What else did the ’97% of scientists’ say?

[cancel2 2022]

Great post from Anthony Watt's website about the supposed 97% of scientists that agree about AGW. I doubt very much that the zealots will take much notice though, it's like trying to talk to creationists.

I wonder just how many politicians, environmentalists or scientists who use the phrase ’97% of scientists’ (or those who more carefully use ‘active climate scientists’) to give weight to their arguments regarding climate change to the public, have any idea of the actual source of this soundbite.

Perhaps a few may say the ’Doran Survey’, which is the one of the most common references for this ’97% of active climate scientists’ phrase. In fact, the Doran EoS paper merely cites a MSc thesis for the actual source of this 97% figure and the actual survey.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/

 

[cancel2 2022]

James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declared Himself a Sceptic and said that Hansen ‘Embarrassed NASA’ and ‘Was Never Muzzled’

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=1a5e6e32-802a-23ad-40ed-ecd53cd3d320

 

[tinfoil]

Bump for warmers.
You guys are the people who use this argument. Come defend your religion

 

[NOVA]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_agw_smoking_gun.html

Enough said.....the hoax was been exposed quite awhile ago....deal with it.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Well duh. Anyone with common sense knows it is a fraud. Even my most hillbilly relatives know it is a fraud.

But it has never been about the environment. It has been about taking down capitalism and for now they have been winning

 

[Rune]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

[TABLE="width: 600"]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #E2F0D2, colspan: 6"]That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 19 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[h=3]Oreskes and Peiser[/h]Scientists need to back up their opinions with research and data that survive the peer-review process. A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004). 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way (focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis).Benny Peiser, a climate contrarian, repeated Oreskes' survey and claimed to have found 34 peer reviewed studies rejecting the consensus. However, an inspection of each of the 34 studies reveals most of them don't reject the consensus at all. The remaining articles in Peiser's list are editorials or letters, not peer-reviewed studies. Peiser has since retracted his criticism of Oreskes survey:

"Only [a] few abstracts explicitly reject or doubt the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) consensus which is why I have publicly withdrawn this point of my critique. [snip] I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact."​

[h=3]Doran 2009[/h]Subsequent research has confirmed this result. A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what are most interesting are responses compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes. As the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures.
Figure 1: Response to the survey question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009) General public data come from a 2008 Gallup poll.Most striking is the divide between expert climate scientists (97.4%) and the general public (58%). The paper concludes:

"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists."​

[h=3]Anderegg 2010[/h]This overwhelming consensus among climate experts is confirmed by an independent study that surveys all climate scientists who have publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting the consensus. They find between 97% to 98% of climate experts support the consensus (Anderegg 2010). Moreover, they examine the number of publications by each scientist as a measure of expertise in climate science. They find the average number of publications by unconvinced scientists (eg - skeptics) is around half the number by scientists convinced by the evidence. Not only is there a vast difference in the number of convinced versus unconvinced scientists, there is also a considerable gap in expertise between the two grou

Oops. Looks like "Tom" is just full of shit...again. Tom, Shut the fuck up.

 

[cancel2 2022]

An extract from the the article, it looks you can fool some of the people all of the time.

The later ‘Anderegg survey’ is perhaps the next most often cited survey, often alongside the ‘Doran Survey’, as producing a 97% figure for a consensus of climate scientists. Anderegg has also receive criticism as it seemed to be little more than a black/white document count of papers giving a percentage of numbers on each side. This of course gives no consensus on any of the above issues either. But again is often used to give the weight of authority to an argument.

An example perhaps, of this ‘use’ was by Scott Denning recently at the Yale climate forum, with a very critical response from Paul Matthews (Reader of Mathematics, Nottingham University

Scott Denning: “Let’s be clear: there is in fact an overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change. No peer-reviewed science disputes the expectation that rising CO[SUB]2[/SUB] levels will cause major climate change in the coming decades.
Survey data have shown more than 97 percent agreement among professional climate scientists (Anderegg et al, 2010, PNAS), and every major professional society has issued supporting statements. (Yale – here)
​

I raised my own concerns about the nature of the Anderegg survey (here and here), but I think Professor Paul Matthews is more to the point and eloquent than I was.

Paul Matthews: “Scott Denning needs to be more careful if he and his fellow climate scientists are to be taken seriously by scientists from other fields such as myself.
He loses credibility by referring to the ridiculous Anderegg et al study, in which the authors put scientists into two different pigeon-holes.
Worse still, he misrepresents the claims of that paper (he implies the 97% believe CO2 will cause major climate change in the coming decades, while Anderegg et al say 97% agree that most of the warming of the 20th C was very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases – two very different statements). (Yale - here)
​

At the time, Joseph Romm at Think Progress gave his own interpretation of what the Anderegg survey showed us.

“..The issue is whether folks are actively spreading disinformation, especially disinformation that has been long debunked in the scientific literature. As I’ve said for many years now, it is time for the media to stop listening to, quoting, and enabling those who spread anti-science and anti-scientist disinformation. (Think Progress)
​

It is interesting to compare the Think Progress response to the Anderegg survey to that of scientists. Dr Roger Pielke junior was very critical of the Anderegg survey (link) referring to it as a blacklist, this brought about I think a very appropriate response from Real Climate’s Dr Eric Steig (quite a contrast to Climate Progress – Joe Romm)

“Wow. Roger, you know I disagree with you on many things, but not on this. What the heck where they thinking? Even if the analysis had some validity — and from a first glance, I’m definitely not convinced it does — it’s not helpful, to put it mildly. I’m totally appalled.” (Dr Eric Steig)

​

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Great post from Anthony Watt's website about the supposed 97% of scientists that agree about AGW. I doubt very much that the zealots will take much notice though, it's like trying to talk to creationists.



http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/

Funny, I was going to say the same thing about the anti ACC crowd.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Funny, I was going to say the same thing about the anti ACC crowd.

There is a great difference though, many sceptics have a scientific background and believe in scientific proof and methodology. If is difficult to take it seriously when Mann was discredited years ago and even Hansen's supervisor has denounced him for bringing NASA into disrepute.

 

[tinfoil]

Hey, mott, why do you make the specious claim that we are anti climate change? We've explained it's the catastrophic anthropgenic component. Why do you do this?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Bump for warmers.
You guys are the people who use this argument. Come defend your religion

Look who's talking. Ya'll do your research at the Hoover Institute and the Petroleum Institute of America and you wonder why people laugh at you? You silly.

There is a consensus that human activity has impacted our climate. There is a very broad scientific consensus on the factual basis by a very large, diverse and international body of legitimate professional scientist. You're idiots if you think that scientist aren't aware of where the state of knowledge is on this topic, you're idiots if you don't think conflicting abservation and data isn't considered and what's worse is your forming your opinions based an unscientific political and ideological resources while accusing the scientific commonity of stiffling dissent.

The problem with that is when you look at the vast body of research on the subject, which granted I'm certainly no expert in, but when you do look at the vast amounts of data and peer reviewed literature supporting ACC, then you deniers come of as out on the fringe fanatics. So spare me the psychological projection. I'm capable of drawing my own conclusions and those are that a great deal more research on ACC needs to be done to establish a causal mechanism(s) before any significant public policy can be implemented, if we expect those policies to be affective.

You're rejection of sound science and the consensus as fanaticism while referencing cranks, pop science and a handfull of dissenting opinions as some sort of consipiracy theory is laughable.

As a friend and fellow scientist once said on here. "Who's opinions have more credibility? Professional climatoligist who do this for a living or a handfull of cranks and mining engineers who get their data from the Petroleum Institute of America."

Yea...there's some fanaticism and religious worship going on here but your'e the one practicing them.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Look who's talking. Ya'll do your research at the Hoover Institute and the Petroleum Institute of America and you wonder why people laugh at you? You silly.

There is a consensus that human activity has impacted our climate. There is a very broad scientific consensus on the factual basis by a very large, diverse and international body of legitimate professional scientist. You're idiots if you think that scientist aren't aware of where the state of knowledge is on this topic, you're idiots if you don't think conflicting abservation and data isn't considered and what's worse is your forming your opinions based an unscientific political and ideological resources while accusing the scientific commonity of stiffling dissent.

The problem with that is when you look at the vast body of research on the subject, which granted I'm certainly no expert in, but when you do look at the vast amounts of data and peer reviewed literature supporting ACC, then you deniers come of as out on the fringe fanatics. So spare me the psychological projection. I'm capable of drawing my own conclusions and those are that a great deal more research on ACC needs to be done to establish a causal mechanism(s) before any significant public policy can be implemented, if we expect those policies to be affective.

You're rejection of sound science and the consensus as fanaticism while referencing cranks, pop science and a handfull of dissenting opinions as some sort of consipiracy theory is laughable.

As a friend and fellow scientist once said on here. "Who's opinions have more credibility? Professional climatoligist who do this for a living or a handfull of cranks and mining engineers who get their data from the Petroleum Institute of America."

Yea...there's some fanaticism and religious worship going on here but your'e the one practicing them.

Mott, now you are turning into a polemicist and not a dispassionate observer. Explain to me why CERN is funding the CLOUD experiment? Are they all cranks and mining engineers on that project? Is James Hansen's supervisor a shill for calling him out for bringing NASA into disrepute? Are the retired NASA personnel who signed a letter cranks for saying that the science was shaky and unsound? Apparently they are bright enough to be rocket scientists yet not to be able to understand climatology graphs and stats. according to some.

 

[Rune]

Mott, now you are turning into a polemicist and not a dispassionate observer. Explain to me why CERN is funding the CLOUD experiment? Are they all cranks and mining engineers on that project? Is James Hansen's supervisor a shill for calling him out for bringing NASA into disrepute? Are the retired NASA personnel who signed a letter cranks for saying that the science was shaky and unsound? Apparently they are bright enough to be rocket scientists yet not to be able to understand climatology graphs and stats. according to some.

Impossible to consider NASA (like any other US government agency) politicised right Tom?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Look who's talking. Ya'll do your research at the Hoover Institute and the Petroleum Institute of America and you wonder why people laugh at you? You silly.

This is just the sort of nonsense a religious nut would post. You create a straw man and pretend that is what people do.

There is a consensus that human activity has impacted our climate.

yes, this consensus is from a group who gets to choose who is 'an expert' and who is not. They rule out anyone who disagrees with them.

There is a very broad scientific consensus on the factual basis by a very large, diverse and international body of legitimate professional scientist.

Are you going to quote the 'national academies of science'? Because the bulk of them have been shown to have NO climatologists on staff.

Also... tell us again... what is the actual SCIENCE that distinguishes a meteorologist from a climatologist? What additional SCIENCE courses must they take?

You're idiots if you think that scientist aren't aware of where the state of knowledge is on this topic, you're idiots if you don't think conflicting abservation and data isn't considered

ROFLMAO... you are an idiot if you think opposing views are being given legitimate consideration.

and what's worse is your forming your opinions based an unscientific political and ideological resources while accusing the scientific commonity of stiffling dissent.

ROFLMAO... it is the AGW religious zealouts that are declaring 'consensus' based on political and ideological beliefs.

The problem with that is when you look at the vast body of research on the subject, which granted I'm certainly no expert in, but when you do look at the vast amounts of data and peer reviewed literature supporting ACC, then you deniers come of as out on the fringe fanatics. So spare me the psychological projection. I'm capable of drawing my own conclusions and those are that a great deal more research on ACC needs to be done to establish a causal mechanism(s) before any significant public policy can be implemented, if we expect those policies to be affective.

LMAO... you obviously have not been paying attention. Because those computer models they use... have been shown to be wrong. The data they used... they destroyed a lot of it. The fights they continue to put forth when people request their data and formulas... yeah, they are most certainly NOT following scientific method. They are pretending to be Moses, coming down from on high with commandments that we are simply to trust are accurate. Religious zealots have nothing on the AGW worshipers.

You're rejection of sound science and the consensus as fanaticism while referencing cranks, pop science and a handfull of dissenting opinions as some sort of consipiracy theory is laughable.

Your (the correct spelling) belief that this is 'sound' science simply proves that you have no clue what you are talking about.

As a friend and fellow scientist once said on here. "Who's opinions have more credibility? Professional climatoligist who do this for a living or a handfull of cranks and mining engineers who get their data from the Petroleum Institute of America."

and when professional 'climatologists' disagree and have peer reviewed papers telling why, idiots like you dismiss them as well. Proclaiming the University they work at isn't good enough. You then go on to rant that all those that disagree get their info from the Petroleum Institute of America. Further proof that yours is simply a religious belief and most certainly not based on Science. If it was based on Science you wouldn't feel the need to create one straw man after another.

Yea...there's some fanaticism and religious worship going on here but your'e the one practicing them.

Wrong Mutt. The religious fanatic on this topic is you and your fellow AGW worshipers. Those that continue to shout consensus, despite over a decade of rising CO2 with no significant global warming to show for it. The data itself debunks your stupidity.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Mott, now you are turning into a polemicist and not a dispassionate observer. Explain to me why CERN is funding the CLOUD experiment? Are they all cranks and mining engineers on that project? Is James Hansen's supervisor a shill for calling him out for bringing NASA into disrepute? Are the retired NASA personnel who signed a letter cranks for saying that the science was shaky and unsound? Apparently they are bright enough to be rocket scientists yet not to be able to understand climatology graphs and stats. according to some.

Now ask him to tell you about the additional 'SCIENCE' classes one must take to differentiate from meteorology and 'climatology'.

When you are done laughing at the difference, feel free to mock poor little Mutt some more.

 

[Damocles]

Consensus of belief is not evidence. Seriously, scientific consensus has never proven to be an accurate predictor of truth.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Theon declared “climate models are useless.” “My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” Theon explained. “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy,” he added.

Tell us again Mutt how your AGW religious nuts are actual scientists.

Theon was elected a fellow of the American Meteorological Society, given the NASA Exceptional Performance Award twice, elected an Associate Fellow of the American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics, and awarded the AIAA's Losey Medal for contributions to airborne remote sensing. He was also awarded the Radio Wave Award by the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications of Japan for contributions to the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission -- a joint NASA-Japanese Space Agency satellite. Theon has authored or coauthored more than 50 NASA Reports, journal articles, monographs, chapters in books, and edited two books in the scientific literature.

Let me guess Mutt, somehow Theon is not going to be a credible scientist for you... right?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Award-winning NASA Astronaut and Physicist Walter Cunningham of NASA’s Apollo 7 also recently chastised Hansen. “Hansen is a political activist who spreads fear even when NASA’s own data contradict him,” Cunningham wrote in an essay in the July/August 2008 issue of Launch Magazine. “NASA should be at the forefront in the collection of scientific evidence and debunking the current hysteria over human-caused, or Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). Unfortunately, it is becoming just another agency caught up in the politics of global warming, or worse, politicized science,” Cunningham wrote.

My guess is that Cunningham is not bright enough for statistical analysis... right Mutt?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

But the credibility of these computer model predictions took a significant hit in June 2007 when Dr. Jim Renwick, a top UN IPCC scientist, admitted that climate models do not account for half the variability in nature and thus are not reliable. "Half of the variability in the climate system is not predictable, so we don’t expect to do terrifically well," Renwick conceded. (LINK)

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=84E9E44A-802A-23AD-493A-B35D0842FED8

hmmm....

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr Vincent Gray, of New Zealand, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990 and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001," declared “The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense” in an April 10, 2007 article. (LINK)

“All [UN IPCC does] is make ‘projections’ and ‘estimates’. No climate model has ever been properly tested, which is what ‘validation’ means, and their ‘projections’ are nothing more than the opinions of ‘experts’ with a conflict of interest, because they are paid to produce the models. There is no actual scientific evidence for all these ‘projections’ and ‘estimates,'” Gray noted.

That has to sting a bit...