed believe “global average temperatures have increased” during the past century.
Eighty-four percent say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence.
Ummm yeah. Thank you for proving that the global warmers are bonkers.
Now five........ten......twenty years from now we could get some of those conditions you mention to create hurricanes but it aint gonna be caused by folks breathing too much. If you think so then you are so far lost there is no return.
You're right - it's not going to be caused by people breathing too much.
Spoiler
Although people like Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck and Jim Inhofe could probably cause a tiny blip on their own with the amount of the hot air they spout.
He had gotten sucked into the bogus so-called "Climategate scandal" of latching onto phrases like "Mike's Nature trick" and "hide the decline" that were taken out of context from the hacked the CRU emails.
LOL, they spliced two sets data together and exactly what they did wasn't explained until the release of those emails despite the fact there was requests for that information for years.
Quote:
Since then, eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. The emails have been explained in their original context and the CRU scientists and Michael Mann were exonerated. They weren't trying to hide or fake anything.
Phil Jones only escaped criminal prosecution becsue of a very short statute of limitations.
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
82% answered yes. What is significant? You could argue as many of the scientists have that took this poll that if man was able to affect climate at all that is significant even if the result was inconsequential. "Significant" has no value and could mean completely different things to two different people.
As far as the 97%:
Quote:
In our survey, the most specialized and knowledge-able respondents (with regard to climate
change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who
also have published more than 50% of their recent peer reviewed papers on the
subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2%
(76 of 79) answered “risen†to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.
In this case the 97% consensus is from a pool of 77 scientists.
oh, the old, it will happen 100 years from now, and we know this because our computer models tell us that will happen routine. as anyone who has even a modicum of programming experience will tell you, garbage in = garbage out. there are many things wrong with the computer models, one is the data, and the assumptions that are made when applying that data, and two is the program itself. yes the code can be manipulated to produce what ever output you want. dont believe me on that? ask my brother who works for IBM in software development. you might be willing to accept flawed computer models, but i am not, i prefer real models.
also you keep putting out these updated paleoclimate models, and again expect them to be accurate on many levels, including temperature, and if the climate modelers are using the same program to model future climate change, then the past models are also flawed. i realize that some models were developed with good intentions to get accurate results, but the problem is that none of the models take everything into account, and thus can never be accurate.
82% answered yes. What is significant? You could argue as many of the scientists have that took this poll that if man was able to affect climate at all that is significant even if the result was inconsequential. "Significant" has no value and could mean completely different things to two different people.
As far as the 97%:
In this case the 97% consensus is from a pool of 77 scientists.
Correct. The 97% number is totally useless. Anybody can poll cherry picked group of people to achieve 97% agreement on anything.
The only startling part is that they were so inept that they picked 3% who didn't agree.
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.
