Consensus? What Consensus?

[daveman]

Consensus? What Consensus?

Summary

Recent reports that 97% of published scientific papers support the so-called
consensus on man-made global warming are based on a paper by John Cook et al.
Precisely what consensus is allegedly being supported in these papers cannot be
discerned from the text of the paper.

An analysis of the methodology used by Cook et al. shows that the consensus
referred to is trivial:

• that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas
• that human activities have warmed the planet to some unspecified extent.​

Almost everybody involved in the climate debate, including the majority of sceptics,
accepts these propositions, so little can be learned from the Cook et al. paper.

The extent to which the warming in the last two decades of the twentieth century
was man-made and the likely extent of any future warming remain highly
contentious scientific issues.

--

Planning

The amount of media attention the paper received is unsurprising given that the
paper appears to have been written for this express purpose. In early 2012, a
security lapse at the Skeptical Science website led to an internal forum for its staff
being exposed to public view. Among the contents were several discussions about
what became the Cook et al. paper.

In one exchange, Cook stated that the purpose of the paper was to establish the
existence of a consensus:

It’s essential that the public understands that there’s a scientific consensus on
AGW. So [Skeptical Science activists] Jim Powell, Dana [Nuccitelli] and I have been
working on something over the last few months that we hope will have a game
changing impact on the public perception of consensus. Basically, we hope to
establish that not only is there a consensus, there is a strengthening consensus.4​

Another participant expressed concerns about the fact that the marketing of the
paper was being planned before the research itself:

I have to say that I find this planning of huge marketing strategies somewhat
strange when we don’t even have our results in and the research subject is not
that revolutionary either (just summarizing existing research).​

These comments suggest that the project was not a scientific investigation to
determine the extent of agreement on global warming, but a public relations
exercise.

--

Conclusions

Cook et al. set out to demonstrate the existence of an overwhelming consensus on
global warming. While their approach appears to owe more to public relations than
the scientific method, there is little doubt that there is a scientific consensus, albeit
not the one that the authors of the paper have led people to believe exists.

The consensus as described by Cook et al. is virtually meaningless and tells us
nothing about the current state of scientific opinion beyond the trivial observation
that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that human activities have warmed the
planet to some unspecified extent.

The last word on the paper goes to Professor Mike Hulme, founder of the Tyndall
Centre, the UK’s national climate research institute:

The [Cook et al.] article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed.
It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately
poor level of public and policy debate in this country that the energy minister
should cite it. It offers a similar depiction of the world into categories of ‘right’
and ‘wrong’ to that adopted in [an earlier study]: dividing publishing climate
scientists into ‘believers’ and ‘non-believers’. It seems to me that these people are
still living (or wishing to live) in the pre-2009 world of climate change discourse.
Haven’t they noticed that public understanding of the climate issue has moved
on?12​

More bad science from the AGW crowd.

 

[Abraham3]

Surveys of scientists and scientific literature

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Summary of opinions from climate and earth scientists regarding climate change.

Main article: Surveys of scientists' views on climate change

Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming. They have concluded that the majority of scientists support the idea of anthropogenic climate change.
In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[110] She analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.
Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Seventy-five per cent of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories (either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view); 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. None of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "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."
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. 97% of the scientists surveyed agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years; 84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring, and 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiated its occurrence. Catastrophic effects in 50–100 years would likely be observed according to 41%, while 44% thought the effects would be moderate and about 13 percent saw relatively little danger. 5% said they thought human activity did not contribute to greenhouse warming.[111][112][113][114]
Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 different countries.[115] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 373 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18.2%. No paper on climate change consensus based on this survey has been published yet (February 2010), but one on another subject has been published based on the survey.[116]
The survey was composed of 76 questions split into a number of sections. There were sections on the demographics of the respondents, their assessment of the state of climate science, how good the science is, climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation, their opinion of the IPCC, and how well climate science was being communicated to the public. Most of the answers were on a scale from 1 to 7 from 'not at all' to 'very much'.
To the question "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?", 67.1% said they very much agreed, 26.7% agreed to some large extent, 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.
A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. 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. The authors summarised the findings:
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.[117]
A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:
(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.[118]
A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers, finding 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming and reporting:
Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.[119]
Additionally, the authors of the studies were invited to categorise their own research papers, of which 1,381 discussed the cause of recent global warming, and:
Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.

REFERENCES

110. ^ Naomi Oreskes (December 3, 2004 (Erratum January 21, 2005)). "Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" (PDF). Science 306 (5702): 1686. doi:10.1126/science.1103618. PMID 15576594. (see also for an exchange of letters to Science)
111. ^ Lavelle, Marianne (2008-04-23). "Survey Tracks Scientists' Growing Climate Concern". U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved 2010-01-20.
112. ^ Lichter, S. Robert (2008-04-24). "Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don't Trust the Media's Coverage of Climate Change". Statistical Assessment Service, George Mason University. Retrieved 2010-01-20.
113. ^ ""Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change" at Journalist's Resource.org".
114. ^ Stephen J. Farnsworth, S. Robert Lichter (October 27, 2011). "The Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change". International Journal of Public Opinion Research. Retrieved December 2, 2011.
115. ^ Bray, Dennis; von Storch, Hans (2009). "A Survey of the Perspectives of Climate Scientists Concerning Climate Science and Climate Change".
116. ^ Bray, D.; von Storch H. (2009). "Prediction' or 'Projection; The nomenclature of climate science". Science Communication 30 (4): 534–543. doi:10.1177/1075547009333698.
117. ^ Doran, Peter T.; Maggie Kendall Zimmerman (January 20, 2009). "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change". EOS 90 (3): 22–23. Bibcode:2009EOSTr..90...22D. doi:10.1029/2009EO030002.
118. ^ Anderegg, William R L; James W. Prall, Jacob Harold, and Stephen H. Schneider (2010). "Expert credibility in climate change". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 107 (27): 12107–9. Bibcode:2010PNAS..10712107A. doi:10.1073/pnas.1003187107. PMC 2901439. PMID 20566872.
119. ^ Cook, J.; Nuccitelli, D.; Green, S.A.; Richardson, M.; Winkler, B.; Painting, R.; Way, R.; Jacobs, P.; Skuc, A. (2013). "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature" (PDF). Environ. Res. Lett. 8 (2): 024024. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024.

 

[Abraham3]

Scientific organizations holding opinions concurring with the IPCC:

Academies of science (general science)
Since 2001 34 national science academies, three regional academies, and both the international InterAcademy Council and International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences have made formal declarations confirming human induced global warming and urging nations to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The 34 national science academy statements include 33 who have signed joint science academy statements and one individual declaration by the Polish Academy of Sciences in 2007.

Joint national science academy statements
2001 Following the publication of the IPCC Third Assessment Report, seventeen national science academies issued a joint statement, entitled "The Science of Climate Change", explicitly acknowledging the IPCC position as representing the scientific consensus on climate change science. The statement, printed in an editorial in the journal Science on May 18, 2001,[27] was signed by the science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, Turkey, and the United Kingdom.[28]

2005 The national science academies of the G8 nations, plus Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, signed a statement on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action, and explicitly endorsed the IPCC consensus. The eleven signatories were the science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.[29]

2007 In preparation for the 33rd G8 summit, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a declaration referencing the position of the 2005 joint science academies' statement, and acknowledging the confirmation of their previous conclusion by recent research. Following the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, the declaration states, "It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken." The thirteen signatories were the national science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States.[30]

2007 In preparation for the 33rd G8 summit, the Network of African Science Academies submitted a joint “statement on sustainability, energy efficiency, and climate change” :
A consensus, based on current evidence, now exists within the global scientific community that human activities are the main source of climate change and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible for driving this change. The IPCC should be congratulated for the contribution it has made to public understanding of the nexus that exists between energy, climate and sustainability.
— The thirteen signatories were the science academies of Cameroon, Ghana, Kenya, Madagascar, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe, as well as the African Academy of Sciences , [31]

2008 In preparation for the 34th G8 summit, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a declaration reiterating the position of the 2005 joint science academies’ statement, and reaffirming “that climate change is happening and that anthropogenic warming is influencing many physical and biological systems.” Among other actions, the declaration urges all nations to “(t)ake appropriate economic and policy measures to accelerate transition to a low carbon society and to encourage and effect changes in individual and national behaviour.” The thirteen signatories were the same national science academies that issued the 2007 joint statement.[32]

2009 In advance of the UNFCCC negotiations to be held in Copenhagen in December 2009, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a joint statement declaring, "Climate change and sustainable energy supply are crucial challenges for the future of humanity. It is essential that world leaders agree on the emission reductions needed to combat negative consequences of anthropogenic climate change". The statement references the IPCC's Fourth Assessment of 2007, and asserts that "climate change is happening even faster than previously estimated; global CO2 emissions since 2000 have been higher than even the highest predictions, Arctic sea ice has been melting at rates much faster than predicted, and the rise in the sea level has become more rapid." The thirteen signatories were the same national science academies that issued the 2007 and 2008 joint statements.[22]

Polish Academy of Sciences

American Association for the Advancement of Science

Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies

United States National Research Council through its Committee on the Science of Climate Change

Royal Society of New Zealand

The Royal Society of the United Kingdom

African Academy of Sciences

European Academy of Sciences and Arts

European Science Foundation

InterAcademy Council

International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences

American Chemical Society

American Institute of Physics

American Physical Society

Australian Institute of Physics

European Physical Society

American Geophysical Union

American Society of Agronomy

Crop Science Society of America

Soil Science Society of America

European Federation of Geologists

European Geosciences Union

Geological Society of America

Geological Society of London

International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics

National Association of Geoscience Teachers

American Meteorological Society

The Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences

Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

Royal Meteorological Society (UK)

World Meteorological Organization

American Quaternary Association

International Union for Quaternary Research

American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians

American Institute of Biological Sciences

American Society for Microbiology

Australian Coral Reef Society

Institute of Biology (UK)

Society of American Foresters

The Wildlife Society (international)

American Academy of Pediatrics

American College of Preventive Medicine

American Medical Association

American Public Health Association

Australian Medical Association

World Federation of Public Health Associations

World Health Organization

American Astronomical Society

American Statistical Association

Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)

International Association for Great Lakes Research

Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand

 

[Abraham3]

Hey Dave? I win.

But, hey, that was never in any real doubt, was it.

 

[daveman]

Hey Dave? I win.

But, hey, that was never in any real doubt, was it.

The Cook study was flawed. Undeniably.

 

[flacaltenn]

Surveys of scientists and scientific literature

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Summary of opinions from climate and earth scientists regarding climate change.

Main article: Surveys of scientists' views on climate change

Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming. They have concluded that the majority of scientists support the idea of anthropogenic climate change.
In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[110] She analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.
Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Seventy-five per cent of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories (either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view); 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. None of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "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."
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. 97% of the scientists surveyed agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years; 84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring, and 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiated its occurrence. Catastrophic effects in 50–100 years would likely be observed according to 41%, while 44% thought the effects would be moderate and about 13 percent saw relatively little danger. 5% said they thought human activity did not contribute to greenhouse warming.[111][112][113][114]
Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 different countries.[115] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 373 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18.2%. No paper on climate change consensus based on this survey has been published yet (February 2010), but one on another subject has been published based on the survey.[116]
The survey was composed of 76 questions split into a number of sections. There were sections on the demographics of the respondents, their assessment of the state of climate science, how good the science is, climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation, their opinion of the IPCC, and how well climate science was being communicated to the public. Most of the answers were on a scale from 1 to 7 from 'not at all' to 'very much'.
To the question "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?", 67.1% said they very much agreed, 26.7% agreed to some large extent, 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.
A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. 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. The authors summarised the findings:
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.[117]
A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:
(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.[118]
A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers, finding 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming and reporting:
Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.[119]
Additionally, the authors of the studies were invited to categorise their own research papers, of which 1,381 discussed the cause of recent global warming, and:
Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.

REFERENCES

110. ^ Naomi Oreskes (December 3, 2004 (Erratum January 21, 2005)). "Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" (PDF). Science 306 (5702): 1686. doi:10.1126/science.1103618. PMID 15576594. (see also for an exchange of letters to Science)
111. ^ Lavelle, Marianne (2008-04-23). "Survey Tracks Scientists' Growing Climate Concern". U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved 2010-01-20.
112. ^ Lichter, S. Robert (2008-04-24). "Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don't Trust the Media's Coverage of Climate Change". Statistical Assessment Service, George Mason University. Retrieved 2010-01-20.
113. ^ ""Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change" at Journalist's Resource.org".
114. ^ Stephen J. Farnsworth, S. Robert Lichter (October 27, 2011). "The Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change". International Journal of Public Opinion Research. Retrieved December 2, 2011.
115. ^ Bray, Dennis; von Storch, Hans (2009). "A Survey of the Perspectives of Climate Scientists Concerning Climate Science and Climate Change".
116. ^ Bray, D.; von Storch H. (2009). "Prediction' or 'Projection; The nomenclature of climate science". Science Communication 30 (4): 534–543. doi:10.1177/1075547009333698.
117. ^ Doran, Peter T.; Maggie Kendall Zimmerman (January 20, 2009). "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change". EOS 90 (3): 22–23. Bibcode:2009EOSTr..90...22D. doi:10.1029/2009EO030002.
118. ^ Anderegg, William R L; James W. Prall, Jacob Harold, and Stephen H. Schneider (2010). "Expert credibility in climate change". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 107 (27): 12107–9. Bibcode:2010PNAS..10712107A. doi:10.1073/pnas.1003187107. PMC 2901439. PMID 20566872.
119. ^ Cook, J.; Nuccitelli, D.; Green, S.A.; Richardson, M.; Winkler, B.; Painting, R.; Way, R.; Jacobs, P.; Skuc, A. (2013). "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature" (PDF). Environ. Res. Lett. 8 (2): 024024. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024.

I'll discuss any ONE of those you choose --- as long as it was done in 2012 or 2013 in the post ClimateGate era...

So does that leave ONE survey or TWO ???

Your choice..

 

[skookerasbil]

consensus ruse......the flaws are beyond the pale >>>

If you still believe in 'climate change' read this? ? Telegraph Blogs

 

[flacaltenn]

Abraham::

Do you even read the Wiki links that you toss out to us?
From ref 112 in your post..

STATS:

A need to know more

Overall, only 5% describe the study of global climate change as a “fully mature”
science, but 51% describe it as “fairly mature,” while 40% see it as still an
“emerging” science. However, over two out of three (69%) believe there is at least
a 50-50 chance that the debate over the role of human activity in global warming
will be settled in the next 10 to 20 years.

Only 29% express a “great deal of confidence” that scientists understand the size
and extent of anthropogenic [human] sources of greenhouse gases,” and only 32% are
confident about our understanding of the archeological climate evidence.



Climate scientists are skeptical of the media

Only 1% of climate scientists rate either broadcast or cable television news about
climate change as “very reliable.” Another 31% say broadcast news is “somewhat
reliable,” compared to 25% for cable news. (The remainder rate TV news as “not
very” or “not at all” reliable.) Local newspapers are rated as very reliable by 3%
and somewhat reliable by 33% of scientists. Even the national press (New York
Times, Wall St. Journal etc) is rated as very reliable by only 11%, although
another 56% say it is at least somewhat reliable.

40% of them rate their field "as an emerging science". Very few of them believe the proxy numbers. And only 30% have "a great deal of confidence" in the anthro proof.

Secondly -- who the flock cares what the public thinks if the climate scientists give the media such a low grade in "interpreting" their work..

Go shuck yourself and your 97% consensus... The only thing that approaches 97% is that they agree that it has been warming..
I don't even accept THESE NUMBERS --- since this work was done before ClimateGate unraveled.. Let's poll them AGAIN --- shall we? To see "how mature" they think their field is AFTER reading those emails...

 

[skookerasbil]

I guess we deniers are the mental cases!!!!

[/URL][/IMG]

[/URL][/IMG]



or not..........

 

[Vox]

For GW fanatics 0.3% is a consensus?

 

[Vox]

Hey Dave? I win.

But, hey, that was never in any real doubt, was it.

The Cook study was flawed. Undeniably.

It was so flawed that the second paper from them was rejected

 

[Abraham3]

Hey Dave? I win.

But, hey, that was never in any real doubt, was it.

The Cook study was flawed. Undeniably.

Then watch this.

I deny it. The Cook study is just fine. You consistently ignore the insignifcance of the tiny fraction of authors who have voiced any disapproval of Cook's judgements as well as the author's self-assessment that almost exactly matched the results of the examination of the literature.

You also ignore the four other studies all showing that a vast majority of climate scientists accept AGW and concur with the IPCC's position. And then, of course, there is the fact that EVERY national science organization on the planet accepts AGW.

I never would have believed I would see nominally rational people reject evidence this clear and overwhelming. You guys are pushing for some sort of Flat-Earther award.

 

[flacaltenn]

Hey Dave? I win.

But, hey, that was never in any real doubt, was it.

The Cook study was flawed. Undeniably.

Then watch this.

I deny it. The Cook study is just fine. You consistently ignore the insignifcance of the tiny fraction of authors who have voiced any disapproval of Cook's judgements as well as the author's self-assessment that almost exactly matched the results of the examination of the literature.

You also ignore the four other studies all showing that a vast majority of climate scientists accept AGW and concur with the IPCC's position. And then, of course, there is the fact that EVERY national science organization on the planet accepts AGW.

I never would have believed I would see nominally rational people reject evidence this clear and overwhelming. You guys are pushing for some sort of Flat-Earther award.

From your own supporting data...

Overall, only 5% describe the study of global climate change as a “fully mature”
science, but 51% describe it as “fairly mature,” while 40% see it as still an
“emerging” science. However, over two out of three (69%) believe there is at least
a 50-50 chance that the debate over the role of human activity in global warming
will be settled in the next 10 to 20 years.

Only 29% express a “great deal of confidence” that scientists understand the size
and extent of anthropogenic [human] sources of greenhouse gases,” and only 32% are
confident about our understanding of the archeological climate evidence.

Not denying anything here that ample numbers of your FICTICIOUS consensus themselves deny...

40% see their field as "an emerging science".. Only 32% are comfortable with "proxy science".. Plenty of skeptics in those ranks...

Go pick another "poll" for us to study.. This crap is fun.. MINDLESS AND MEANINGLESS, but fun...

 

[flacaltenn]

The Cook study is a bigger scientific bomb than most of the papers they reviewed..

The MAJORITY OF PAPERS REVIEWED EXPRESSED NO OPINION..

How in the hell does that translate to 97% consensus?? Only in the minds of zombie zealots could that be taken as a 97% consensus on anything..

Not only that --- but the temporal trend CLEARLY SHOWS in that paper --- a GROWING preference to keep abstracts MORE NEUTRAL and non-commital.. My little climate science community is growing up... How cute...

 

[Old Rocks]

Abraham::

Do you even read the Wiki links that you toss out to us?
From ref 112 in your post..

STATS:

A need to know more

Overall, only 5% describe the study of global climate change as a “fully mature”
science, but 51% describe it as “fairly mature,” while 40% see it as still an
“emerging” science. However, over two out of three (69%) believe there is at least
a 50-50 chance that the debate over the role of human activity in global warming
will be settled in the next 10 to 20 years.

Only 29% express a “great deal of confidence” that scientists understand the size
and extent of anthropogenic [human] sources of greenhouse gases,” and only 32% are
confident about our understanding of the archeological climate evidence.



Climate scientists are skeptical of the media

Only 1% of climate scientists rate either broadcast or cable television news about
climate change as “very reliable.” Another 31% say broadcast news is “somewhat
reliable,” compared to 25% for cable news. (The remainder rate TV news as “not
very” or “not at all” reliable.) Local newspapers are rated as very reliable by 3%
and somewhat reliable by 33% of scientists. Even the national press (New York
Times, Wall St. Journal etc) is rated as very reliable by only 11%, although
another 56% say it is at least somewhat reliable.

40% of them rate their field "as an emerging science". Very few of them believe the proxy numbers. And only 30% have "a great deal of confidence" in the anthro proof.

Secondly -- who the flock cares what the public thinks if the climate scientists give the media such a low grade in "interpreting" their work..

Go shuck yourself and your 97% consensus... The only thing that approaches 97% is that they agree that it has been warming..
I don't even accept THESE NUMBERS --- since this work was done before ClimateGate unraveled.. Let's poll them AGAIN --- shall we? To see "how mature" they think their field is AFTER reading those emails...

And the Scientific Societies, National Academies of Science, and major universities that support your position are..............................................