Thank you for the polite and organized response.
1. Where do you get the 300 number? Seriously, I keep looking, and the articles keep coming back to the same few scientists. Do you have a link for the 300? This could potentially settle this particular question.
2. I am having trouble finding reliable surveys showing this "53% and dropping" number you are discussing. On this forum, for example, there was this link:
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/07/le...tists-agree-with-the-ipcc-95-certainty/#_ref1
This link parses the language over and over (lies, damn lies, and statistics) to suggest that there is a major disagreement about AGW among the scientists surveyed. There IS some disagreement, but it is all in matters of degrees of certainty and degrees of impact, NOT regarding the fundamental question of whether or not AGW is happening. The charts cited in this very study support the statement I just made.
3. While I have no doubt that there is money being wasted in some ways (and in general I am not a fan of carbon trading, though it has SOME merits), it seems to me that many of the goals you outlined (solar, wind, preservation, water protection, etc.) are perfectly in line with the goals of most scientists and activists engaged in stopping AGW. Having a hard time seeing the conflict here, perhaps you can elucidate.
Thanks!
Let's explore points 1 and 2 further...
Your first point was about the Cook survey... let's take a deeper look... The heads of the climate departments at Georgia Tech (Curry) and M.I.T. (Hilst) have stated unequivocally that the Cook survey undermines Climate Science. Dr. Judith Curry has been very vocal in her dismissal of this report.
The Cook report and the marketing of 97% Consensus (as outlined in the leaked SkS emails) coupled with deliberately organized attempts to destroy & fire scientists who in any way disagree with AGW shows how "climate change" is merely a political subject and no longer a science. The science involved in "climate change" has been reduced to pure political driven alchemy - this is sad for both sides of the discussion.
This has led to leading scientific universities to no longer taking on any AGW focused studies or grants in an attempt to avoid political backlash of any type that would jeopardize other funding.
The Cook survey claim of a 97% consensus is immediately busted by the mere 8 scientists I provided earlier. Removing their papers from the supporting AGW column reduces the total support to below 97% - making the 97% claim and associated consensus campaign meaningless (BTW – it is already meaningless… just as much as any consensus campaign in year 1400 claiming the world is flat).
The most immediate problem with the Cook survey is the methodology. There are numerous papers that explore the flaws in the depth.
Tol statistically deconstructs the 97% Consensus
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/01/tol-statistically-deconstructs-the-97-consensus/
Tol noted –
“3167 abstracts (out of 11944) were demonstrably misclassified. 99.4% of those were rated as endorsements."
Friends of Science demonstrated that
Only 65 Scientists of 12,000 Make up Alleged 97% on Climate Change and Global Warming Consensus According to Breakdown of Cook et al study -
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/5/prweb10772757.htm
Let’s just touch on a few of the hundreds of mis-classified papers as outlined by Tol and others in the Cook survey…
“Atmospheric Methane – Its Contribution To Global Warming,Applied Energy,Badr| O; Probert| Sd; Ocallaghan| Pw,2,2”
Used as proof of AGW, but counters the CO2 theory, as methane is the problem.
“Global Warming And The Growth Of Ice Sheets,Climate Dynamics,Ledley| Ts; Chu| Sp,2,3”
Ice sheets growing, counters the catatastrophic consequences claim.
“Varying Boreal Forest Response To Arctic Environmental Change At The Firth River| Alaska,Environmental Research Letters,Andreu-hayles| L; D’arrigo| R; Anchukaitis| Kj; Beck| Psa; Frank| D; Goetz| S,2,”
Evergreen trees at the edge of Alaska’s tundra are growing faster, suggesting that at least some forests may be adapting to a rapidly warming climate, says a new study, counters the catastrophic theory.
It is amusing to note that Cook classified Dr. Soon's papers (who deeply opposes AGW theory) as supporting the "consensus".
Of course there are many articles outlining the numerous flaws involving methodology in the Cook survey.
Cooking Climate Consensus Data: “97% of Scientists Affirm AGW" Debunked
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/...sus-data-97-of-scientists-affirm-agw-debunked
One your earlier points focused on the Legates report. The real intent of the Legates report was to make a mockery of the extremely poor scientific method used to generate the Cook report. The Legates report was very successful of using the mirror scientific method to come out with the exact opposite result.
The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/05/wsj-myth-of-climate-change-97-what-is.html
“Mr. Cook's work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found "only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse" the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.”
Of course an in-depth deconstruction of report will state Cook's survey not only meaningless but also misleading; fails to mention they found more papers rejecting AGW than say humans are primarily responsible
Cooking the books: John Cook's new survey is not only meaningless, but is also highly misleading because it fails to mention that they found more scientific publications whose abstracts reject global warming than say humans are primarily responsible! Only 65 out of a total of 12,271 abstracts endorsed the position that man is primarily responsible for climate change. That would indicate a 0.5% non-consensus on man-made global warming.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/05/cooks-survey-not-only-meaningless-but.html
Your second point focused on the consensus... There are numerous surveys which demonstrate there is no 97% consensus among scientists in regards to AGW. Some of the these surveys have already been posted to this forum, and here are some others. The only consensus which is clear is as more evidence and data are put forward the consensus over AGW is eroding year after year.
New Study: Majority of Climate Scientists Don’t Agree with ‘Consensus’
‘Nearly six in ten climate scientists don’t adhere to the so-called “consensus” on man-made climate change, a new study by the Dutch government has found.’
http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/fil...ence-survey-questions-and-responses_01731.pdf
http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...climate-scientists-dont-agree-with-consensus/
Only 50% Of Scientists Blame Mankind for Climate Change In New Study
‘More shocking was that just 53 percent of climatologists surveyed thought “Climate change is occurring, and it is caused mostly by human activities.” While that number of climatologists was small, the result is still significant.
This evidence is inconvenient to the many media outlets that have endlessly repeated that 97 percent of scientists endorse the global warming hypothesis.’
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/sean-l...ntists-blame-mankind-climate-change-new-study
Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.
http://www.climatechangecommunicati...-global-warming-preliminary-findings-february
Of course the recent IPCC report has been ridiculed even more than the Cook report…
Top Scientists Slam and Ridicule UN IPCC Climate Report
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/...tists-slam-and-ridicule-un-ipcc-climate-repor
‘In another commentary about the report, Dr. Curry said it was time to shut down the whole IPCC. “The diagnosis of paradigm paralysis seems fatal in the case of the IPCC, given the widespread nature of the infection and intrinsic motivated reasoning,” she explained. “We need to put down the IPCC as soon as possible — not to protect the patient who seems to be thriving in its own little cocoon, but for the sake of the rest of us whom it is trying to infect with its disease. Fortunately much of the population seems to be immune, but some governments seem highly susceptible to the disease. However, the precautionary principle demands that we not take any risks here, and hence the IPCC should be put down.”’
The bottom line is that the “percentage consensus” circus has nothing to do with the reality in regards to climate change. The politically driven consensus nonsense has no purpose in the scientific research world that should be driven by scientific results that have integrity using data that has not been “adjusted”.
