Do you believe the 97% consensus among scientists?

[Keepitsimple]

I didn't look at that study.

It's what this whole topic is based on - it's what the National Post article (among others) is referring to - which peels away the "summary veneer" and spells out how it was arrived at.

[Moonlight Graham]

If that survey is actually loaded with bias, so is the National/Financial Post and the person writing that op-ed (founder for a think-tank that is known "as a subsidized free-market lobbyist for fossil fuels"), so I'm certainly not going to take his/their word for it.

There are lots of academic research studies that have used surveys of climate-related scientists to gauge opinion on what scientists believe about climate change. Here's a list of some of the major studies via wikipedia.

Edit: Accountability Now already posted the bar graph summarizing the studies.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Moonlight Graham

[TimG]

There are lots of academic research studies that have used surveys of climate-related scientists to gauge opinion on what scientists believe about climate change.

Of course these studies are reported in ways designed to deceive people. The question we care about is not whether the climate is changing but if we should care. From Farnsworth and Lichter, 2011

When [survey participants were] asked to rate the effects on a ten-point scale from trivial (1) to catastrophic (10), the mean response was 6.6, with 41% seeing great danger (ratings of 8-10), 44% moderate danger (4-7), and 13% little danger.”

http://journalistsresource.org/studies/environment/climate-change/structure-scientific-opinion-climate-change/

So *only* 41% of scientists see a great danger. Another 44% see moderate danger and a 13% see little danger.

IOW - there is NO consensus on the premise that AGW is a clear and present danger that requires immediate and drastic actions. Yet that is what the lying alarmists try to imply whenever they quote these surveys.

Edited February 27, 2014 by TimG

[Moonlight Graham]

Of course these studies are reported in ways designed to deceive people.

If by "reported" you mean in the media, then yes we agree on that for sure. Every side of the debate spins/cherry-picks these types of studies to suit their agenda, and it's sickening.

The question we care about is not whether the climate is change but if we should care.

Well there seems to be a consensus that recent (ie: last century or so) of global warming has been caused largely due to human activity, but a lot of people still don't believe this, so I still think it's an important question. But yes, now the more important question is what you say, should we care? What should be done about it? Or nothing at all?

From Farnsworth and Lichter, 2011

http://journalistsresource.org/studies/environment/climate-change/structure-scientific-opinion-climate-change/

So *only* 41% of scientists see a great danger. Another 44% see moderate danger and a 13% see little danger.

IOW - there is NO consensus on the premise that AGW is a clear and present danger that requires immediate and drastic actions. Yet that is what the lying alarmists try to imply whenever they quote these surveys.

You're right in that there doesn't seem to be a consensus about the future effects of climate change, and that's understandable since predicting future climate, and what will result from it, is extremely hard if not impossible. There's no consensus for doomsday scenarios it seems, and alarmist who trot these things out there as given are often using them to appeal to our emotions to support an activist agenda. Then again, from that study, 85% of scientists see "great to moderate danger" from AGW in the future, which is something to be concerned about IMO. Wondering what you think humans should do about AGW, if anything?

[TimG]

Then again, from that study, 85% of scientists see "great to moderate danger" from AGW in the future, which is something to be concerned about IMO. Wondering what you think humans should do about AGW, if anything?

If there was a cost effective alternative to CO2 emissions I would say use it even given the uncertainties. The trouble is there are no cost effective alternatives today nor are any likely to appear in the next 20 years.

To make matters worse activists have used AGW as an excuse to introduce all kinds of dubious programs that do nothing other than make well connected rent seekers very wealthy while raising the cost of living for the average person. Because of this I simply do not trust government officials to make intelligent decisions so I think it has to be left to free market. If governments get involved it should be in funding R&D into new energy sources. No mandates, targets or any other make work programs for political cronies.

That said, I am not opposed to a carbon tax in principle but it depends on the implementation details.

Edited February 27, 2014 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

That's what scientist's always do, didn't you know that already? They lie about their findings, and point us in the wrong direction.Apparently, (and I have this from good scientific sources) when Niel Armstrong and crew went to the moon, they had to make a 90 degree left turn at jupiter because the scientists had faked the map of where it actually was. Good thing they had enough gas.

[TimG]

---

Edited February 27, 2014 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

---

I didn't realize the IPCC was run by fanatics?!

[Michael Hardner]

It's what this whole topic is based on - it's what the National Post article (among others) is referring to - which peels away the "summary veneer" and spells out how it was arrived at.

I went back to the links to remember why it was I didn't read them, and they link to OPINION pieces by Lawrence Solomon, who is a noted misinformer on the topic of climate change, stating as recently as 2011 that cosmic rays are the cause. The study in question may indeed be flawed, but it's ridiculous to take a rigorous look at a study through the eyes of somebody like him.

[PIK]

Not a serious response.

Actually it is michael, if you have paid attention to the BS people that don't quite believe about what is going on go thru, then you would understand.

[Michael Hardner]

Actually it is michael, if you have paid attention to the BS people that don't quite believe about what is going on go thru, then you would understand.

Can you give me an example, by somebody who is credible ? Some specific examples I mean.

[Accountability Now]

I assume this is as good of a place as any to bring this article up:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/26/greenpeace-co-founder-says-no-scientific-proof-hum/

Apparently one of the co-founders of Greenpeace has come out to say that the global warming we are seeing is not human induced. With that being said, I bring up the obvious:

1. I had a hard time finding this story on anything other than blogs, right wing or AGW skeptic sites

2. Greenpeace has a page dedicated to Patrick Moore stating that he was not a co-founder and that he is a spokesperson for nuclear energy.

3. He suggests that the global warming we are seeing is actually a good thing...something that a MLW member previously suggested (can't remeber his full screenname....I think its -1=e^ipi)

I trust this isn't earth shattering news but I do think it just goes to show the various agendas at play.

[Michael Hardner]

Apparently one of the co-founders of Greenpeace has come out to say that the global warming we are seeing is not human induced. With that being said, I bring up the obvious:

1. I had a hard time finding this story on anything other than blogs, right wing or AGW skeptic sites

2. Greenpeace has a page dedicated to Patrick Moore stating that he was not a co-founder and that he is a spokesperson for nuclear energy.

3. He suggests that the global warming we are seeing is actually a good thing...something that a MLW member previously suggested (can't remeber his full screenname....I think its -1=e^ipi)

I trust this isn't earth shattering news but I do think it just goes to show the various agendas at play.

You're right, not earth shattering. I think what this shows is that we need to reaffirm a process that all sides can subscribe to, in order to assess problems and to prioritize and strategize responses/non-responses.

"The" public is the model we use to assess such things. You may note that I tend to put "the" in quotes because "the" public as it exists today with its relationship to government does not work according to the way democracy was designed.

[PIK]

Can you give me an example, by somebody who is credible ? Some specific examples I mean.

How about constant attacks on thier credibility, and mike you are just playing stupid, if you can not figure that out.You seem like a smart man and you don't see this stuff.

[Accountability Now]

You're right, not earth shattering. I think what this shows is that we need to reaffirm a process that all sides can subscribe to, in order to assess problems and to prioritize and strategize responses/non-responses.

It sounds like you are suggesting a uptopia-like situation though. Again...we are in this situation because agendas are created from the influence of money and power. How do you create a system void of agenda when it takes money and power to finance these things in the first place?

[Michael Hardner]

How about constant attacks on thier credibility, and mike you are just playing stupid, if you can not figure that out.Y

Sorry, but I have read some pretty amazing things and have been fooled myself more than a few times. I don't accept the 'common wisdom' if I'm alert.

[Michael Hardner]

It sounds like you are suggesting a uptopia-like situation though. Again...we are in this situation because agendas are created from the influence of money and power. How do you create a system void of agenda when it takes money and power to finance these things in the first place?

Not at all. The system was designed for publics, so it happened once. Over time these things settle in, but in times of communications change power changes too. You can't eliminate the effects of money and power, you can only mitigate them... but you can mitigate them.

[jbg]

Tells me that 97% know where the money is and 3% have the courage to question what is going on.

I second that. The skeptics don't get their fair share of funding.

[Michael Hardner]

I second that. The skeptics don't get their fair share of funding.

Well, those who would benefit from putting off action on climate change have wisely chosen to invest in hackers and publicity agents, it seems. It makes sense, since it would be impossible to spend enough money to change the data. If it was that easy to influence people, then it would be easier for industry to do it than it is.

[eyeball]

It should be easy to bribe scientists to fudge the data given how venal and corrupt they're said to be, especially climatologists and any involved in environmental or social studies.

The more dangerous and insidious thing that has happened is that scientists appear to be going the way of other experts in increasingly reviled institutions, like government, law and religion. The defamation of scientists is resulting in the defamation of science itself and causing people to tune it out and become more prone to being annoyed and hostile when it's prescriptions intrude into their lives.

In the new ignorant and denuded dark age we're steering towards scientists will be blamed for the dismal state of existence people's lives have become. Scientists will be burned at the stake for the same reason witches were. The politicians, priests and of course the lawyers will probably somehow manage to dodge that bullet, like they always do.

​I wonder what Shakespeare would have said about all the economists? I say we use them as the kindling.

Edited February 28, 2014 by eyeball

[Accountability Now]

but you can mitigate them.

How?

[jbg]

Well, those who would benefit from putting off action on climate change have wisely chosen to invest in hackers and publicity agents, it seems. It makes sense, since it would be impossible to spend enough money to change the data. If it was that easy to influence people, then it would be easier for industry to do it than it is.

The whole panic about "global warming" started after a series of hot summers in the heavily populated U.S. Northeast. Those were the summers of 1987 and 1988. New York City exceeded 90F (about 32.2 C) about 27 times during 1987, or about 50% above the normal number of 18. 1988 was hotter, with about 35 such days. The winters during this period were also relatively toast.1986-7 had a couple of snowstorms in late January but otherwise was mild. 1987-8 had even less in the way of snow, but a bit more cold weather. Still a featureless winter. Ditto 1988-9, 1989-90 (with the exception of one notable cold spell from late November to late December), 1990-1 and 1991-2. The mildness of the weather, combined with the relatively hot summers of 1987, 1988, 1991 and 1993 fueled the concern.

Back then, global warming alarmists didn't hesitate to argue that "weather" was interlocked with "climate." Now, when we have had a barrage of very snowy winters (1993-4, 1995-6, 2000-1, 2002-3, 2003-4, 2004-5, 2005-6, 2008-9, 2009-10, 2010-1, 2013-4) and a few notably cold ones (1993-4, 2003-4 and of course 2013-4) the same people refuse to look at "weather" saying "weather" and "climate" are not the same. But the research dollars were already rolling.

One would think that industry could sponsor research going the other way. They know that the corporate sources of funding would undermine the legitimacy of the work. Thus, "science" is more than a bit biased.

[Black Dog]

I second that. The skeptics don't get their fair share of funding.

Yeah, I'm sure Greenpeace and other environmental NGOs have all kinds of money to throw around that ExxonMobil, BP et al simply can't match.

Edited February 28, 2014 by Black Dog

[TimG]

Yeah, I'm sure Greenpeace and other environmental NGOs have all kinds of money to throw around that ExxonMobil, BP et al simply can't match.

ExxonMobil can't get its managers selected as IPPC report authors nor can it get its press releases quoted as supporting documents for IPCC reports. Corruption is not always about money - it is often more about connections.

[waldo]

I remember posting this back in 2011 - but it's always good to refresh people's minds.....since this claim is trotted out time and time again.

That "97%" claim is significant, not for what it what it reveals about the science of climate change, but for what it reveals about the Climate Movement:

Ask yourself how and why the 97% number can STILL be used with a straight face? It should be infuriating to anyone who values science and the search for truth.

you simply reference the same suspect 'Lawrence Solomon' article you linked/referenced in your initial 2011 thread... why not just resurrect the same thread?

do you have a consensus figure for your fake-skeptic side... one that you're not "infuriated" with?