Only 52% of Meteorologists/Atmospheric Experts Believe in AGW

[Hoosier4Liberty]

Nearly half of meteorologists reject man-made global warming | The Daily Caller

Interesting link counter to the "97%" argument regarding scientific consensus:

"The survey of AMS members found that while 52 percent of American Meteorological Society members believe climate change is occurring and mostly human-induced, 48 percent of members do not believe in man-made global warming.

Furthermore, the survey found that scientists who professed “liberal political views” were much more likely to believe in the theory of man-made global warming than those who without liberal views."


Hardly the "consensus" liberals claim.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The 97% claim made by Cook has already been shown to be false througha peer reviewed paper. The actual consensus found from Cook's methodology was .3%.

No need for additional hosings of the claim. Cook and his site, have been found to be nothing more than propaganda.

 

[RDD_1210]

From the study you linked to:

Our findings regarding the degree of consensus about human-caused climate change among the most expert meteorologists are similar to those of Doran and Zimmerman(2009):

93% of actively publishing climate scientists indicated they are convinced that humans have contributed to global warming. Our findings also revealed that majorities of experts view human activity as the primary cause of recent climate change

So the actual experts in the field overwhelmingly agree that global warming is real and humans are the cause of it. Thanks for the link!

 

[ClosedCaption]

From the study you linked to:

Our findings regarding the degree of consensus about human-caused climate change among the most expert meteorologists are similar to those of Doran and Zimmerman(2009):

93% of actively publishing climate scientists indicated they are convinced that humans have contributed to global warming. Our findings also revealed that majorities of experts view human activity as the primary cause of recent climate change

So the actual experts in the field overwhelmingly agree that global warming is real and humans are the cause of it. Thanks for the link!

Lol...The OP let off a round into his own foot

 

[RDD_1210]

From the study you linked to:

Our findings regarding the degree of consensus about human-caused climate change among the most expert meteorologists are similar to those of Doran and Zimmerman(2009):

93% of actively publishing climate scientists indicated they are convinced that humans have contributed to global warming. Our findings also revealed that majorities of experts view human activity as the primary cause of recent climate change

So the actual experts in the field overwhelmingly agree that global warming is real and humans are the cause of it. Thanks for the link!

Lol...The OP let off a round into his own foot

I'm waiting for the canned response that these "experts" are on the dole or some other typical lame response.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

From the study you linked to:

Our findings regarding the degree of consensus about human-caused climate change among the most expert meteorologists are similar to those of Doran and Zimmerman(2009):

93% of actively publishing climate scientists indicated they are convinced that humans have contributed to global warming. Our findings also revealed that majorities of experts view human activity as the primary cause of recent climate change

So the actual experts in the field overwhelmingly agree that global warming is real and humans are the cause of it. Thanks for the link!

Nice cherrypick. The hallmarks of LOLberal posting.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Before considering implications of those findings, however, readers should consider two
370 methodological issues that could have affected the accuracy of our results.
371 First, even though the response rate to our survey was well within the normative range,
372 nearly three quarters of the AMS members invited to participate did not do so. This raises the
373 possibility that our respondents may not accurately represent the views of the broader AMS
374 membership

 

[RDD_1210]

From the study you linked to:

Our findings regarding the degree of consensus about human-caused climate change among the most expert meteorologists are similar to those of Doran and Zimmerman(2009):

93% of actively publishing climate scientists indicated they are convinced that humans have contributed to global warming. Our findings also revealed that majorities of experts view human activity as the primary cause of recent climate change

So the actual experts in the field overwhelmingly agree that global warming is real and humans are the cause of it. Thanks for the link!

Nice cherrypick. The hallmarks of LOLberal posting.

LOL, the entire article citing specific portions of this study is a cherry pick. Glad you were ok with then. Hypocrite much?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

You fail at comprehension. Not too surprising, that.

 

[RDD_1210]

Before considering implications of those findings, however, readers should consider two
370 methodological issues that could have affected the accuracy of our results.
371 First, even though the response rate to our survey was well within the normative range,
372 nearly three quarters of the AMS members invited to participate did not do so. This raises the
373 possibility that our respondents may not accurately represent the views of the broader AMS
374 membership

Oh, so the study is bullshit anyway?

Quick, abandon ship!

 

[RDD_1210]

You fail at comprehension. Not too surprising, that.

Post another emoticon. You're good at that at least.

 

[Vox]

From the study you linked to:

Our findings regarding the degree of consensus about human-caused climate change among the most expert meteorologists are similar to those of Doran and Zimmerman(2009):

93% of actively publishing climate scientists indicated they are convinced that humans have contributed to global warming. Our findings also revealed that majorities of experts view human activity as the primary cause of recent climate change

So the actual experts in the field overwhelmingly agree that global warming is real and humans are the cause of it. Thanks for the link!

cook has been debunked and laughed at numerous times. only .3% agree on AGW

 

[Vox]

Before considering implications of those findings, however, readers should consider two
370 methodological issues that could have affected the accuracy of our results.
371 First, even though the response rate to our survey was well within the normative range,
372 nearly three quarters of the AMS members invited to participate did not do so. This raises the
373 possibility that our respondents may not accurately represent the views of the broader AMS
374 membership

Oh, so the study is bullshit anyway?

Quick, abandon ship!

cook's "study" IS bullshit, true

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I already said such a study isn't really relevant to consensus. But, should you actually read (I know, a long shot there) it, the study shows how poliical view and "groupthink" dominate the consensus on Goebbel's Warming.

There never was a 97% consensus. That was a fabrication from the get go and there are peer reviewed papers that show the methodology of the consensus paper to be flawed terribly. Leaving only .3% in consensus based on Cook's methodology. Cook's a fraud and so is his site skepticalscience.com. He's a propagandist, not a scientist.

 

[RDD_1210]

From the study you linked to:

Our findings regarding the degree of consensus about human-caused climate change among the most expert meteorologists are similar to those of Doran and Zimmerman(2009):

93% of actively publishing climate scientists indicated they are convinced that humans have contributed to global warming. Our findings also revealed that majorities of experts view human activity as the primary cause of recent climate change

So the actual experts in the field overwhelmingly agree that global warming is real and humans are the cause of it. Thanks for the link!

cook has been debunked and laughed at numerous times. only .3% agree on AGW

How about a response that actually addresses what I said this time.

Thanks!

 

[RDD_1210]

I already said such a study isn't really relevant to consensus. But, should you actually read (I know, a long shot there) it, the study shows how poliical view and "groupthink" dominate the consensus on Goebbel's Warming.

There never was a 97% consensus. That was a fabrication from the get go and there are peer reviewed papers that show the methodology of the consensus paper to be flawed terribly. Leaving only .3% in consensus based on Cook's methodology. Cook's a fraud and so is his site skepticalscience.com. He's a propagandist, not a scientist.

Pretty sure I never said a thing about Cook or anything he did, so why you feel the need to continue to reference him in responses to me is just a bit bizarre. But I know you have a one track mind and don't know how to respond to things that are outside of your canned responses.

Let me know when you're ready to address the quote I shared from the study linked in the OP.

 

[kiwiman127]

You know what? Personally, I'm more concerned about made-made pollution more than anything. Because the pollution contributes more to the health of the world and also America and the impact of pollution on health is in the now stages. Pollution is the big contributor to the current rise of respiratory diseases, birth defects and reproductive failures.
This costs us human lives and raises the cost of healthcare in general.
Therefore, I'm happy about the discussion of Global Warming because it focuses on the pollutants which have fatal effects on the human race.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I already said such a study isn't really relevant to consensus. But, should you actually read (I know, a long shot there) it, the study shows how poliical view and "groupthink" dominate the consensus on Goebbel's Warming.

There never was a 97% consensus. That was a fabrication from the get go and there are peer reviewed papers that show the methodology of the consensus paper to be flawed terribly. Leaving only .3% in consensus based on Cook's methodology. Cook's a fraud and so is his site skepticalscience.com. He's a propagandist, not a scientist.

Pretty sure I never said a thing about Cook or anything he did, so why you feel the need to continue to reference him in responses to me is just a bit bizarre. But I know you have a one track mind and don't know how to respond to things that are outside of your canned responses.

Let me know when you're ready to address the quote I shared from the study linked in the OP.

The Op links to a Guardian article that pulls up Cook's paper as the source of 97% consensus. You really are bad at this, aren't you?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

You know what? Personally, I'm more concerned about made-made pollution more than anything. Because the pollution contributes more to the health of the world and also America and the impact of pollution on health is in the now stages. Pollution is the big contributor to the current rise of respiratory diseases, birth defects and reproductive failures.
This costs us human lives and raises the cost of healthcare in general.
Therefore, I'm happy about the discussion of Global Warming because it focuses on the pollutants which have fatal effects on the human race.

AGW focuses on CO2 and methane dominantly. Which, neither are pollutants in the conventional sense of the word.

 

[ClosedCaption]

They wont believe it until the US looks like Shanghi.