97 percent myth

[Robert W]

There is a well known myth called the 97 percent myth that falsely claims 97 percent of climate scientists put the blame on the backs of humans for climate changing.

We call bullshit on that claim.

Putting the 'con' in consensus; Not only is there no 97 per cent consensus among climate scientists, many misunderstand core issues: op-ed

In the lead-up to the Paris climate summit, massive activist pressure is on all governments, especially Canada’s, to fall in line with the global warming agenda and accept emission targets that could seriously harm our economy.

www.fraserinstitute.org

Appeared in the Financial Post, May 2015
In the lead-up to the Paris climate summit, massive activist pressure is on all governments, especially Canada’s, to fall in line with the global warming agenda and accept emission targets that could seriously harm our economy. One of the most powerful rhetorical weapons being deployed is the claim that 97 per cent of the world’s scientists agree what the problem is and what we have to do about it. In the face of such near-unanimity, it would be understandable if Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Canadian government were simply to capitulate and throw Canada’s economy under the climate change bandwagon. But it would be a tragedy because the 97 per cent claim is a fabrication.
Like so much else in the climate change debate, one needs to check the numbers. First of all, on what exactly are 97 per cent of experts supposed to agree? In 2013, U.S. President Barack Obama sent out a tweet claiming 97 per cent of climate experts believe global warming is “real, man-made and dangerous.” As it turns out, the survey he was referring to didn’t ask that question, so he was basically making it up. At a recent debate in New Orleans, I heard climate activist Bill McKibben claim there was a consensus that greenhouse gases are “a grave danger.” But when challenged for the source of his claim, he promptly withdrew it.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change asserts the conclusion that most (more than 50 per cent) of the post-1950 global warming is due to human activity, chiefly greenhouse gas emissions and land use change. But it does not survey its own contributors, let alone anyone else, so we do not know how many experts agree with it. And the statement, even if true, does not imply that we face a crisis requiring massive restructuring of the worldwide economy. In fact, it is consistent with the view that the benefits of fossil fuel use greatly outweigh the climate-related costs.
One commonly cited survey asked if carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and human activities contribute to climate change. But these are trivial statements that even many IPCC skeptics agree with. And again, both statements are consistent with the view that climate change is harmless. So there are no policy implications of such surveys, regardless of the level of agreement.

 

[jackflash]

The real agenda of the so called glow-ball warming/chump change marxists is already well known. The statist left is now left with no smoke & mirrors or camoflage to mask their real intent to form a one world g'ment without borders scam.

 

[Crick]

I can't believe this has to be posted AGAIN

Surveys of scientists' views on climate change​

Surveys of scientists' views on climate change – with a focus on human-caused or anthropogenic global warming (AGW) – have been undertaken since the 1970s.[30][31] A 2016 paper (which was co-authored by Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton and John Cook, and which was based on a half a dozen independent studies by the authors) concluded that "the finding of 97% consensus [that humans are causing recent global warming] in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies."[85] A 2019 study found scientific consensus to be at 100%,[3] and a 2021 study found that consensus exceeded 99%.[4]

1970s​

This figure shows how a more modern (early 2000s) climate model represents the different factors which increase (greenhouse gases, solar variation) and decrease (anthropogenic and volcanic sulfur dioxide emissions) the global temperatures, and compares its total with the historical temperature record. In the 1970s, these factors were less well-understood, and some scientists thought volcanic activity would have a stronger cooling effect than what we know now.
In 1978, the National Defense University of the United States had surveyed 24 experts about the near-term climate change and its effects on agriculture. The majority of respondents had expected some warming to occur between 1970 and 2000, and described human emissions of carbon dioxide as the primary cause, but there was a disagreement on the extent, and a few had thought that an increase in volcanic activity would offset carbon dioxide emissions by elevating atmospheric sulfate concentrations (which have a reflective effect, also associated with global dimming, and with some solar geoengineering proposals) and result in overall cooling. When NDU had combined their predictions, they estimated a 10% likelihood of large (~0.6 °C (1.1 °F)) cooling occurring by 2000, a 25% likelihood of smaller cooling around 0.15 °C (0.27 °F), a 30% likelihood of limited change, with around 0.1 °C (0.18 °F) warming, a 25% likelihood of "moderate" warming of ~0.4 °C (0.72 °F), and a 10% likelihood of large warming of around 1 °C (1.8 °F).[30] Subsequently, about 0.5 °C (0.90 °F) had occurred between 1950 and 2000, with about 0.4 °C (0.72 °F) since 1970,[86] largely matching the survey's "moderate global warming" scenario.

1980s​

In 1989, David H. Slade had surveyed 21 climate scientists, of whom 17 had expressed "a strong belief" in "the reality of a significant climate change".[87][31]

1990s​

In March 1990, Cutter Information Corporation (now known as Cutter Consortium) had had sent questionnaires to 1500 researchers which had been on the attendance lists of climate change conferences and received 331 responses from 41 countries. The survey revealed widespread agreement that global warming is already happening, that it will result in negative impacts such as sea level rise, and that reducing carbon dioxide emissions and halting deforestation is an appropriate response to it. Only 1.9% of respondents predicted that there would be an overall cooling across the next 100 years. There was more disagreement on the strength of future warming: i.e. around 30% believed that there was a less than 50% chance that the warming would reach or exceed 2 °C (3.6 °F) over the next 100 years, while a larger fraction (almost 40%) thought such temperatures were at least 75% likely.[88][31]

In 1991, the Center for Science, Technology, and Media sent a survey of 6 questions to around 4000 ocean and atmospheric scientists from 45 countries, and received 118 responses by January 1992, with 91% from North America. Out of those 118 scientists, 73 have either agreed or "strongly" agreed with the statement "There is little doubt among scientists that global mean temperature will increase", while 27 had disagreed and only 9 had "strongly disagreed", with the remaining 9 "neutral". Similarly, 67 scientists rejected the idea that the scientific consensus was narrow and limited to a few points, and only 38 had agreed. 58 scientists had agreed that the effects of climate change are expected to be "substantial" by the scientific community as a whole, with 36 disagreeing and 21 staying neutral. Further, only 21 scientists had expressed any agreement with the suggestion that "a delay in taking action is the proper policy". Finally, when asked about the 1990 IPCC estimate of warming proceeding at 0.3 °F (0.17 °C) per decade throughout the 21st century under the business-as-usual climate change scenario, 13 (15%) expressed skepticism, 39 (44%) had emphasized uncertainty, and 37 (42%) had agreed. 52% thought the rate of warming would likely be lower, and 8% thought it would be higher.[31] As of 2023, the rate of warming had been 0.2 °F (0.11 °C) or less.[89]

In 1996, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, a pair of researchers at the Helmholtz Research Centre's Institute for Coastal Research, sent a questionnaire over mail to 1000 climate scientists in Germany, the United States and Canada. 40% responded, and the results subsequently published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society in 1999. On a scale of 1 out of 7, where higher numbers indicated greater disagreement, "global warming is already underway" had a mean rating of 3.4, and "global warming will occur in the future" had an even greater agreement of 2.6 Surveyed scientists had less confidence in the accuracy of contemporary climate models, rating their ability to make "reasonable predictions" 10 years out at 4.8, and 5.2 for 100-year predictions: however, they consistently rejected the notion that there was too much uncertainty to justify taking immediate action, with a mean 5.6 out of 7 rating. In fact, they usually agreed there was substantial uncertainty about how strongly the impacts will affect society, and that many changes would likely be necessary to adapt.[32]

2000-2004​

In 2003, Bray and von Storch repeated their 1996 survey, using the same response structure with ratings on a 1-7 scale, and including all of the original questions. Further, new questions were added, which were devoted to climate change adaptation and media coverage of climate change. This second survey received 530 responses from 27 different countries, but it has been strongly criticized on the grounds that it was performed on the web with no means to verify that the respondents were climate scientists or to prevent multiple submissions. While the survey required entry of a username and password, its critics alleged that both were circulated to non-scientists, including to a climate change denial mailing list. Bray and von Storch defended their results, claiming that a statistical analysis with a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and a Wald–Wolfowitz runs test revealed no significant irregularities.[90]

In general, the second survey had demonstrated an increase in scientific confidence relative to the first. One of the greatest increases was for the statement "We can say for certain that global warming is a process already underway", where 1 represented strong agreement and 7 strong disagreement: the mean response went from 3.39 to 2.41. In response to the question, "To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes?", it went from 4.17 to 3.62.[90] Notably, the percentage of respondents "strongly disagreeing" stayed the same, at 10%, and a similar percentage stayed neutral (14% in 1996 and 13% in 2003): yet, the overall split went from 41% agreement and 45% disagreement in 1996 to 56% agreement and 30% disagreement in 2003, as there was both a substantial increase in agreement and a decline percentage of those disagreeing less strongly.[91] Similarly, there was a 72% to 20% split in favour of describing the IPCC reports as accurate, and a 15% to 80% rejection of the thesis that "there is enough uncertainty about the phenomenon of global warming that there is no need for immediate policy decisions.". The one question with less confident responses in the second survey was "To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate scientists are well attuned to the sensitivity of human social systems to climate impacts?", where the mean score went from 3.87 to 4.70 (with 7 representing maximum disagreement.)[90]

In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes analyzed the abstracts of 928 scientific papers on "global climate change" published between 1993 and 2003. 75% had either explicitly expressed support for the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change, or had accepted it as a given and were focused on evaluating its impacts or proposing approaches for climate change mitigation, while the remaining 25% were devoted to methods of current climate change research or paleoclimate analysis. No abstract had explicitly rejected the scientific consensus.[92]

2005-2009​

A graphic representing the combined result of surveys taken throughout 2000s.
In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University, publishing the results in April 2008. 97% of the scientists surveyed agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years, and only 5% believed that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming. 84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring, and 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiated its occurrence. 56% described the study of global climate change as a mature science and 39% as an emerging science. When asked about the likely severity of effects of climate change over the next 50–100 years, 41% said they could be described as catastrophic; 44% thought the effects would be moderately dangerous while about 13% thought there was relatively little danger.[93][94][95][96]

The third Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch survey was also conducted in 2008, with the results published in 2010. It used the same methodology as their two previous surveys, with a similar number of sections and also asking to rate responses on a 1-to-7 scale (i.e. from 'not at all' to 'very much'), but it had also introduced web links with respondent-specific unique identifiers to eliminate multiple responses. 2058 climate scientists from 34 countries were surveyed, and a total of 373 responses were received (response rate of 18.2%). 43.7% of respondents had been working in climate science for over 15 years, and only 14.6% had been 0 to 5 years of experience. To the question "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?", 67.1% said they very much agreed (7), 26.7% agreed to some large extent (6), 6.2% said to they agreed to some small extent (2–4), none said they did not agree at all. To the question "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" the responses were 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent, 15.1% to a small extent, and 1.35% not agreeing at all. Similarly, 34.6% had very much agreed that climate change "poses a very serious and dangerous threat to humanity" and 27.6% agreed to a large extent, while only 1.1% did not agree at all. 85% thought that the general public should be worried about climate change: 15% thought they should be "very worried", same as the percentage of those who were unsure (10%) and thought the public did not need to worry (5%).

At the same time, the respondents had strongly rejected the concept of intentionally presenting the most extreme possibilities in the hope of mobilizing the public, with around 73% disagreeing (1-3), 12.5% unsure and 14.5% agreeing in any way (5-7). Only 1.6% had agreed very much, while 27.2% did not agree at all, even as they overwhelmingly agreed (84% vs. 4%) that the scientists who do this are the most likely to be listened to by journalists. The respondents have generally expressed high confidence in the IPCC reports, with 63.5% agreeing that they estimated the impacts of temperature change exactly right (4 on the scale), and only 1.4% responding that they had strongly underestimated and 2.5% that they had strongly overestimated those impacts (1 and 7 on a scale.) On sea level rise, 51.4% thought the reports were exactly right, and only about 16% thought it was overestimated in any way (5-7), while the remaining third believed it was underestimated (1-3).[97][98][99] Subsequent IPCC reports had been forced to regularly increase their estimates of future sea level rise, largely in response to newer research on the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica.[100][101][102][103]

In 2009, Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago polled 10,257 earth scientists from various specialities and received replies from 3,146. 79 respondents were climatologists who had published over half of their peer-reviewed research on the subject of climate change, and 76 of them agreed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels, with 75 describing human activity as a significant factor. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. In summary, Doran and Zimmerman wrote:[104]

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.

2010-2014​

A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers, 908 of whom had authored 20 or more publications on climate, and found that

(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[105][106]

In October 2011, researchers from George Mason University analyzed the results of a survey of 998 actively working scientists from the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society, or listed in the 23rd edition of American Men and Women of Science, 489 of whom had returned completed questionnaires. 97% of respondents had agreed that global temperatures have risen over the past century. 84% agreed that "human-induced greenhouse warming is now occurring," 5% disagreed, and 12% didn't know.[107][108] When asked what they regard as "the likely effects of global climate change in the next 50 to 100 years," on a scale of 1 to 10, from Trivial to Catastrophic: 13% of respondents replied 1 to 3 (trivial/mild), 44% replied 4 to 7 (moderate), 41% replied 8 to 10 (severe/catastrophic), and 2% didn't know.[108]

In 2012, James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 (<0.2%) rejected anthropogenic global warming.[109][110][111][112] This was a follow-up to an analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013, which revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[113][114][115]

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch had conducted their fourth survey in 2013, publishing its results the following year. 283 scientists had responded: 185 (65.4%) had been working in climate science for over 15 years, and only 19 (6.7%) had 0 to 5 years of experience. It had the same methodology as the third survey, ranking responses on a 1-to-7 scale and similar responses to the same questions: i.e., when asked, "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?", 74.7% said they very much agreed (7), 2.9% were "neutral" (4), and only 2.1% were 1-3 on the scale. To the question "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?", 43% had very much agreed, 28.5% agreeing to a large extent (6), 16.6% to a small extent (2-4), and 2.5% did not agree at all (1). 41.8% had very much agreed that climate change "poses a very serious and dangerous threat to humanity" and 23.2% agreed to a large extent, while 3.5% did not agree at all. In response to a new question, 61.1% said that over the past 5 years, their confidence in climate science had increased (5-7), 31.2% said it remained unchanged (4), and only 7.7% said it decreased. Another new question asked respondents to attribute a percentage of recent warming to anthropogenic causes: 73.3% of scientists attributed 70-100%, while only 1.5% said there was zero human role.[116]

In 2013, it had been quantified that the vast majority of published scientific literature had agreed with the human role in climate change since the 1990s.[117]
In 2013, another scientist, John Cook, examined 11,944 abstracts from the peer-reviewed scientific literature from 1991 to 2011 that matched the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'.[117] He and his co-authors found that, while 66.4% of them expressed no position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), of those that did, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are contributing to global warming. They also invited authors to rate their own papers and found that, while 35.5% rated their paper as expressing no position on AGW (known to be expected in a consensus situation[118]) 97.2% of the rest endorsed the consensus. In both cases the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position was marginally increasing over time. They concluded that the number of papers actually rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research, and that "the fundamental science of AGW is no longer controversial among the publishing science community and the remaining debate in the field has moved on to other topics."[117]

In 2014, researchers from the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency surveyed 1,868 climate scientists. They found that, consistent with other research, the level of agreement on anthropogenic causation correlated with expertise - 90% of those surveyed with more than 10 peer-reviewed papers related to climate (just under half of survey respondents) explicitly agreed that greenhouse gases were the main cause of global warming.[119] They included researchers on mitigation and adaptation in their surveys in addition to physical climate scientists, leading to a slightly lower level of consensus compared to previous studies.[120]

2015-2019​

The consensus on anthropogenic global warming amongst the peer-reviewed studies published between 1991 and 2015.[121]
A 2016 study titled Learning from mistakes in climate research followed up on John Cook's 2013 paper by examining the quality of the 3% of peer-reviewed papers which had rejected the consensus view. They discovered that "replication reveals a number of methodological flaws, and a pattern of common mistakes emerges that is not visible when looking at single isolated cases".[122] That same year, Cook's paper was criticized by Richard Tol,[123] but strongly defended by a companion paper in the same volume.[124]

The 5th International Survey of Climate Scientists by Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch took place over December 2015 and January 2016. Unlike the past surveys, the scientists were no longer questioned on their opinion of the IPCC, and there was much more focus on extreme event attribution. In other ways, it had replicated the methodology of the previous surveys, with most responses ranked on a 1-to-7 scale. There were over 600 complete responses: 291 (45.2%) had been working in climate science for over 15 years, while 79 (12.3%) had 0 to 5 years of experience. When asked "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?", 79.3% said they very much agreed (7), 1.2% were "neutral" (4), and only 2.1% were 1-3 on the scale. To the question "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?", 47.7% had very much agreed, 26% agreeing to a large extent (6), 9.8% to a small extent (2-4), and 1.9% did not agree at all (1). 46% had very much agreed that climate change "poses a very serious and dangerous threat to humanity" and 26% agreed to a large extent, while 2.2% did not agree at all. 75.8% said that the level of uncertainty in climate science had decreased since 1996, while 13.6% said it had increased. 75.7% said that the level of risk associated with climate change had increased considerably since 1996, while 5% said it had decreased.[125]

In 2017, James L. Powell analyzed five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, and found that they amounted to a combined 54,195 articles, few of which had outright rejected anthropogenic climate change, resulting in an average consensus of 99.94%.[121] In November 2019, his survey of over 11,600 peer-reviewed articles published in the first seven months of 2019 showed that the consensus had reached 100%.[3]

2020s​

Scientific consensus on causation: Academic studies of scientific agreement on human-caused global warming among climate experts (2010–2015) reflect that the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science.[126] A 2019 study found scientific consensus to be at 100%,[3] and a 2021 study concluded that consensus exceeded 99%.[4] Another 2021 study found that 98.7% of climate experts indicated that the Earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activity.[1]
In 2021, Krista Myers led a paper which surveyed 2780 Earth scientists. Depending on expertise, between 91% (all scientists) to 100% (climate scientists with high levels of expertise, 20+ papers published) agreed human activity is causing climate change. Among the total group of climate scientists, 98.7% agreed. The agreement was lowest among scientists who chose Economic Geology as one of their fields of research (84%).[1]

Also in 2021, a team led by Mark Lynas had found 80,000 climate-related studies published between 2012 and 2020, and chose to analyse a random subset of 3000. Four of these were skeptical of the human cause of climate change, 845 were endorsing the human cause perspective at different levels, and 1869 were indifferent to the question. The authors estimated the proportion of papers not skeptical of the human cause as 99.85% (95% confidence limit 99.62%–99.96%). Excluding papers which took no position on the human cause led to an estimate of the proportion of consensus papers as 99.53% (95% confidence limit 98.80%–99.87%). They confirmed their numbers by explicitly looking for alternative hypotheses in the entire dataset, which resulted in 28 papers.[4][127]

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Lemmi]

Earth's climate has been changing since long before humans ever appeared on it's surface. Now we find out from "scientists" that we've been the cause of it all along.

 

[sparky]

~S~

 

[Oddball]

I can't believe this has to be posted AGAIN

Surveys of scientists' views on climate change​

Surveys of scientists' views on climate change – with a focus on human-caused or anthropogenic global warming (AGW) – have been undertaken since the 1970s.[30][31] A 2016 paper (which was co-authored by Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton and John Cook, and which was based on a half a dozen independent studies by the authors) concluded that "the finding of 97% consensus [that humans are causing recent global warming] in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies."[85] A 2019 study found scientific consensus to be at 100%,[3] and a 2021 study found that consensus exceeded 99%.[4]

1970s​

This figure shows how a more modern (early 2000s) climate model represents the different factors which increase (greenhouse gases, solar variation) and decrease (anthropogenic and volcanic sulfur dioxide emissions) the global temperatures, and compares its total with the historical temperature record. In the 1970s, these factors were less well-understood, and some scientists thought volcanic activity would have a stronger cooling effect than what we know now.
In 1978, the National Defense University of the United States had surveyed 24 experts about the near-term climate change and its effects on agriculture. The majority of respondents had expected some warming to occur between 1970 and 2000, and described human emissions of carbon dioxide as the primary cause, but there was a disagreement on the extent, and a few had thought that an increase in volcanic activity would offset carbon dioxide emissions by elevating atmospheric sulfate concentrations (which have a reflective effect, also associated with global dimming, and with some solar geoengineering proposals) and result in overall cooling. When NDU had combined their predictions, they estimated a 10% likelihood of large (~0.6 °C (1.1 °F)) cooling occurring by 2000, a 25% likelihood of smaller cooling around 0.15 °C (0.27 °F), a 30% likelihood of limited change, with around 0.1 °C (0.18 °F) warming, a 25% likelihood of "moderate" warming of ~0.4 °C (0.72 °F), and a 10% likelihood of large warming of around 1 °C (1.8 °F).[30] Subsequently, about 0.5 °C (0.90 °F) had occurred between 1950 and 2000, with about 0.4 °C (0.72 °F) since 1970,[86] largely matching the survey's "moderate global warming" scenario.

1980s​

In 1989, David H. Slade had surveyed 21 climate scientists, of whom 17 had expressed "a strong belief" in "the reality of a significant climate change".[87][31]

1990s​

In March 1990, Cutter Information Corporation (now known as Cutter Consortium) had had sent questionnaires to 1500 researchers which had been on the attendance lists of climate change conferences and received 331 responses from 41 countries. The survey revealed widespread agreement that global warming is already happening, that it will result in negative impacts such as sea level rise, and that reducing carbon dioxide emissions and halting deforestation is an appropriate response to it. Only 1.9% of respondents predicted that there would be an overall cooling across the next 100 years. There was more disagreement on the strength of future warming: i.e. around 30% believed that there was a less than 50% chance that the warming would reach or exceed 2 °C (3.6 °F) over the next 100 years, while a larger fraction (almost 40%) thought such temperatures were at least 75% likely.[88][31]

In 1991, the Center for Science, Technology, and Media sent a survey of 6 questions to around 4000 ocean and atmospheric scientists from 45 countries, and received 118 responses by January 1992, with 91% from North America. Out of those 118 scientists, 73 have either agreed or "strongly" agreed with the statement "There is little doubt among scientists that global mean temperature will increase", while 27 had disagreed and only 9 had "strongly disagreed", with the remaining 9 "neutral". Similarly, 67 scientists rejected the idea that the scientific consensus was narrow and limited to a few points, and only 38 had agreed. 58 scientists had agreed that the effects of climate change are expected to be "substantial" by the scientific community as a whole, with 36 disagreeing and 21 staying neutral. Further, only 21 scientists had expressed any agreement with the suggestion that "a delay in taking action is the proper policy". Finally, when asked about the 1990 IPCC estimate of warming proceeding at 0.3 °F (0.17 °C) per decade throughout the 21st century under the business-as-usual climate change scenario, 13 (15%) expressed skepticism, 39 (44%) had emphasized uncertainty, and 37 (42%) had agreed. 52% thought the rate of warming would likely be lower, and 8% thought it would be higher.[31] As of 2023, the rate of warming had been 0.2 °F (0.11 °C) or less.[89]

In 1996, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, a pair of researchers at the Helmholtz Research Centre's Institute for Coastal Research, sent a questionnaire over mail to 1000 climate scientists in Germany, the United States and Canada. 40% responded, and the results subsequently published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society in 1999. On a scale of 1 out of 7, where higher numbers indicated greater disagreement, "global warming is already underway" had a mean rating of 3.4, and "global warming will occur in the future" had an even greater agreement of 2.6 Surveyed scientists had less confidence in the accuracy of contemporary climate models, rating their ability to make "reasonable predictions" 10 years out at 4.8, and 5.2 for 100-year predictions: however, they consistently rejected the notion that there was too much uncertainty to justify taking immediate action, with a mean 5.6 out of 7 rating. In fact, they usually agreed there was substantial uncertainty about how strongly the impacts will affect society, and that many changes would likely be necessary to adapt.[32]

2000-2004​

In 2003, Bray and von Storch repeated their 1996 survey, using the same response structure with ratings on a 1-7 scale, and including all of the original questions. Further, new questions were added, which were devoted to climate change adaptation and media coverage of climate change. This second survey received 530 responses from 27 different countries, but it has been strongly criticized on the grounds that it was performed on the web with no means to verify that the respondents were climate scientists or to prevent multiple submissions. While the survey required entry of a username and password, its critics alleged that both were circulated to non-scientists, including to a climate change denial mailing list. Bray and von Storch defended their results, claiming that a statistical analysis with a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and a Wald–Wolfowitz runs test revealed no significant irregularities.[90]

In general, the second survey had demonstrated an increase in scientific confidence relative to the first. One of the greatest increases was for the statement "We can say for certain that global warming is a process already underway", where 1 represented strong agreement and 7 strong disagreement: the mean response went from 3.39 to 2.41. In response to the question, "To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes?", it went from 4.17 to 3.62.[90] Notably, the percentage of respondents "strongly disagreeing" stayed the same, at 10%, and a similar percentage stayed neutral (14% in 1996 and 13% in 2003): yet, the overall split went from 41% agreement and 45% disagreement in 1996 to 56% agreement and 30% disagreement in 2003, as there was both a substantial increase in agreement and a decline percentage of those disagreeing less strongly.[91] Similarly, there was a 72% to 20% split in favour of describing the IPCC reports as accurate, and a 15% to 80% rejection of the thesis that "there is enough uncertainty about the phenomenon of global warming that there is no need for immediate policy decisions.". The one question with less confident responses in the second survey was "To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate scientists are well attuned to the sensitivity of human social systems to climate impacts?", where the mean score went from 3.87 to 4.70 (with 7 representing maximum disagreement.)[90]

In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes analyzed the abstracts of 928 scientific papers on "global climate change" published between 1993 and 2003. 75% had either explicitly expressed support for the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change, or had accepted it as a given and were focused on evaluating its impacts or proposing approaches for climate change mitigation, while the remaining 25% were devoted to methods of current climate change research or paleoclimate analysis. No abstract had explicitly rejected the scientific consensus.[92]

2005-2009​

A graphic representing the combined result of surveys taken throughout 2000s.
In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University, publishing the results in April 2008. 97% of the scientists surveyed agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years, and only 5% believed that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming. 84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring, and 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiated its occurrence. 56% described the study of global climate change as a mature science and 39% as an emerging science. When asked about the likely severity of effects of climate change over the next 50–100 years, 41% said they could be described as catastrophic; 44% thought the effects would be moderately dangerous while about 13% thought there was relatively little danger.[93][94][95][96]

The third Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch survey was also conducted in 2008, with the results published in 2010. It used the same methodology as their two previous surveys, with a similar number of sections and also asking to rate responses on a 1-to-7 scale (i.e. from 'not at all' to 'very much'), but it had also introduced web links with respondent-specific unique identifiers to eliminate multiple responses. 2058 climate scientists from 34 countries were surveyed, and a total of 373 responses were received (response rate of 18.2%). 43.7% of respondents had been working in climate science for over 15 years, and only 14.6% had been 0 to 5 years of experience. To the question "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?", 67.1% said they very much agreed (7), 26.7% agreed to some large extent (6), 6.2% said to they agreed to some small extent (2–4), none said they did not agree at all. To the question "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" the responses were 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent, 15.1% to a small extent, and 1.35% not agreeing at all. Similarly, 34.6% had very much agreed that climate change "poses a very serious and dangerous threat to humanity" and 27.6% agreed to a large extent, while only 1.1% did not agree at all. 85% thought that the general public should be worried about climate change: 15% thought they should be "very worried", same as the percentage of those who were unsure (10%) and thought the public did not need to worry (5%).

At the same time, the respondents had strongly rejected the concept of intentionally presenting the most extreme possibilities in the hope of mobilizing the public, with around 73% disagreeing (1-3), 12.5% unsure and 14.5% agreeing in any way (5-7). Only 1.6% had agreed very much, while 27.2% did not agree at all, even as they overwhelmingly agreed (84% vs. 4%) that the scientists who do this are the most likely to be listened to by journalists. The respondents have generally expressed high confidence in the IPCC reports, with 63.5% agreeing that they estimated the impacts of temperature change exactly right (4 on the scale), and only 1.4% responding that they had strongly underestimated and 2.5% that they had strongly overestimated those impacts (1 and 7 on a scale.) On sea level rise, 51.4% thought the reports were exactly right, and only about 16% thought it was overestimated in any way (5-7), while the remaining third believed it was underestimated (1-3).[97][98][99] Subsequent IPCC reports had been forced to regularly increase their estimates of future sea level rise, largely in response to newer research on the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica.[100][101][102][103]

In 2009, Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago polled 10,257 earth scientists from various specialities and received replies from 3,146. 79 respondents were climatologists who had published over half of their peer-reviewed research on the subject of climate change, and 76 of them agreed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels, with 75 describing human activity as a significant factor. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. In summary, Doran and Zimmerman wrote:[104]

2010-2014​

A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers, 908 of whom had authored 20 or more publications on climate, and found that


In October 2011, researchers from George Mason University analyzed the results of a survey of 998 actively working scientists from the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society, or listed in the 23rd edition of American Men and Women of Science, 489 of whom had returned completed questionnaires. 97% of respondents had agreed that global temperatures have risen over the past century. 84% agreed that "human-induced greenhouse warming is now occurring," 5% disagreed, and 12% didn't know.[107][108] When asked what they regard as "the likely effects of global climate change in the next 50 to 100 years," on a scale of 1 to 10, from Trivial to Catastrophic: 13% of respondents replied 1 to 3 (trivial/mild), 44% replied 4 to 7 (moderate), 41% replied 8 to 10 (severe/catastrophic), and 2% didn't know.[108]

In 2012, James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 (<0.2%) rejected anthropogenic global warming.[109][110][111][112] This was a follow-up to an analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013, which revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[113][114][115]

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch had conducted their fourth survey in 2013, publishing its results the following year. 283 scientists had responded: 185 (65.4%) had been working in climate science for over 15 years, and only 19 (6.7%) had 0 to 5 years of experience. It had the same methodology as the third survey, ranking responses on a 1-to-7 scale and similar responses to the same questions: i.e., when asked, "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?", 74.7% said they very much agreed (7), 2.9% were "neutral" (4), and only 2.1% were 1-3 on the scale. To the question "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?", 43% had very much agreed, 28.5% agreeing to a large extent (6), 16.6% to a small extent (2-4), and 2.5% did not agree at all (1). 41.8% had very much agreed that climate change "poses a very serious and dangerous threat to humanity" and 23.2% agreed to a large extent, while 3.5% did not agree at all. In response to a new question, 61.1% said that over the past 5 years, their confidence in climate science had increased (5-7), 31.2% said it remained unchanged (4), and only 7.7% said it decreased. Another new question asked respondents to attribute a percentage of recent warming to anthropogenic causes: 73.3% of scientists attributed 70-100%, while only 1.5% said there was zero human role.[116]

In 2013, it had been quantified that the vast majority of published scientific literature had agreed with the human role in climate change since the 1990s.[117]
In 2013, another scientist, John Cook, examined 11,944 abstracts from the peer-reviewed scientific literature from 1991 to 2011 that matched the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'.[117] He and his co-authors found that, while 66.4% of them expressed no position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), of those that did, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are contributing to global warming. They also invited authors to rate their own papers and found that, while 35.5% rated their paper as expressing no position on AGW (known to be expected in a consensus situation[118]) 97.2% of the rest endorsed the consensus. In both cases the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position was marginally increasing over time. They concluded that the number of papers actually rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research, and that "the fundamental science of AGW is no longer controversial among the publishing science community and the remaining debate in the field has moved on to other topics."[117]

In 2014, researchers from the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency surveyed 1,868 climate scientists. They found that, consistent with other research, the level of agreement on anthropogenic causation correlated with expertise - 90% of those surveyed with more than 10 peer-reviewed papers related to climate (just under half of survey respondents) explicitly agreed that greenhouse gases were the main cause of global warming.[119] They included researchers on mitigation and adaptation in their surveys in addition to physical climate scientists, leading to a slightly lower level of consensus compared to previous studies.[120]

2015-2019​

The consensus on anthropogenic global warming amongst the peer-reviewed studies published between 1991 and 2015.[121]
A 2016 study titled Learning from mistakes in climate research followed up on John Cook's 2013 paper by examining the quality of the 3% of peer-reviewed papers which had rejected the consensus view. They discovered that "replication reveals a number of methodological flaws, and a pattern of common mistakes emerges that is not visible when looking at single isolated cases".[122] That same year, Cook's paper was criticized by Richard Tol,[123] but strongly defended by a companion paper in the same volume.[124]

The 5th International Survey of Climate Scientists by Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch took place over December 2015 and January 2016. Unlike the past surveys, the scientists were no longer questioned on their opinion of the IPCC, and there was much more focus on extreme event attribution. In other ways, it had replicated the methodology of the previous surveys, with most responses ranked on a 1-to-7 scale. There were over 600 complete responses: 291 (45.2%) had been working in climate science for over 15 years, while 79 (12.3%) had 0 to 5 years of experience. When asked "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?", 79.3% said they very much agreed (7), 1.2% were "neutral" (4), and only 2.1% were 1-3 on the scale. To the question "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?", 47.7% had very much agreed, 26% agreeing to a large extent (6), 9.8% to a small extent (2-4), and 1.9% did not agree at all (1). 46% had very much agreed that climate change "poses a very serious and dangerous threat to humanity" and 26% agreed to a large extent, while 2.2% did not agree at all. 75.8% said that the level of uncertainty in climate science had decreased since 1996, while 13.6% said it had increased. 75.7% said that the level of risk associated with climate change had increased considerably since 1996, while 5% said it had decreased.[125]

In 2017, James L. Powell analyzed five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, and found that they amounted to a combined 54,195 articles, few of which had outright rejected anthropogenic climate change, resulting in an average consensus of 99.94%.[121] In November 2019, his survey of over 11,600 peer-reviewed articles published in the first seven months of 2019 showed that the consensus had reached 100%.[3]

2020s​

Scientific consensus on causation: Academic studies of scientific agreement on human-caused global warming among climate experts (2010–2015) reflect that the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science.[126] A 2019 study found scientific consensus to be at 100%,[3] and a 2021 study concluded that consensus exceeded 99%.[4] Another 2021 study found that 98.7% of climate experts indicated that the Earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activity.[1]
In 2021, Krista Myers led a paper which surveyed 2780 Earth scientists. Depending on expertise, between 91% (all scientists) to 100% (climate scientists with high levels of expertise, 20+ papers published) agreed human activity is causing climate change. Among the total group of climate scientists, 98.7% agreed. The agreement was lowest among scientists who chose Economic Geology as one of their fields of research (84%).[1]

Also in 2021, a team led by Mark Lynas had found 80,000 climate-related studies published between 2012 and 2020, and chose to analyse a random subset of 3000. Four of these were skeptical of the human cause of climate change, 845 were endorsing the human cause perspective at different levels, and 1869 were indifferent to the question. The authors estimated the proportion of papers not skeptical of the human cause as 99.85% (95% confidence limit 99.62%–99.96%). Excluding papers which took no position on the human cause led to an estimate of the proportion of consensus papers as 99.53% (95% confidence limit 98.80%–99.87%). They confirmed their numbers by explicitly looking for alternative hypotheses in the entire dataset, which resulted in 28 papers.[4][127]

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Indigestible text brick, that fails to refute the OP's correct point.

.

 

[Crick]

Earth's climate has been changing since long before humans ever appeared on it's surface. Now we find out from "scientists" that we've been the cause of it all along.

Don't be ignorant.

 

[Crick]

Indigestible text brick, that fails to refute the OP's correct point.

View attachment 875173

.

It most assuredly does.

There is a well known myth called the 97 percent myth that falsely claims 97 percent of climate scientists put the blame on the backs of humans for climate changing.

We call bullshit on that claim.

That wuld be a mistake Robert.

Appeared in the Financial Post, May 2015
In the lead-up to the Paris climate summit, massive activist pressure is on all governments, especially Canada’s, to fall in line with the global warming agenda and accept emission targets that could seriously harm our economy. One of the most powerful rhetorical weapons being deployed is the claim that 97 per cent of the world’s scientists agree what the problem is and what we have to do about it. In the face of such near-unanimity, it would be understandable if Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Canadian government were simply to capitulate and throw Canada’s economy under the climate change bandwagon. But it would be a tragedy because the 97 per cent claim is a fabrication.
Like so much else in the climate change debate, one needs to check the numbers. First of all, on what exactly are 97 per cent of experts supposed to agree? In 2013, U.S. President Barack Obama sent out a tweet claiming 97 per cent of climate experts believe global warming is “real, man-made and dangerous.” As it turns out, the survey he was referring to didn’t ask that question, so he was basically making it up. At a recent debate in New Orleans, I heard climate activist Bill McKibben claim there was a consensus that greenhouse gases are “a grave danger.” But when challenged for the source of his claim, he promptly withdrew it.

The claim of a strong consensus did not originate with President Obama. It originated with a number of scientists, statisticians and surveyors who conducted numerous studies regarding the opinions of climate scientists as to the cause of global warming. The questions that were asked and the methodologies employed were all completely transparent. The results over and over and over again, with larger and larger and larger samples consistently show a very high consensus supporting the conclusions of the IPCC.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change asserts the conclusion that most (more than 50 per cent) of the post-1950 global warming is due to human activity, chiefly greenhouse gas emissions and land use change. But it does not survey its own contributors, let alone anyone else, so we do not know how many experts agree with it.

Those who agree with the document put their names on it.

And the statement, even if true, does not imply that we face a crisis requiring massive restructuring of the worldwide economy.

Here's a good pseudo-science tipoff: the phrase "even if true", rendered after several paragraphs claiming to completely refute the initial claim.

In fact, it is consistent with the view that the benefits of fossil fuel use greatly outweigh the climate-related costs.

The conclusions of the IPCC are absolutely NOT consistent with such a view.

One commonly cited survey asked if carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and human activities contribute to climate change. But these are trivial statements that even many IPCC skeptics agree with. And again, both statements are consistent with the view that climate change is harmless. So there are no policy implications of such surveys, regardless of the level of agreement.

If it is so commonly cited, why it is not identified here? Look to see what points the lastest studies examined. They were not trivial and they were not consistent with the absurd claim that climate change is harmless.

Robert, if you can't see that the author of this piece of yours is doing his best to hoodwink you, you need to go back to the school for critical reasoning.

 

[Robert W]

It most assuredly does.

That wuld be a mistake Robert.

The claim of a strong consensus did not originate with President Obama. It originated with a number of scientists, statisticians and surveyors who conducted numerous studies regarding the opinions of climate scientists as to the cause of global warming. The questions that were asked and the methodologies employed were all completely transparent. The results over and over and over again, with larger and larger and larger samples consistently show a very high consensus supporting the conclusions of the IPCC.

Those who agree with the document put their names on it.

Here's a good pseudo-science tipoff: the phrase "even if true", rendered after several paragraphs claiming to completely refute the initial claim.

The conclusions of the IPCC are absolutely NOT consistent with such a view.

If it is so commonly cited, why it is not identified here? Look to see what points the lastest studies examined. They were not trivial and they were not consistent with the absurd claim that climate change is harmless.

Robert, if you can't see that the author of this piece of yours is doing his best to hoodwink you, you need to go back to the school for critical reasoning.

It would sure please you for that to be true. But I smell horse manure in the claims made for the IPCC. I do not believe that the IPCC claims there is a massive need for the alarmist view. I hear about thousands of climate scientists from your guys but when the number is counted it including the non alarmists, such as Professor Richard Lindzen, a true giant of climate studies, even with Curry and Other luminaries counted, there are not thousands of climate scientists, merely perhaps 300 of them.
You want alarm to be the bell of the day. I only care about humans and not left wing ideology.

 

[Oddball]

It most assuredly does.

That wuld be a mistake Robert.

The claim of a strong consensus did not originate with President Obama. It originated with a number of scientists, statisticians and surveyors who conducted numerous studies regarding the opinions of climate scientists as to the cause of global warming. The questions that were asked and the methodologies employed were all completely transparent. The results over and over and over again, with larger and larger and larger samples consistently show a very high consensus supporting the conclusions of the IPCC.

Those who agree with the document put their names on it.

Here's a good pseudo-science tipoff: the phrase "even if true", rendered after several paragraphs claiming to completely refute the initial claim.

The conclusions of the IPCC are absolutely NOT consistent with such a view.

If it is so commonly cited, why it is not identified here? Look to see what points the lastest studies examined. They were not trivial and they were not consistent with the absurd claim that climate change is harmless.

Robert, if you can't see that the author of this piece of yours is doing his best to hoodwink you, you need to go back to the school for critical reasoning.

The "97%" were self-selecting.....Your trope is 100% bullshit.

 

[Crick]

It would sure please you for that to be true. But I smell horse manure in the claims made for the IPCC. I do not believe that the IPCC claims there is a massive need for the alarmist view. I hear about thousands of climate scientists from your guys but when the number is counted it including the non alarmists, such as Professor Richard Lindzen, a true giant of climate studies, even with Curry and Other luminaries counted, there are not thousands of climate scientists, merely perhaps 300 of them.
You want alarm to be the bell of the day. I only care about humans and not left wing ideology.

From the same Wikipedia article

A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers, 908 of whom had authored 20 or more publications on climate, and found that (i) 97-98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climae Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

In 2012, James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 (<0.2%) rejected anthropogenic global warming. This was a follow-up to an analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013, which revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.

In 2014, researchers from the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency surveyed 1,868 climate scientists. They found that, consistent with other research, the level of agreement on anthropogenic causation correlated with expertise - 90% of those surveyed with more than 10 peer-reviewed papers related to climate (just under half of survey respondents) explicitly agreed that greenhouse gases were the main cause of global warming.[119] They included researchers on mitigation and adaptation in their surveys in addition to physical climate scientists, leading to a slightly lower level of consensus compared to previous studies.



Robert, you should actually READ what I post here regardless of what you think you smell. And keep in mind that the directional sensitivity of the human olfactory system is very poor indeed.

 

[Robert W]

From the same Wikipedia article

A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers, 908 of whom had authored 20 or more publications on climate, and found that (i) 97-98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climae Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

In 2012, James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 (<0.2%) rejected anthropogenic global warming. This was a follow-up to an analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013, which revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.

In 2014, researchers from the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency surveyed 1,868 climate scientists. They found that, consistent with other research, the level of agreement on anthropogenic causation correlated with expertise - 90% of those surveyed with more than 10 peer-reviewed papers related to climate (just under half of survey respondents) explicitly agreed that greenhouse gases were the main cause of global warming.[119] They included researchers on mitigation and adaptation in their surveys in addition to physical climate scientists, leading to a slightly lower level of consensus compared to previous studies.



Robert, you should actually READ what I post here regardless of what you think you smell. And keep in mind that the directional sensitivity of the human olfactory system is very poor indeed.

I have to believe that there is money in this for you. And you want to be like Al Gore and get wealthy due to this. Makes no sense for an Engineer to accept false data as you do.

 

[Crick]

I have to believe that there is money in this for you. And you want to be like Al Gore and get wealthy due to this. Makes no sense for an Engineer to accept false data as you do.

I bet your mother wouldn't approve of such speech. You have not cast the slightest doubt on the data that the vast majority of climate scientists accept as entirely valid.

 

[elektra]

The "97%" were self-selecting.....Your trope is 100% bullshit.

The 97% of the 37% of papers from a pay per view publication that fit a wide definition of what can be counted as a possible view there is man made climate change

 

[Oddball]

From the same Wikipedia article

A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers, 908 of whom had authored 20 or more publications on climate, and found that (i) 97-98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climae Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

In 2012, James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 (<0.2%) rejected anthropogenic global warming. This was a follow-up to an analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013, which revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.

In 2014, researchers from the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency surveyed 1,868 climate scientists. They found that, consistent with other research, the level of agreement on anthropogenic causation correlated with expertise - 90% of those surveyed with more than 10 peer-reviewed papers related to climate (just under half of survey respondents) explicitly agreed that greenhouse gases were the main cause of global warming.[119] They included researchers on mitigation and adaptation in their surveys in addition to physical climate scientists, leading to a slightly lower level of consensus compared to previous studies.



Robert, you should actually READ what I post here regardless of what you think you smell. And keep in mind that the directional sensitivity of the human olfactory system is very poor indeed.

 

[Crick]

The 97% of the 37% of papers from a pay per view publication that fit a wide definition of what can be counted as a possible view there is man made climate change

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The day I see a denier accurately characterize what is printed in this article, I will buy a hat and eat it.

 

[Crick]

View attachment 877129

Wikipedia got it from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. It's more legit than anything you've posted in the last century, you ignorant fool.

 

[elektra]

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The day I see a denier accurately characterize what is printed in this article, I will buy a hat and eat it.

I just point out that in the context that the 99% or 97% of all scientists agree, you are lying, or anyone stating as such is lying. It is clear if we read your link, they only questioned a small percentage of "scientists".

25% out of 10,929 of the people they asked cared to respond. There are literally millions of scientists. Surveying 2780 people out of the millions of scientists and claiming their view of global warming speaks for the entire scientific community is pure fraud

Out of the 10 929 invitations, we received 2780 responses, corresponding to a response rate of 25%

 

[Crick]

I just point out that in the context that the 99% or 97% of all scientists agree, you are lying, or anyone stating as such is lying. It is clear if we read your link, they only questioned a small percentage of "scientists".

25% out of 10,929 of the people they asked cared to respond. There are literally millions of scientists. Surveying 2780 people out of the millions of scientists and claiming their view of global warming speaks for the entire scientific community is pure fraud

So I guess we can conclude that you've never taken Probability and Statistics 101.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]