There still seems to be some lingering confusion about this so I thought I should de-confuse some folks. So I'll be putting up all the studies and evidence that proves the 97%. I'm not going to put it all up at once, because frankly, it's just too much to do all at once. But we'll start here... 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 The remaining articles in Peiser's list are editorials or letters, not peer-reviewed studies.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few abstracts explicitly reject or doubt the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) consensus which is why I have publicly withdrawn this point of my critique.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."
More from Oreskes on this study Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8). The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords âclimate changeâ (9). The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point. This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect. The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it. Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full#
we cover this on the other thread .... only 41 of 14000 papers support your consensus. you are arguing nonsense.
OK, so Oreskes study found in 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. Subsequent research by a different author 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 masterâs 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 change responded yes. As the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures. So, we're up to two independent studies showing 97% consensus. More to follow.....
Turkmenistan's President Re-elected With 97% of Vote www.nytimes.com/.../berdymukhammedov-re-elect...â The New York Times Feb 13, 2012 - âFor a dictator, calling an election, even one that the dictator intends to rig, ... with the headline: Turkmenistan's President Wins 97% of Vote. Assad wins 97.6% of vote en route to re-election victory Israel News ... www.haaretz.com/.../assad-wins-97-6-of-vote-en-route-to-re-elec...â Haaretz May 29, 2007 - Syrian President Bashar Assad won 97.62 percent of the vote Mussolini's Dictatorship - History Learning Site www.historylearningsite.co.uk ⺠... ⺠Italy 1900 to 1939â Mussolini?s road to a dictatorship took much longer than Hitler?s in 1933. ... Now if one party got just 25% (or more) of the votes cast in an election, they would ... of the electorate voted for the list and in 1934, this figure had increased to 97%.
more misrepresentation from you... there were far more than 77 "climate" scientists in the survey. those 77 were a virtually hand selected for distortion list of 77 of agw nutters published in pro agw nutter journals. it would be like sending out a survey to 14000 clerics of all faiths... then selecting only ones published in pro muslim journals and saying 97% of clerics believe Mohammad was a prophet of God because 75 out of 77 of the clerics were published in the pro muslim journals state that.