You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.
- Thread starter jem
- Start date
Quote from jem:
My unscientific reading of the recent reviews of the surveys which categorized the papers -- breaks it down to about this...
The number who say man is causing part of the warming seems to be somewhere from 35 % to 50%.
The number who say we do not know seems to go from 35% to well north of 70%.
Very few papers are concluding man made co2 is causing warming.
That could be about .3%.
This is quite correct and the actual reality.
Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Quote from gwb-trading:
This is quite correct and the actual reality.
I did note one article that asked scientists if they thought ALL recent warming was the result of Man's activities, and that percentage is low. Have to compare responses to the same question.Quote from stu:
Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Futurecurrents... I mean stu...
that is the stat that was just shown to be complete garbage by a peer reviewed paper.
that is the stat that was just shown to be complete garbage by a peer reviewed paper.
Quote from stu:
Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
Fair enough but, isn't that rather like posing an ill-thought out (or intentionally loaded) question which will give a skewed response? Why would scientists think SOME recent warming could not be natural?Quote from Ricter:
I did note one article that asked scientists if they thought ALL recent warming was the result of Man's activities, and that percentage is low. Have to compare responses to the same question.
Quote from jem:
Futurecurrents... I mean stu...
that is the stat that was just shown to be complete garbage by a peer reviewed paper.
gwb-trading ...or should I say resjudicata....or do I mean jem...
There is no good reason to presume stats - continually and overwhelmingly endorsed by the scientific community at large - are going to be less reliable than a claim made by an obviously questionable and dissenting view from someone who makes an absurd claim of 0.3% to grab a headline.
You chase anything that fits the one sided denier agenda.
Peer reviewed paper?
What's far more compelling is how at least half the papers published every month through the Institute of Physics accept AGW as a fact.
AGW is a fact. Because some estimates or forecasts are not exact, and governments want to exploit any opportunity to tax or control AGW, and there are those who can make money from being skeptics of AGW jumping all over anything they can make controversial, does not make AGW false. Those are political causes not scientific information.
1. What a bunch if shit -- its as if you just stated the the institute of UFOs just published an article saying 97% of people getting paid to do UFO research believe there may be UFOs.
The IOP essentially published the now very dubious study by cook.
http://www.iop.org/news/13/may/page_60200.html
From the IOPs website...
"The study is the most comprehensive yet and identified 4000 summaries, otherwise known as abstracts, from papers published in the past 21 years that stated a position on the cause of recent global warming â 97 per cent of these endorsed the consensus that we are seeing man-made, or anthropogenic, global warming (AGW)
Led by John Cook at the University of Queensland, the study has been published today, Thursday 16 May, in IOP Publishingâs journal Environmental Research Letters."
2. I let et know res judicata was jem on my work machine.
you are not the original STU.
you have had sock puppets.
are you stating you have used or have any influence over futurecurrents?
3. If agw were a fact... you surely could present some of these papers which show man made co2 are causing temps to go up.
perhaps you want to present some of the 50% of the IOP papers... to us. lets see some recent science...
a paper written in the last few years which takes into account the pause in temps even though co2 has more than doubled.
the recent science is showing the tides, the sun and aerosols have an effect. I have seen no recent papers saying man made co2 does squat.
The IOP essentially published the now very dubious study by cook.
http://www.iop.org/news/13/may/page_60200.html
From the IOPs website...
"The study is the most comprehensive yet and identified 4000 summaries, otherwise known as abstracts, from papers published in the past 21 years that stated a position on the cause of recent global warming â 97 per cent of these endorsed the consensus that we are seeing man-made, or anthropogenic, global warming (AGW)
Led by John Cook at the University of Queensland, the study has been published today, Thursday 16 May, in IOP Publishingâs journal Environmental Research Letters."
2. I let et know res judicata was jem on my work machine.
you are not the original STU.
you have had sock puppets.
are you stating you have used or have any influence over futurecurrents?
3. If agw were a fact... you surely could present some of these papers which show man made co2 are causing temps to go up.
perhaps you want to present some of the 50% of the IOP papers... to us. lets see some recent science...
a paper written in the last few years which takes into account the pause in temps even though co2 has more than doubled.
the recent science is showing the tides, the sun and aerosols have an effect. I have seen no recent papers saying man made co2 does squat.
Quote from stu:
gwb-trading ...or should I say resjudicata....or do I mean jem...
There is no good reason to presume stats - continually and overwhelmingly endorsed by the scientific community at large - are going to be less reliable than a claim made by an obviously questionable and dissenting view from someone who makes an absurd claim of 0.3% to grab a headline.
You chase anything that fits the one sided denier agenda.
Peer reviewed paper?
What's far more compelling is how at least half the papers published every month through the Institute of Physics accept AGW as a fact.
AGW is a fact. Because some estimates or forecasts are not exact, and governments want to exploit any opportunity to tax or control AGW, and there are those who can make money from being skeptics of AGW jumping all over anything they can make controversial, does not make AGW false. Those are political causes not scientific information.
Quote from stu:
AGW is a fact. Because some estimates or forecasts are not exact, and governments want to exploit any opportunity to tax or control AGW, and there are those who can make money from being skeptics of AGW jumping all over anything they can make controversial, does not make AGW false. Those are political causes not scientific information.
AGW is NOT a fact. There is considerable doubt about the man-made global warming theory that increases each year across the scientific community of experts. As outlined by people in this forum - AGW has been driven by over $4B in grants every year in the U.S. for research which has made many university staff 'toe-the-line'. However the AGW claims are now completely falling apart - there is no 'hockey stick', global warming has paused for 16 years, all the models have failed drastically, and all the dire predictions are not coming true. In 2013 we have seen a large number of scientists and universities back away from AGW claims - most of them sick to have been completely duped and left open to certain allegations of research fraud & abuse in upcoming years.
You ask if there is 'climate change' Yes, there is. It is natural and has occurred for thousands of years in cycles. Research money would be better spent on how mankind should deal with natural climate change (e.g. building codes, food diversification, etc.) than trying to push the theory that eliminating CO2 emissions will change the world-wide climate & magically 'save mankind'.
Quote from stu:
Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
The only survey that provided a 97% figure is the Doran survey which showed that 75 of 77 self-proclaimed 'climatogists' believed in AGW. There is no other source for this over-hyped figure from global warming promoters. Of course Doran had to ignored the other 3000+ people who responded to the survey to create 97% figure.
The recent surveys in 2013 show under 50% of scientists support AGW.