Long-term warming trend continued in 2017: NASA, NOAA

[Toddsterpatriot]

When the overwhelonng majority of scientists call something extremely likely, that is significant.

75/77. Practically a guarantee.

DERP!

Thats adorable how you make up numbers for attention. Oh toddster, my attention comes free, you don't have to embarrass yourself for it.

Thats adorable how you make up numbers for attention.

You think I made up those numbers? LOL!

Wow, and you sounded so knowledgeable in your refusal to give details.

As relates to consensus? Yes, you made them up. Your fake lols don't change that.

Grown man typing fake lols = very frustrated.

So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.

That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)

The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation?

No one has ever been able to measure human contributions to climate. Don’t even think about buying a used car from anyone who claims they can. As Senator James Inhofe, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has observed: “The notion of a ‘consensus’ is carefully manufactured for political and ideological purposes. Its proponents never explain what ‘consensus’ they are referring to. Is it a ‘consensus’ that future computer models will turn out correct? Is it a ‘consensus’ that the Earth has warmed? Proving that parts of the Earth have warmed does not prove that humans are responsible.”

That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!

A group of 3,146 earth scientists surveyed around the world overwhelmingly agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising, and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.

Peter Doran, University of Illinois at Chicago associate professor of earth and environmental sciences, along with former graduate student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, conducted the survey late last year.

The findings appear January 19 in the publication Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union.

In trying to overcome criticism of earlier attempts to gauge the view of earth scientists on global warming and the human impact factor, Doran and Kendall Zimmerman sought the opinion of the most complete list of earth scientists they could find, contacting more than 10,200 experts around the world listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.

Experts in academia and government research centers were e-mailed invitations to participate in the on-line poll conducted by the website questionpro.com. Only those invited could participate and computer IP addresses of participants were recorded and used to prevent repeat voting. Questions used were reviewed by a polling expert who checked for bias in phrasing, such as suggesting an answer by the way a question was worded. The nine-question survey was short, taking just a few minutes to complete.

Two questions were key: have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

In analyzing responses by sub-groups, Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 and 64 percent respectively believing in human involvement. Doran compared their responses to a recent poll showing only 58 percent of the public thinks human activity contributes to global warming.

Scientists Agree Human-induced Global Warming Is Real, Survey Says

Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.

Weird, no mention that they excluded all but 77 climatologists.
Funny that idiots think 75/77 means there is a consensus.

Played a role? Wow, so specific!

Gotta know the questions. Gotta ask a LOT of questions to "settle" the science.

“When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”

They really dug deep with this one.

 

[flacaltenn]

Thats adorable how you make up numbers for attention. Oh toddster, my attention comes free, you don't have to embarrass yourself for it.

Thats adorable how you make up numbers for attention.

You think I made up those numbers? LOL!

Wow, and you sounded so knowledgeable in your refusal to give details.

As relates to consensus? Yes, you made them up. Your fake lols don't change that.

Grown man typing fake lols = very frustrated.

So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.

That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)

The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation?

No one has ever been able to measure human contributions to climate. Don’t even think about buying a used car from anyone who claims they can. As Senator James Inhofe, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has observed: “The notion of a ‘consensus’ is carefully manufactured for political and ideological purposes. Its proponents never explain what ‘consensus’ they are referring to. Is it a ‘consensus’ that future computer models will turn out correct? Is it a ‘consensus’ that the Earth has warmed? Proving that parts of the Earth have warmed does not prove that humans are responsible.”

That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!

A group of 3,146 earth scientists surveyed around the world overwhelmingly agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising, and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.

Peter Doran, University of Illinois at Chicago associate professor of earth and environmental sciences, along with former graduate student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, conducted the survey late last year.

The findings appear January 19 in the publication Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union.

In trying to overcome criticism of earlier attempts to gauge the view of earth scientists on global warming and the human impact factor, Doran and Kendall Zimmerman sought the opinion of the most complete list of earth scientists they could find, contacting more than 10,200 experts around the world listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.

Experts in academia and government research centers were e-mailed invitations to participate in the on-line poll conducted by the website questionpro.com. Only those invited could participate and computer IP addresses of participants were recorded and used to prevent repeat voting. Questions used were reviewed by a polling expert who checked for bias in phrasing, such as suggesting an answer by the way a question was worded. The nine-question survey was short, taking just a few minutes to complete.

Two questions were key: have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

In analyzing responses by sub-groups, Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 and 64 percent respectively believing in human involvement. Doran compared their responses to a recent poll showing only 58 percent of the public thinks human activity contributes to global warming.

Scientists Agree Human-induced Global Warming Is Real, Survey Says

Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.

Weird, no mention that they excluded all but 77 climatologists.
Funny that idiots think 75/77 means there is a consensus.

Played a role? Wow, so specific!

Gotta know the questions. Gotta ask a LOT of questions to "settle" the science.

“When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”

They really dug deep with this one.

There's always a "give-me" question that comes with any scientific consensus.

 

[Old Rocks]

The short term trend is warming and then a very long pause...the long term trend is cooling.

100% wrong. No pause, as we know, and mankind's actions are clearly superseding the gentle, long term trend.

Lets get some facts into this fantasy your spewing...

View attachment 203539 View attachment 203540
The over all long term trend is cooling. What we've seen to date is within normal and natural variation.. When we place the alarmist clap trap into context of the longer trend, there is no emergency of any kind.


Your a fucking idiot and a dupe

Proxies are NOT reliable trend indicators.

Ice cores are considered to be gold standard proxies by climate science and the ice cores from both poles show a long term cooling trend.

And how gold are the ice cores from the equator? So Ice cores have a very limited record on GLOBAL temperature.

Ice cores are reliable data for the area from which they are taken. But different areas react differently and one can be cooling while another is warming. Warmer winters for most of the earth now, but not the northeastern US.

 

[Old Rocks]

Or better yet. As an Atmospheric Chemist with over 8 years of college level discipline -- tell me quickly without googling shit or having a twin cow with the taunting crap, why CO2 is a GHouse gas and CO is not..

And that will happen about the time pigs fly. Burger flippers usually don't even know the difference between CO, and CO2.

 

[Old Rocks]

So,etme get this straight...

are you essentially stating that people that who have dedicated their lives to these fields do not know basic atmospheric physics?

The alarmists call them deniers.

You might want to slow down and re read. Nobody calls the scientists deniers, because they aren't.

You’d better tell that to the scientists who disagree with the alarmists.

That won't take long...maybe you could point me to one of their peer reviewed, published papers? By all accounts, not one scientific research paper in decades has come to a conclusion that differs far from the consensus or concludes that the consensus os wrong. But, since you are so well versed on the subject, here's your chance to shock the world.

Richard Lindzen and Judith Curry for starters. MIT and Ga Tech, respectively.

Lindzen is not longer at MIT. And most of his work has been falsified, no Iris effect. Also, he stated before Congress that tobacco was harmless. And was paid well for it. The man is whoring his credentials. Judith Curry states that the GHGs are warming the atmosphere, but that the scientists should be good little virgins, and not soil themselves talking policy. Doesn't seem to realize that most have children and grandchildren and are concerned for their future. So, while Curry is respected as a scientist, not so much as a person, and has become a bit of an outcast.

 

[Old Rocks]

That won't take long...maybe you could point me to one of their peer reviewed, published papers? By all accounts, not one scientific research paper in decades has come to a conclusion that differs far from the consensus or concludes that the consensus os wrong. But, since you are so well versed on the subject, here's your chance to shock the world.

not one scientific research paper in decades has come to a conclusion that differs far from the consensus

What is the "consensus" again? Be as specific as you can.

I'm not your mommy. You need to educate yourself of the basics of this topic.

So you won't be backing up your claim then?

what claim?That no papers have concluded the consensus is wrong for decades? No, that "debate" has been hashed out many times here. Sorry.

But, as a word of advice to someone who appears to know less than nothing about this topic: You should start at the NASA website, and go from there. Then you wouldn't find yourself asking so many basic questions hat would make a high schooler blush.

what claim?
That no papers have concluded the consensus is wrong for decades?

Yes.
If you can't even say what the consensus is, how can you back up your claim that no paper has differed from the "consensus"?

Very simple, the consensus is that GHGs warm the atmosphere and ocean, and if you add more GHGs, you warm the atmosphere more. The details are how much and how fast. So show me articles from peer reviewed journals that dispute any of what I have said.

 

[flacaltenn]

Or better yet. As an Atmospheric Chemist with over 8 years of college level discipline -- tell me quickly without googling shit or having a twin cow with the taunting crap, why CO2 is a GHouse gas and CO is not..

And that will happen about the time pigs fly. Burger flippers usually don't even know the difference between CO, and CO2.

Spam flippers might. Just saying. THAT was an amazing performance we just witnessed..

 

[Old Rocks]

"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. " - NASA

Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.

Wow!
The precision in this claim is breathtaking.

For scienctists, that is very significant. As I am sure you know.

No, a claim like that with no numbers in it is not significant at all.

Sheesh. 280 ppm CO2 150 years ago, 400+ ppm now. About 700 ppb CH4 150 years ago, 1850+ ppb now.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_June_2018_v6.jpg

There are a lot of numbers there. Satisfied?

 

[Old Rocks]

"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. " - NASA

That wasn't a poll. It was based on studies that read abstracts. And it included the ones with NO expressed opinion into the yes category. The worse place to look for opinion is in the abstract of tech papers. Even if they quoted OTHER scientists -- it was counted as their opinion. Even if all the 4 or 8 authors on the papers didn't agree -- it was counted. It's a sham.

And LIKELY is not a definitely strong qualifier in law or science.
I like my scientific ACTUAL polling on HUNDREDS of questions better. Because it's better science.

The question is, "Does global warming actually exist" Answer, yes. Next question. Are the GHGs that we are putting into the atmosphere the cause, or at least a substantial part of the cause? Answer for all the Scientific Societies in the world, yes. Now that is a consensus. Now, can a scientific consensus be wrong. The answer is yes, but very seldom, especially when we understand the basic cause, that being the absorption spectra of the GHGs.

 

[Rambunctious]

The Sky is falling....send your contribution and increased cost of living to Rambunctious.com so I can stop the sky from falling.....

 

[Old Rocks]

Richard Lindzen and Judith Curry for starters.

And their peer reviewed papers that conclude the consensus is wrong can be found... where?

(hint: save your time, they don't have any)

There's plenty of info out there. If you're open minded.

Well, if you are open minded enough, your brains fall out. LOL Plenty of info out there? Alex Jones type info? Present some real scientists, not attention seeking idiots.

 

[Sunsettommy]

"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. " - NASA

Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.

Wow!
The precision in this claim is breathtaking.

For scienctists, that is very significant. As I am sure you know.

No, a claim like that with no numbers in it is not significant at all.

Sheesh. 280 ppm CO2 150 years ago, 400+ ppm now. About 700 ppb CH4 150 years ago, 1850+ ppb now.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_June_2018_v6.jpg

There are a lot of numbers there. Satisfied?

Once again you damage the warmist argument by posting this chart, thank you!

 

[Old Rocks]

Personally I find that consensus arguments to have little scientific value since it doesn't advance science research. What works is REPRODUCIBLE research that could be validated with additional research to see if the hypothesis is working.

Consensus belongs in the world of Politics.

Reproducible research. Of course. Since several nations have satellites measuring ice, temperatures of the atmosphere, and the oceans, I would say that much reproducible research is being done. Not only that, but that research all indicates that a rapid warming is taking place. And the fact that the GHGs absorb long wave IR has been validated many times in many independent laboratories every since 1858. Consensus in science means that the theory is generally accepted because no one have succeeded in falsifying that theory. Like the theory of Evolution, the theory of AGW is one of the most robust in science.

 

[Old Rocks]

"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. " - NASA

Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.

Wow!
The precision in this claim is breathtaking.

For scienctists, that is very significant. As I am sure you know.

No, a claim like that with no numbers in it is not significant at all.

Sheesh. 280 ppm CO2 150 years ago, 400+ ppm now. About 700 ppb CH4 150 years ago, 1850+ ppb now.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_June_2018_v6.jpg

There are a lot of numbers there. Satisfied?

Once again you damage the warmist argument by posting this chart, thank you!

Once again you prove what an idiot you truly are. There is a very strong warming trend displayed on that chart.

 

[Old Rocks]

Richard Lindzen and Judith Curry for starters.

And their peer reviewed papers that conclude the consensus is wrong can be found... where?

(hint: save your time, they don't have any)

Consensus on WHAT QUESTIONS ??? You have no idea how many questions need to be asked to get a "consensus" on Climate Change. Please stop with this phony notion that "everyone in the field" is just 100% in agreement on everything. It's stupid and boring...

It's 95%+for the consensus. Thats a fact, so throw your little fit until you are tired out. And I asked you a question.

We had a similar number predicting a Hillary win. And they weren't subsidized by the government to say so the way the alarmists are.

Richard Lindzen and Judith Curry for starters.

And their peer reviewed papers that conclude the consensus is wrong can be found... where?

(hint: save your time, they don't have any)

Consensus on WHAT QUESTIONS ??? You have no idea how many questions need to be asked to get a "consensus" on Climate Change. Please stop with this phony notion that "everyone in the field" is just 100% in agreement on everything. It's stupid and boring...

It's 95%+for the consensus. Thats a fact, so throw your little fit until you are tired out. And I asked you a question.

We had a similar number predicting a Hillary win. And they weren't subsidized by the government to say so the way the alarmists are.

Now dumb fuck, are you saying that all the scientists in the world are subsidized by the US Government? If so, why has not the orange clown stopped that? Since all the Scientific Societies of every nation agree that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

 

[Old Rocks]

Personally I find that consensus arguments to have little scientific value since it doesn't advance science research

No doubt, and scientists certainly don't use them in their arguments. I was wondering ....when was the last time you advanced these sciences involved on this?

It seems odd that I have never once run into an actual working, physical scientist who denies the consensus or the accepted theories, despite there being so many experts.i wonder if there is a simple explanation for this?

Did you read the results of the Recent Mann - Curry debate? You ever ask Dr Spencer or Dr Christy at UAH their opinion? Now you'll be lying if you make that statement again. Because you can't say you've never once run into any...

He forgot the Oregon Petition Project (31,000 people) , or the 1350+ published papers or the 93 skeptic papers for 2014 and a lot more for 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018, the point being that there are many who don't agree with the IPCC's position on the AGW conjecture.

The Oregon Petition Project was and is essentially a fraud to take in dumb fools like you.

Oregon Petition - Wikipedia

In 2001, Scientific American took a random sample "of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science."

Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.[26]

Former New Scientist correspondent Peter Hadfield said that scientists are not experts on every topic, as depicted by the character Brains in Thunderbirds. Rather, they must specialize:

In between Aaagard and Zylkowski, the first and last names on the petition, are an assortment of metallurgists, botanists, agronomists, organic chemists and so on. ... The vast majority of scientists who signed the petition have never studied climatology and don't do any research into it. It doesn't matter if you're a Ph.D. A Ph.D in metallurgy just makes you better at metallurgy. It does not transform you into some kind of expert in paleoclimatology. ... So the petition's suggestion that everyone with a degree in metallurgy or geophysics knows a lot about climate change, or is familiar with all the research that's been done, is patent crap.[27][28]

NAS incident[edit]
A manuscript accompanying the petition was presented in a near identical style and format to contributions that appear in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a scientific journal,[29] but upon careful examination was distinct from a publication by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Raymond Pierrehumbert, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Chicago, said the presentation was "designed to be deceptive by giving people the impression that the article … is a reprint and has passed peer review." Pierrehumbert also said the publication was full of "half-truths".[30] F. Sherwood Rowland, who was at the time foreign secretary of the National Academy of Sciences, said that the Academy received numerous inquiries from researchers who "are wondering if someone is trying to hoodwink them."[30]

After the petition appeared, the National Academy of Sciences said in a 1998 news release that "The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal."[31] It also said "The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy." The NAS further noted that its own prior published study had shown that "even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises."[31]

Robinson responded in a 1998 article in Science, "I used the Proceedings as a model, but only to put the information in a format that scientists like to read, not to fool people into thinking it is from a journal."[30] A 2006 article in the magazine Vanity Fair stated:

Today, Seitz admits that "it was stupid" for the Oregon activists to copy the academy's format. Still, he doesn't understand why the academy felt compelled to disavow the petition, which he continues to cite as proof that it is "not true" there is a scientific consensus on global warming.[32]

 

[Old Rocks]

When the overwhelonng majority of scientists call something extremely likely, that is significant.

75/77. Practically a guarantee.

DERP!

Thats adorable how you make up numbers for attention. Oh toddster, my attention comes free, you don't have to embarrass yourself for it.

Thats adorable how you make up numbers for attention.

You think I made up those numbers? LOL!

Wow, and you sounded so knowledgeable in your refusal to give details.

As relates to consensus? Yes, you made them up. Your fake lols don't change that.

Grown man typing fake lols = very frustrated.

So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.

That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)

The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation?

No one has ever been able to measure human contributions to climate. Don’t even think about buying a used car from anyone who claims they can. As Senator James Inhofe, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has observed: “The notion of a ‘consensus’ is carefully manufactured for political and ideological purposes. Its proponents never explain what ‘consensus’ they are referring to. Is it a ‘consensus’ that future computer models will turn out correct? Is it a ‘consensus’ that the Earth has warmed? Proving that parts of the Earth have warmed does not prove that humans are responsible.”

That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!

A group of 3,146 earth scientists surveyed around the world overwhelmingly agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising, and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.

Peter Doran, University of Illinois at Chicago associate professor of earth and environmental sciences, along with former graduate student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, conducted the survey late last year.

The findings appear January 19 in the publication Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union.

In trying to overcome criticism of earlier attempts to gauge the view of earth scientists on global warming and the human impact factor, Doran and Kendall Zimmerman sought the opinion of the most complete list of earth scientists they could find, contacting more than 10,200 experts around the world listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.

Experts in academia and government research centers were e-mailed invitations to participate in the on-line poll conducted by the website questionpro.com. Only those invited could participate and computer IP addresses of participants were recorded and used to prevent repeat voting. Questions used were reviewed by a polling expert who checked for bias in phrasing, such as suggesting an answer by the way a question was worded. The nine-question survey was short, taking just a few minutes to complete.

Two questions were key: have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

In analyzing responses by sub-groups, Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 and 64 percent respectively believing in human involvement. Doran compared their responses to a recent poll showing only 58 percent of the public thinks human activity contributes to global warming.

Scientists Agree Human-induced Global Warming Is Real, Survey Says

Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.

Weird, no mention that they excluded all but 77 climatologists.
Funny that idiots think 75/77 means there is a consensus.

Played a role? Wow, so specific!

Gotta know the questions. Gotta ask a LOT of questions to "settle" the science.

Well, science is never truly settled. But that won't stop me from using pi in determining properties of circles and spheres without giving it a second thought.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.

Wow!
The precision in this claim is breathtaking.

For scienctists, that is very significant. As I am sure you know.

No, a claim like that with no numbers in it is not significant at all.

Sheesh. 280 ppm CO2 150 years ago, 400+ ppm now. About 700 ppb CH4 150 years ago, 1850+ ppb now.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_June_2018_v6.jpg

There are a lot of numbers there. Satisfied?

Once again you damage the warmist argument by posting this chart, thank you!

Once again you prove what an idiot you truly are. There is a very strong warming trend displayed on that chart.

I never said it wasn't warming, but the chart undermines the AGW conjecture which says it supposed to warm at least .30C per decade, UAH6 shows about .15C per decade.

Homework for you:

Which number is bigger?

.30C or .15C

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

The alarmists call them deniers.

You might want to slow down and re read. Nobody calls the scientists deniers, because they aren't.

You’d better tell that to the scientists who disagree with the alarmists.

That won't take long...maybe you could point me to one of their peer reviewed, published papers? By all accounts, not one scientific research paper in decades has come to a conclusion that differs far from the consensus or concludes that the consensus os wrong. But, since you are so well versed on the subject, here's your chance to shock the world.

Richard Lindzen and Judith Curry for starters. MIT and Ga Tech, respectively.

Lindzen is not longer at MIT. And most of his work has been falsified, no Iris effect. Also, he stated before Congress that tobacco was harmless. And was paid well for it. The man is whoring his credentials. Judith Curry states that the GHGs are warming the atmosphere, but that the scientists should be good little virgins, and not soil themselves talking policy. Doesn't seem to realize that most have children and grandchildren and are concerned for their future. So, while Curry is respected as a scientist, not so much as a person, and has become a bit of an outcast.

You have all of the lefty propaganda points.
Any truly objective person would recognize the scam because of the politics that are infused.
AGW is a scam and supporting laymen are driven by ego.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Richard Lindzen and Judith Curry for starters.

And their peer reviewed papers that conclude the consensus is wrong can be found... where?

(hint: save your time, they don't have any)

There's plenty of info out there. If you're open minded.

Well, if you are open minded enough, your brains fall out. LOL Plenty of info out there? Alex Jones type info? Present some real scientists, not attention seeking idiots.

I listed two and you did the usual AGW sheep disparagement.
I lived with an EPA scientist in a group house 30 years ago when this scam emerged, usurping the acid rain agenda.
He was on Nightline on ABC scaring people with predictions of AGW-induced calamities.
At the time he owned three cars, all of which predated emission control devices.
That's when I learned to be skeptical.