Consensus?

[IanC]

A professionally done survey of actual climate scientists

http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/pdf/GKSS_2010_9.CLISCI.pdf

And not because they are skeptics–these scientists are very mainstream in their opinions about climate science and are strong supporters of the IPCC. Fifty-nine percent (59%) agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, “The IPCC reports are of great use to the advancement of climate science.” Only 6% disagreed. And 86.5% agreed or strongly agreed that “climate change is occurring now” and 66.5% agreed or strongly agreed that future climate “will be a result of anthropogenic causes.”

Even so, there are areas of climate science that some people want to claim is settled, but where scientists don’t agree.

Only 12% agree or strongly agree that data availability for climate change analysis is adequate. More than 21% disagree or strongly disagree.

Only 25% agree or strongly agree that “Data collection efforts are currently adequate,” while 16% disagree or strongly disagree.

Perhaps most importantly, only 17.75% agree or strongly agree with the statement, “The state of theoretical understanding of climate change phenomena is adequate.” And equal percentage disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Only 22% think atmospheric models deal with hydrodynamics in a manner that is adequate or very adequate. Thirty percent (30%) feel that way about atmospheric models’ treatment of radiation, and only 9% feel that atmospheric models are adequate in their treatment of water vapor–and not one respondent felt that they were ‘very adequate.’

And only 1% felt that atmospheric models dealt well with clouds, while 46% felt they were inadequate or very inadequate. Only 2% felt the models dealt adequately with precipitation, and 3.5% felt that way about modeled treatment of atmospheric convection.

For ocean models, the lack of consensus continued. Only 20% felt ocean models dealt well with hydrodynamics, 11% felt that way about modeled treatment of heat transport in the ocean, 6.5% felt that way about oceanic convection, and only 12% felt that there exists an adequate ability to couple atmospheric and ocean models.

Only 7% agree or strongly agree that “The current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of turbulence,” and only 26% felt that way about surface albedo. Only 8% felt that way about land surface processes, and only 11% about sea ice.

And another shocker–only 32% agreed or strongly agreed that the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of greenhouse gases emitted from anthropogenic sources.

Where Consensus Fails – The Science Cannot Be Called ‘Settled’ | Watts Up With That?

 

[Old Rocks]

Even the author of the study believes that man is responsible for the present warming. And, once again, if there is no consensus, why does every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University state that AGW is a fact?

Inhofes List of 400 Scientists Global Warming Deniers, Debunked - Climate Change Deniers - The Daily Green

360. Dr. Hans von Storch, the director of Institute for Coastal Research of the GKSS Research Centre, and a professor at the Meteorological Institute of the University of Hamburg. Believes man is responsible for global warming, just doesn't believe it will be as bad as some make it out to be.
Hans von Storch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Read more: Inhofes List of 400 Scientists Global Warming Deniers, Debunked - Climate Change Deniers - The Daily Green

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Consensus is not science. Science is testing, not authority

 

[Si modo]

Playing the consensus card (a non-existent consensus, by the way) is a logical fallacy on its face.

Science tends to be logical, so scientists rarely use such fallacies.

 

[IanC]

I posted a survey of scientists to show that there is indeed consensus on the general terms of AGW. As the questions become more specific the concensus drops off quickly.

To avoid becoming pariahs in their field it is much easier to agree with the general idea because no one can argue that CO2 is going up and that CO2 is a GHG. But as the questions start to delve into the amount of knowledge known and the amount of knowldge needed in specific areas, they are allowed to show skepticism without being labelled a 'denier'. And they do.