Oreskes 2004 and Peiser 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 The remaining articles in Peiser's list are editorials or letters, not peer-reviewed studies.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few abstracts explicitly reject or doubt the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) consensus which is why I have publicly withdrawn this point of my critique.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." Doran 2009 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 changeresponded 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." Anderegg 2010 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 groups. Figure 2: Distribution of the number of researchers convinced by the evidence ofanthropogenic climate change and unconvinced by the evidence with a given number of total climate publications (Anderegg 2010). Vision Prize
Well I don't doubt that Iran would like to see the US economy stunted and Zimbabwe would simply like someone to give them money that does not require a dump truck to carry but it surely has nothing to do with climate. And while I appreciate the Nicaraguan Academy of Science's vast contribution to scientific knowledge I wonder if citing such an institution doesn't detract from the point the author was trying to make, whomever he may be. You appear to be pretty much swimming upstream against the entire mainstream media which is saying literally the opposite, that high level climate scientists are projecting 20-30 years of mild cooling in our future and that people and institutions who promulgate climate fascism have done so for political purposes. That is what is out there right now seeping into the conscious of 350 million people in North America. Those people are going to want to know why they were mislead. They are going to want to know where the money went. They are going to want to know who to hold responsible. Conveniently there is an election just ahead of us.
Really? Between the two of us you're the one that has been conned by people more clever than you to do their bidding so they can make money or gain power or both. We've got a nice cooling trend for decades to come. There just isn't anyplace for you to go rhetorically from here. You can copy and paste the same charts and snarl at everyone as much as you like and it won't change the fact that you've thrown yourself into a non-issue. I read that the blue whale population has basically completely rebounded. There just isn't anything left for a misguided impassioned liberal to waste his life on these days. Without AGW you will just have to bring your anti-capitalism out in the open. Out of the closet if you will forgive the pun on your unfortunate post about boinking your brother.
lol, yes, people who want to be free and run their own lives are just tools of people like the koch bros, but people who want the elites to run things for them and spend their money for them are independent thinkers. How long are you leftards going to push that idiotic line? I rarely respond to your idiotic posts because underlying them is a stupidity that is just too great to comprehend.
Yes, it's part of the UN's "Agenda 21" initiative, asshole - at least now we know who holds your leash. Dude, you've turned out to be the biggest trolling joke on these boards ..... people aren't laughing with you they're laughing at you.
57% actually 42% think GW is exaggerated 36% think it is a threat 34% worry about GW a great deal 39% are concerned believers 25% are highly skeptical