Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.

[jem]

not that i think this matters but...

http://www.climatedepot.com/2010/12...obal-warming-claims-challenge-un-ipcc-gore-2/


SPECIAL REPORT: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – Challenge UN IPCC & Gore

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...cientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.

According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”

The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims.

The survey finds that 24 percent of the scientist respondents fit the “Nature Is Overwhelming” model. “In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.” Moreover, “they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.”

 

[jem]

and from the op.

Quote from jem:

97% claim exposed / debunked.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/...ven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/


“0.3% climate consensus, not 97.1%”

PRESS RELEASE – September 3rd, 2013


The new paper by the leading climatologist Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal, now in its 21st year of publication, reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was “dangerous”.

The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%.

Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from jem:


SPECIAL REPORT: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – Challenge UN IPCC & Gore

Oops there goes fc's nonsensical claims to the contrary.

 

[Lucrum]

As it turns out, going green comes with a hefty price tag and at least a few media outlets have noticed. In Europe, the push toward renewables in order to meet carbon emission goals has “backfired,” driving costs way up, according to Business Insider.

A recent report by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers showed that in four years, Europe’s electricity costs have “spiked” by 17 percent for individuals and 21 percent for businesses

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/#ixzz2k6bK8iv4

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from Lucrum:

No...you don't.

"You Lie!"


The founder of the weather channel does NOT agree.

What part of that do YOU not understand?

Show some proof of any science org that denys it. Do you want me to list all the ones that agree again?

The founder of the Weather Channel is an idiot right wing nut job like you. Not a scientist. So his opinion means shit.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from jem:

not that i think this matters but...

http://www.climatedepot.com/2010/12...obal-warming-claims-challenge-un-ipcc-gore-2/


SPECIAL REPORT: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – Challenge UN IPCC & Gore

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...cientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.

According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”

The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims.

The survey finds that 24 percent of the scientist respondents fit the “Nature Is Overwhelming” model. “In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.” Moreover, “they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.”

You don't learn do you? We have gone over this multiple times.

You have no desire to be truthful do you?

You are pathetic to bring up this total bullshit "survey" again.

Canadian fossil fuel workers are neither objective or qualified.

This is just more proof of what a fraud you are and how pathetic your arguments are.


American Geophysical Union

"The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system — including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons — are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century."

 

[futurecurrents]

This is what NASA says


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.

 

[jem]

Quote from futurecurrents:

This is what NASA says


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.

to about using debunked bullshit...

that was based on the now debunked cook study...

Here is the up to date info...


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/...or-math-errors/

this is the most recent peer reviewed info...


The new paper by the leading climatologist Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal, now in its 21st year of publication, reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was “dangerous”.

The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%.

Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it.

 

[jem]

Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections

Scientists in this section have made comments that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.
Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [10]
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[11]
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003), and author of books supporting the validity of dowsing[12]
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow ANU[13]
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[14]
Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [15]
Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes



Graph showing the ability with which a global climate model is able to reconstruct the historical temperature record, and the degree to which those temperature changes can be decomposed into various forcing factors. It shows the effects of five forcing factors: greenhouse gases, man-made sulfate emissions, solar variability, ozone changes, and volcanic emissions.[16]
Scientists in this section have made comments that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[17]
Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[18][19]
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[20]
Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[21]
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[22]
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[23]
William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[24]
William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University[25]
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[26]
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[27]
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[28]
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[29][30]
Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.[31]
Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[32][33]
Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo[34]
Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[35][36][37]
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[38]
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[39]
Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center[40]
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[41]
Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown

Scientists in this section have made comments that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks[42]
Claude Allègre, politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris)[43]
Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University[44]
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC[45][46]
Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory[47]
Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology[48]
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma[49]
Ivar Giaever, professor emeritus at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.[50]
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists[51]
Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences

Scientists in this section have made comments that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for human society and/or the Earth's environment. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change [52]
Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[53]
Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia[54]

 

[futurecurrents]

The American Meteorological Society


Climate is always changing. However, many of the observed changes noted above are beyond
what can be explained by the natural variability of the climate. It is clear from extensive
scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century
is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon
dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide. The most important of these
over the long term is CO2, whose concentration in the atmosphere is rising principally as a result
of fossil-fuel combustion and deforestation. While large amounts of CO2 enter and leave the
atmosphere through natural processes, these human activities are increasing the total amount in
the air and the oceans. Approximately half of the CO2 put into the atmosphere through human
activity in the past 250 years has been taken up by the ocean and terrestrial biosphere, with the
other half remaining in the atmosphere. Since long-term measurements began in the 1950s, the
atmospheric CO2 concentration has been increasing at a rate much faster than at any time in the
last 800,000 years. Having been introduced into the atmosphere it will take a thousand years for
the majority of the added atmospheric CO2 to be removed by natural processes, and some will......


http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2012climatechange.pdf