With something as obvious and extensive as the science and data about AGW, yes I would expect such consensus.
Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.
- Thread starter jem
- Start date
With something as obvious and extensive as the science and data about AGW, yes I would expect such consensus.
We have already established that 97% is a fabricated figure from the Doran survey (a mere 75 of of 77 selected people of the 3000+ respondents), and that all the surveys performed of scientists in 2012 / 2013 show far lower percentages supporting AGW.
And you are fucking wrong dipshit. Period. Wrong. Delusional. Mistaken.
Repeat after me....multiple studies have confirmed it NOT JUST DORAN.......asshole.
Quote from gwb-trading:
Hey asshole. Do I need to quote Exxon, BP , American Geophysical Union and the Geological Society of America again? You and jem must be the same fucked up person. There really can't be two different people that are so fucking stupid.
BTW, What happened to pisspoor? Did jerm get tired of playing him?
However we do still have some hold-outs with these guys. I wonder why.
American Association of Petroleum Geologists
In 2006 the AAPG was criticized for selecting Michael Crichton for their Journalism Award for Jurassic Park and "for his recent science-based thriller State of Fear", in which Crichton exposed his skeptical view of global warming.[5] Daniel P. Schrag, a geochemist who directs the Harvard University Center for the Environment, called the award "a total embarrassment" that he said "reflects the politics of the oil industry and a lack of professionalism" on the association's part.[6] The AAPG's award for journalism lauded "notable journalistic achievement, in any medium, which contributes to public understanding of geology, energy resources or the technology of oil and gas exploration." The name of the journalism award has since been changed to the "Geosciences in the Media" Award.[7]
The criticism drew attention to the AAPG's 1999 position statement[8] formally rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate. The Council of the American Quaternary Association wrote in a criticism of the award that the "AAPG stands alone among scientific societies in its denial of human-induced effects on global warming."[9]
As recently as March 2007, articles in the newsletter of the AAPG Division of Professional Affairs stated that "the data does not support human activity as the cause of global warming"[10] and characterize the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports as "wildly distorted and politicized."[11]
2007 AAPG revised position[edit]
Acknowledging that the association's previous policy statement on Climate Change was "not supported by a significant number of our members and prospective members",[12] AAPG's formal stance was reviewed and changed in July 2007.
The new statement formally accepts human activity as at least one contributor to carbon dioxide increase, but does not confirm its link to climate change, saying its members are "divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has" on climate. AAPG also stated support for "research to narrow probabilistic ranges on the effect of anthropogenic CO2 on global climate."[13]
AAPG also withdrew its earlier criticism of other scientific organizations and research stating, "Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming trend will continue, as reported through NAS, AGU, AAAS, and AMS. AAPG respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data. These data do not necessarily support the maximum case scenarios forecast in some models."
American Association of Petroleum Geologists
In 2006 the AAPG was criticized for selecting Michael Crichton for their Journalism Award for Jurassic Park and "for his recent science-based thriller State of Fear", in which Crichton exposed his skeptical view of global warming.[5] Daniel P. Schrag, a geochemist who directs the Harvard University Center for the Environment, called the award "a total embarrassment" that he said "reflects the politics of the oil industry and a lack of professionalism" on the association's part.[6] The AAPG's award for journalism lauded "notable journalistic achievement, in any medium, which contributes to public understanding of geology, energy resources or the technology of oil and gas exploration." The name of the journalism award has since been changed to the "Geosciences in the Media" Award.[7]
The criticism drew attention to the AAPG's 1999 position statement[8] formally rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate. The Council of the American Quaternary Association wrote in a criticism of the award that the "AAPG stands alone among scientific societies in its denial of human-induced effects on global warming."[9]
As recently as March 2007, articles in the newsletter of the AAPG Division of Professional Affairs stated that "the data does not support human activity as the cause of global warming"[10] and characterize the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports as "wildly distorted and politicized."[11]
2007 AAPG revised position[edit]
Acknowledging that the association's previous policy statement on Climate Change was "not supported by a significant number of our members and prospective members",[12] AAPG's formal stance was reviewed and changed in July 2007.
The new statement formally accepts human activity as at least one contributor to carbon dioxide increase, but does not confirm its link to climate change, saying its members are "divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has" on climate. AAPG also stated support for "research to narrow probabilistic ranges on the effect of anthropogenic CO2 on global climate."[13]
AAPG also withdrew its earlier criticism of other scientific organizations and research stating, "Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming trend will continue, as reported through NAS, AGU, AAAS, and AMS. AAPG respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data. These data do not necessarily support the maximum case scenarios forecast in some models."
OK - post the other SURVEYS showing that 97% of of scientists support AGW. Please provide links to the surveys and their published results.
And hopefully you understand the different between a SURVEY and a study of paper abstracts.
Start here. Go slowly. Watch the videos. Then go to intermediate and advanced. Then tell me that among the top specialist climatologists it is not 97% consensus.
But you will deny it or throw up some bullshit instead of admitting the essential truth.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-basic.htm