Where is the Consensus survey

[elektra]

Where is the consensus survey/study of the 99% scientists in aggreement? It is that simple. Lots of people here make the claim, nobody posts the survey. We can see the abstract, but not the survey/study.

Abstracts, may not reflect anything in the survey or study.

I want to see the whole thing. But it is not available.

So here is the challenge, post the survey, the study, of the consensus of scientists so we can see for ourselves.

While we wait, here is my partial reply

https://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/environment.84/post-thread

Finally, we show that the rating method used in the study suffers from a subjective bias which is reflected in large variations between ratings of the same paper by different raters. All these lead to the conclusion that the conclusions of the study does not follow from the data.

 

[Crepitus]

Where is the consensus survey/study of the 99% scientists in aggreement? It is that simple. Lots of people here make the claim, nobody posts the survey. We can see the abstract, but not the survey/study.

Abstracts, may not reflect anything in the survey or study.

I want to see the whole thing. But it is not available.

So here is the challenge, post the survey, the study, of the consensus of scientists so we can see for ourselves.

While we wait, here is my partial reply

https://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/environment.84/post-thread

It wasn't a survey, it was a study of scientific papers from actively publishing climate scientists.

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Oddball]

It wasn't a survey, it was a study of scientific papers from actively publishing climate scientists.

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[abu afak]

Where is the consensus survey/study of the 99% scientists in aggreement? It is that simple. Lots of people here make the claim, nobody posts the survey. We can see the abstract, but not the survey/study.

Abstracts, may not reflect anything in the survey or study.

I want to see the whole thing. But it is not available.

So here is the challenge, post the survey, the study, of the consensus of scientists so we can see for ourselves.

While we wait, here is my partial reply

https://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/environment.84/post-thread

SAME Place I linked Previous except the article Got a New set Hot-Linked Footnotes to each study as it has been revised as entry now goes recent to older instead of the reverse
THANKS for this second chance to BEAT THE CRAP OUT OF YOUR STUPID MAGAt Brain.

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Surveys of scientists and scientific literature​

Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming. They have concluded that almost all climate scientists support the idea of anthropogenic climate change.[1]

A 2012 analysis of published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[162] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[163] His 2015 paper on the topic, covering 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.[164]

A 2013 study, published in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Research Letters analyzed 11,944 abstracts from papers published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature between 1991 and 2011, identified by searching the ISI Web of Science citation index engine for the text strings "global climate change" or "global warming". The authors found that 3974 of the abstracts expressed a position on anthropogenic global warming, and that 97% of those endorsed the consensus that humans are causing global warming. The authors found that of the 11,944 abstracts, 3896 endorsed that consensus, 7930 took no position on it, 78 rejected the consensus, and 40 expressed uncertainties about it.[165] This study was criticised in 2016 by Richard Tol,[166] but strongly defended by a companion paper in the same volume.[167]

James Lawrence Powell reported in 2017 that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.[168] 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%.[2]

A survey conducted in 2021 found that of a random selection of 3,000 papers examined from 88,125 peer-reviewed studies related to climate that were published since 2012, only 4 were sceptical about man-made climate change.[169]

Depending on expertise, a 2021 survey of 2780 Earth scientist showed that between 91% and 100% agreed human activity is causing climate change. Among climate scientists, 98.7% agreed, a number that grows to 100% when only the climate scientists with high level of expertise are counted (20+ papers published).[4]

Surveys prior to 2010​

In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[170] 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.[171][172][173][174]

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 countries.[175] 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.[176] 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:[177]

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.

A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences analyzed "1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show 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".[178][179] Judith Curry has said "This is a completely unconvincing analysis", whereas Naomi Oreskes said that the paper shows "the vast majority of working [climate] research scientists are in agreement [on climate change]... Those who don't agree, are, unfortunately—and this is hard to say without sounding elitist—mostly either not actually climate researchers or not very productive researchers."[179][180] Jim Prall, one of the coauthors of the study, acknowledged "it would be helpful to have lukewarm [as] a third category."[179]

Existence of a Scientific Consensus​

The public substantially Underestimates the degree of Scientific Consensus that Humans are Causing Climate change.[181] Studies from 2019–2021[182][183][184] found Scientific Consensus to range from 98.7–100%.
A question that frequently arose in popular discussion was whether there is a scientific consensus on climate change.[26] Several scientific organizations have explicitly used the term "consensus" in their statements:

• American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2006: "The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Joint National Academies' statement."[79]
• US National Academy of Sciences: "In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth's warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. ... On climate change, [the National Academies' reports] have assessed consensus findings on the science ..."[185]
• Joint Science Academies' statement, 2005: "We recognise the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."[186]
• Joint Science Academies' statement, 2001: "The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world's most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus."[72]
• American Meteorological Society, 2003: "The nature of science is such that there is rarely total agreement among scientists. Individual scientific statements and papers—the validity of some of which has yet to be assessed adequately—can be exploited in the policy debate and can leave the impression that the scientific community is sharply divided on issues where there is, in reality, a strong scientific consensus ... IPCC assessment reports are prepared at approximately five-year intervals by a large international group of experts who represent the broad range of expertise and perspectives relevant to the issues. The reports strive to reflect a consensus evaluation of the results of the full body of peer-reviewed research ... They provide an analysis of what is known and not known, the degree of consensus, and some indication of the degree of confidence that can be placed on the various statements and conclusions."[187]
• Network of African Science Academies: "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."[75]
• International Union for Quaternary Research, 2008: "INQUA recognizes the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."[122]
• Australian Coral Reef Society,[188] 2006: "There is almost total consensus among experts that the earth's climate is changing as a result of the build-up of greenhouse gases ... There is broad scientific consensus that coral reefs are heavily affected by the activities of man and there are significant global influences that can make reefs more vulnerable such as global warming ..."[189]

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 1990s.[190] 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."[191] A 2019 study found scientific consensus to be at 100%,[2] and a 2021 study found that consensus exceeded 99%.[3]

2020s​

Myers et al., 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%).[4]

Lynas et al., 2021​

In 2021, Mark Lynas et al assessed studies published between 2012 and 2020. They found over 80,000 studies. They analysed 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.[3]

2010s​

Powell, 2019​

In 2019, James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board,[192] analysed titles of peer-reviewed studies published in the first seven months of 2019 and found not a single study disagreed with the consensus view. When the titles implied uncertainty about the cause of climate change, the abstracts or the article in its entirety were examined. The total amount of articles found via Web of Science was 11,602.[2]

Verheggen et al., 2014​

In 2014, Bart Verheggen of 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.[193] 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.[194]

Powell, 2013​

James L. Powell 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.[195][196][197][198] This was a follow-up to an analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[199][200][201]

John Cook et al., 2013​

Cook et al. examined 11,944 abstracts from the peer-reviewed scientific literature from 1991 to 2011 that matched the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'.[202] They 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, 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.[202]

In their discussion of the results, the authors said that the large proportion of abstracts that state no position on AGW is as expected in a consensus situation, as anticipated in a chapter published in 2007,[203] adding 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."[202]

A 2016 study entitled Learning from mistakes in climate research examined the quality of the 3% of peer-reviewed papers discovered by this work to reject 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".[204]

Farnsworth and Lichter, 2011​

In an October 2011 paper published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, researchers from George Mason University analyzed the results of a survey of 998 scientists working in academia, government, and industry. The scientists polled were members of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) or the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and listed in the 23rd edition of American Men and Women of Science, a biographical reference work on leading American scientists, and 489 returned completed questionnaires. Of those who replied, 97% 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.[205][206]

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.[206]

Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2010​

Anderegg et al., in a 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS), reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers, based on authorship of scientific assessment reports and membership on multisignatory statements about anthropogenic climate change. The number of climate-relevant publications authored or coauthored by each researcher was used to define their 'expertise', and the number of citations for each of the researcher's four highest-cited papers was used to define their 'prominence'. Removing researchers who had authored fewer than 20 climate publications reduced the database to 908 researchers but did not materially alter the results. The authors of the paper say that their database of researchers "is not comprehensive nor designed to be representative of the entire climate science community," but say that since they drew the researchers from the most high-profile reports and public statements, it is likely that it represents the "strongest and most credentialed" researchers both 'convinced by the evidence' (CE) and 'unconvinced by the evidence' (UE) on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change.[207][208]

Anderegg et al. drew the following two conclusions:

(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here 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.[207]

2000s​

Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009​

This paper is based on the Zimmerman 2008 MS thesis; the full methods are in the MS thesis.[209] A web-based poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman of the Earth and Environmental Sciences department, University of Illinois at Chicago. They received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. The survey was designed to take less than two minutes to complete. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures had generally risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. 76 out of the 79 respondents 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", thought that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. Of those 79 scientists, 75 out of the 77 (97.4%) answered that human activity was a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. The remaining two were not asked, because in question one they responded that temperatures had remained relatively constant. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent respectively thinking that human activity was a significant contributing factor. In summary, Doran and Zimmerman wrote:

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.[177]

Bray and von Storch, 2008​

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, of the Institute for Coastal Research at the Helmholtz Research Centre in Germany, conducted an online survey in August 2008, of 2,059 climate scientists from 34 different countries, the third survey on this topic by these authors.[210] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 375 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18%. The climate change consensus results were published by Bray,[211] and another paper has also been published based on the survey.[212]

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'.[210]

In the section on climate change impacts, questions 20 and 21 were relevant to scientific opinion on climate change. Question 20, "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?" Answers: 67.1% very much convinced (7), 26.7% to some large extent (5–6), 6.2% said to some small extent (2–4), none said not at all. Question 21, "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" Answers: 34.6% very much convinced (7), 48.9% being convinced to a large extent (5–6), 15.1% to a small extent (2–4), and 1.35% not convinced at all (1).[210]

STATS, 2007​

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. The survey found 97% agreed that global temperatures have increased during the past 100 years; 84% say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; 41% say they thought the effects of global warming would be near catastrophic over the next 50–100 years; 44% say said effects would be moderately dangerous; 13% saw relatively little danger; 56% say global climate change is a mature science; 39% say it is an emerging science.[213][214]

Oreskes, 2004​

A 2004 article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[215] The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, listed with the keywords "global 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. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories, thus 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."

Bray and von Storch, 2003​

In 2003, Bray and von Storch conducted a survey of the perspectives of climate scientists on global climate change.[216] The survey received 530 responses from 27 different countries. The 2003 survey 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. The survey required entry of a username and password, but the username and password were circulated to a climate change denial mailing list and elsewhere on the internet.[citation needed] Bray and von Storch defended their results and accused climate change deniers of interpreting the results with bias. Bray's submission to Science on 22 December 2004 was rejected.[citation needed]

One of the questions asked in the survey was "To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes?", with a value of 1 indicating strongly agree and a value of 7 indicating strongly disagree.[217] The results showed a mean of 3.62, with 50 responses (9.4%) indicating "strongly agree" and 54 responses (9.7%) indicating "strongly disagree". The same survey indicates a 72% to 20% endorsement of 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."[216]

1990s​

• In 1996, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch undertook a survey of climate scientists on attitudes towards global warming and related matters. The results were subsequently published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.[190] The paper addressed the views of climate scientists, with a response rate of 40% from a mail survey questionnaire to 1000 scientists in Germany, the United States and Canada. Most of the scientists accepted that global warming was occurring and appropriate policy action should be taken, but there was wide disagreement about the likely effects on society and almost all agreed that the predictive ability of currently existing models was limited. On a scale of 1 (highest confidence) to 7 (lowest confidence) regarding belief in the ability to make "reasonable predictions" the mean was 4.8 and 5.2 for 10- and 100-year predictions, respectively. On the question of whether global warming is occurring or will occur, the mean response was 3.3, and for future prospects of warming the mean was 2.6.
• A Gallup poll of 400 members of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society along with an analysis of reporting on global warming by the Center for Media and Public Affairs, a report on which was issued in 1992. Accounts of the results of that survey differ in their interpretation and even in the basic statistical percentages:
  
  • Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting states that the report said that 67% of the scientists said that human-induced global warming was occurring, with 11% disagreeing and the rest undecided.[218]
  • George Will reported "53 percent do not believe warming has occurred, and another 30 percent are uncertain." (Washington Post, 3 September 1992). In a correction Gallup stated: "Most scientists involved in research in this area believe that human-induced global warming is occurring now."[219]
• Stewart, T. R.,[220] Mumpower, J. L., and Reagan-Cirincione, P. (1992). Scientists' opinions about global climate change: Summary of the results of a survey. NAEP (National Association of Environmental Professionals) Newsletter, 17(2), 6–7.
• In 1991, the Center for Science, Technology, and Media conducted a survey of 118 scientists regarding views on the climate change.[221] Analysis by the authors of the respondents projections of warming and agreement with statements about warming resulted in them categorizing response in 3 "clusters": 13 (15%) expressing skepticism of the 1990 IPCC estimate, 39 (44%) expressing uncertainty with the IPCC estimate, and 37 (42%) agreeing with the IPCC estimate.
• Global Environmental Change Report, 1990: GECR climate survey shows strong agreement on action, less so on warming. Global Environmental Change Report 2, No. 9, pp. 1–3

`EVERY STUDY Is Hot-Footnoted.
That is how Wiki does every entry.
`

`

 

[1srelluc]

The narrative is in question!....Quick fire up the jet for a around the world CC sock puppet tour!

 

[elektra]

SAME Place I linked Previous except the article Got a New set Hot-Linked Footnotes to each study as it has been revised as entry now goes recent to older instead of the reverse
THANKS for this second chance to BEAT THE CRAP OUT OF YOUR STUPID MAGAt Brain.

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Surveys of scientists and scientific literature​

Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming. They have concluded that almost all climate scientists support the idea of anthropogenic climate change.[1]

A 2012 analysis of published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[162] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[163] His 2015 paper on the topic, covering 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.[164]

A 2013 study, published in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Research Letters analyzed 11,944 abstracts from papers published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature between 1991 and 2011, identified by searching the ISI Web of Science citation index engine for the text strings "global climate change" or "global warming". The authors found that 3974 of the abstracts expressed a position on anthropogenic global warming, and that 97% of those endorsed the consensus that humans are causing global warming. The authors found that of the 11,944 abstracts, 3896 endorsed that consensus, 7930 took no position on it, 78 rejected the consensus, and 40 expressed uncertainties about it.[165] This study was criticised in 2016 by Richard Tol,[166] but strongly defended by a companion paper in the same volume.[167]

James Lawrence Powell reported in 2017 that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.[168] 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%.[2]

A survey conducted in 2021 found that of a random selection of 3,000 papers examined from 88,125 peer-reviewed studies related to climate that were published since 2012, only 4 were sceptical about man-made climate change.[169]

Depending on expertise, a 2021 survey of 2780 Earth scientist showed that between 91% and 100% agreed human activity is causing climate change. Among climate scientists, 98.7% agreed, a number that grows to 100% when only the climate scientists with high level of expertise are counted (20+ papers published).[4]

Surveys prior to 2010​

In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[170] 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.[171][172][173][174]

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 countries.[175] 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.[176] 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:[177]


A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences analyzed "1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show 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".[178][179] Judith Curry has said "This is a completely unconvincing analysis", whereas Naomi Oreskes said that the paper shows "the vast majority of working [climate] research scientists are in agreement [on climate change]... Those who don't agree, are, unfortunately—and this is hard to say without sounding elitist—mostly either not actually climate researchers or not very productive researchers."[179][180] Jim Prall, one of the coauthors of the study, acknowledged "it would be helpful to have lukewarm [as] a third category."[179]

Existence of a Scientific Consensus​

The public substantially Underestimates the degree of Scientific Consensus that Humans are Causing Climate change.[181] Studies from 2019–2021[182][183][184] found Scientific Consensus to range from 98.7–100%.
A question that frequently arose in popular discussion was whether there is a scientific consensus on climate change.[26] Several scientific organizations have explicitly used the term "consensus" in their statements:

• American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2006: "The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Joint National Academies' statement."[79]
• US National Academy of Sciences: "In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth's warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. ... On climate change, [the National Academies' reports] have assessed consensus findings on the science ..."[185]
• Joint Science Academies' statement, 2005: "We recognise the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."[186]
• Joint Science Academies' statement, 2001: "The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world's most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus."[72]
• American Meteorological Society, 2003: "The nature of science is such that there is rarely total agreement among scientists. Individual scientific statements and papers—the validity of some of which has yet to be assessed adequately—can be exploited in the policy debate and can leave the impression that the scientific community is sharply divided on issues where there is, in reality, a strong scientific consensus ... IPCC assessment reports are prepared at approximately five-year intervals by a large international group of experts who represent the broad range of expertise and perspectives relevant to the issues. The reports strive to reflect a consensus evaluation of the results of the full body of peer-reviewed research ... They provide an analysis of what is known and not known, the degree of consensus, and some indication of the degree of confidence that can be placed on the various statements and conclusions."[187]
• Network of African Science Academies: "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."[75]
• International Union for Quaternary Research, 2008: "INQUA recognizes the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."[122]
• Australian Coral Reef Society,[188] 2006: "There is almost total consensus among experts that the earth's climate is changing as a result of the build-up of greenhouse gases ... There is broad scientific consensus that coral reefs are heavily affected by the activities of man and there are significant global influences that can make reefs more vulnerable such as global warming ..."[189]

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 1990s.[190] 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."[191] A 2019 study found scientific consensus to be at 100%,[2] and a 2021 study found that consensus exceeded 99%.[3]

2020s​

Myers et al., 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%).[4]

Lynas et al., 2021​

In 2021, Mark Lynas et al assessed studies published between 2012 and 2020. They found over 80,000 studies. They analysed 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.[3]

2010s​

Powell, 2019​

In 2019, James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board,[192] analysed titles of peer-reviewed studies published in the first seven months of 2019 and found not a single study disagreed with the consensus view. When the titles implied uncertainty about the cause of climate change, the abstracts or the article in its entirety were examined. The total amount of articles found via Web of Science was 11,602.[2]

Verheggen et al., 2014​

In 2014, Bart Verheggen of 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.[193] 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.[194]

Powell, 2013​

James L. Powell 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.[195][196][197][198] This was a follow-up to an analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[199][200][201]

John Cook et al., 2013​

Cook et al. examined 11,944 abstracts from the peer-reviewed scientific literature from 1991 to 2011 that matched the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'.[202] They 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, 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.[202]

In their discussion of the results, the authors said that the large proportion of abstracts that state no position on AGW is as expected in a consensus situation, as anticipated in a chapter published in 2007,[203] adding 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."[202]

A 2016 study entitled Learning from mistakes in climate research examined the quality of the 3% of peer-reviewed papers discovered by this work to reject 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".[204]

Farnsworth and Lichter, 2011​

In an October 2011 paper published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, researchers from George Mason University analyzed the results of a survey of 998 scientists working in academia, government, and industry. The scientists polled were members of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) or the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and listed in the 23rd edition of American Men and Women of Science, a biographical reference work on leading American scientists, and 489 returned completed questionnaires. Of those who replied, 97% 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.[205][206]

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.[206]

Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2010​

Anderegg et al., in a 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS), reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers, based on authorship of scientific assessment reports and membership on multisignatory statements about anthropogenic climate change. The number of climate-relevant publications authored or coauthored by each researcher was used to define their 'expertise', and the number of citations for each of the researcher's four highest-cited papers was used to define their 'prominence'. Removing researchers who had authored fewer than 20 climate publications reduced the database to 908 researchers but did not materially alter the results. The authors of the paper say that their database of researchers "is not comprehensive nor designed to be representative of the entire climate science community," but say that since they drew the researchers from the most high-profile reports and public statements, it is likely that it represents the "strongest and most credentialed" researchers both 'convinced by the evidence' (CE) and 'unconvinced by the evidence' (UE) on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change.[207][208]

Anderegg et al. drew the following two conclusions:

2000s​

Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009​

This paper is based on the Zimmerman 2008 MS thesis; the full methods are in the MS thesis.[209] A web-based poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman of the Earth and Environmental Sciences department, University of Illinois at Chicago. They received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. The survey was designed to take less than two minutes to complete. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures had generally risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. 76 out of the 79 respondents 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", thought that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. Of those 79 scientists, 75 out of the 77 (97.4%) answered that human activity was a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. The remaining two were not asked, because in question one they responded that temperatures had remained relatively constant. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent respectively thinking that human activity was a significant contributing factor. In summary, Doran and Zimmerman wrote:

Bray and von Storch, 2008​

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, of the Institute for Coastal Research at the Helmholtz Research Centre in Germany, conducted an online survey in August 2008, of 2,059 climate scientists from 34 different countries, the third survey on this topic by these authors.[210] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 375 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18%. The climate change consensus results were published by Bray,[211] and another paper has also been published based on the survey.[212]

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'.[210]

In the section on climate change impacts, questions 20 and 21 were relevant to scientific opinion on climate change. Question 20, "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?" Answers: 67.1% very much convinced (7), 26.7% to some large extent (5–6), 6.2% said to some small extent (2–4), none said not at all. Question 21, "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" Answers: 34.6% very much convinced (7), 48.9% being convinced to a large extent (5–6), 15.1% to a small extent (2–4), and 1.35% not convinced at all (1).[210]

STATS, 2007​

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. The survey found 97% agreed that global temperatures have increased during the past 100 years; 84% say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; 41% say they thought the effects of global warming would be near catastrophic over the next 50–100 years; 44% say said effects would be moderately dangerous; 13% saw relatively little danger; 56% say global climate change is a mature science; 39% say it is an emerging science.[213][214]

Oreskes, 2004​

A 2004 article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[215] The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, listed with the keywords "global 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. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories, thus 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."

Bray and von Storch, 2003​

In 2003, Bray and von Storch conducted a survey of the perspectives of climate scientists on global climate change.[216] The survey received 530 responses from 27 different countries. The 2003 survey 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. The survey required entry of a username and password, but the username and password were circulated to a climate change denial mailing list and elsewhere on the internet.[citation needed] Bray and von Storch defended their results and accused climate change deniers of interpreting the results with bias. Bray's submission to Science on 22 December 2004 was rejected.[citation needed]

One of the questions asked in the survey was "To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes?", with a value of 1 indicating strongly agree and a value of 7 indicating strongly disagree.[217] The results showed a mean of 3.62, with 50 responses (9.4%) indicating "strongly agree" and 54 responses (9.7%) indicating "strongly disagree". The same survey indicates a 72% to 20% endorsement of 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."[216]

1990s​

• In 1996, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch undertook a survey of climate scientists on attitudes towards global warming and related matters. The results were subsequently published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.[190] The paper addressed the views of climate scientists, with a response rate of 40% from a mail survey questionnaire to 1000 scientists in Germany, the United States and Canada. Most of the scientists accepted that global warming was occurring and appropriate policy action should be taken, but there was wide disagreement about the likely effects on society and almost all agreed that the predictive ability of currently existing models was limited. On a scale of 1 (highest confidence) to 7 (lowest confidence) regarding belief in the ability to make "reasonable predictions" the mean was 4.8 and 5.2 for 10- and 100-year predictions, respectively. On the question of whether global warming is occurring or will occur, the mean response was 3.3, and for future prospects of warming the mean was 2.6.
• A Gallup poll of 400 members of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society along with an analysis of reporting on global warming by the Center for Media and Public Affairs, a report on which was issued in 1992. Accounts of the results of that survey differ in their interpretation and even in the basic statistical percentages:
  
  • Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting states that the report said that 67% of the scientists said that human-induced global warming was occurring, with 11% disagreeing and the rest undecided.[218]
  • George Will reported "53 percent do not believe warming has occurred, and another 30 percent are uncertain." (Washington Post, 3 September 1992). In a correction Gallup stated: "Most scientists involved in research in this area believe that human-induced global warming is occurring now."[219]
• Stewart, T. R.,[220] Mumpower, J. L., and Reagan-Cirincione, P. (1992). Scientists' opinions about global climate change: Summary of the results of a survey. NAEP (National Association of Environmental Professionals) Newsletter, 17(2), 6–7.
• In 1991, the Center for Science, Technology, and Media conducted a survey of 118 scientists regarding views on the climate change.[221] Analysis by the authors of the respondents projections of warming and agreement with statements about warming resulted in them categorizing response in 3 "clusters": 13 (15%) expressing skepticism of the 1990 IPCC estimate, 39 (44%) expressing uncertainty with the IPCC estimate, and 37 (42%) agreeing with the IPCC estimate.
• Global Environmental Change Report, 1990: GECR climate survey shows strong agreement on action, less so on warming. Global Environmental Change Report 2, No. 9, pp. 1–3

`EVERY STUDY Is Hot-Footnoted.
That is how Wiki does every entry.
`

`

I said post a study, not a link to wikipedia

POST A STUDY

 

[elektra]

It wasn't a survey, it was a study of scientific papers from actively publishing climate scientists.

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Okay, you can link to wikipedia, can you link to a study, a report, a survey, anything other that an abstract which tells us what we to believe is in the study.

POST A STUDY

 

[elektra]

Three responses, no studies.

 

[abu afak]

Okay, you can link to wikipedia, can you link to a study, a report, a survey, anything other that an abstract which tells us what we to believe is in the study.

POST A STUDY

They are all posted up there.
(Funny/DISHONEST you make 3 posts in 7 minutes, as if that meant I had no reply)
If you care to Fully read the Studies just follow the Footnoted Hot Links to each... as I said.
Actually the Burden is now on YOU to REFUTE Wiki or any Study/Organization they may have mischaracterized.

Wiki also post Statements of Consensus that WAS your OP demand.

You got your Head Kicked in you @sshole. You NO-INFO/Non-refuting Clown.

YOUR TURN Burden Shifting little Shlt. Show us a substantial amount of studies/Meta-studies or Orgs that would bust the Consensus!
as i just did FOR the Consensus.

You little FRAUD, you can't debate me, just Troll.
It's all jc456's x 100 here: 10 words and a question mark.

`

 

[elektra]

They are all posted up there.
(Funny/DISHONEST you make 3 posts in 7 minutes, as if that meant I had no reply)
If you care to Fully read the Studies just follow the Footnoted Hot Links to each... as I said.
Actually the Burden is now on YOU to REFUTE Wiki or any Study/Organization they may have mischaracterized.

Wiki also post Statements of Consensus that WAS your OP demand.

You got your Head Kicked in you @sshole. You NO-INFO/Non-refuting Clown.

YOUR TURN Burden Shifting little Shlt. Show us a substantial amount of studies/Meta-studies or Orgs that would bust the Consensus!
as i just did FOR the Consensus.

You little FRAUD, you can't debate me, just Troll.
It's all jc456's x 100 here: 10 words and a question mark.

Sorry, your link is to a wiki page with zero studies

The wiki says there are studies, nothing more

Abu afuk, you claim there are studies, give us a link to one study. Not an abstract but the actual study.

The study is behind a pay wall, if you get that far. So go ahead, try.

I challenge everyone to post the consensus study, everybody from any side of the argument.

I can't find a study.

POST THE STUDY

 

[abu afak]

Sorry, your link is to a wiki page with zero studies

The wiki says there are studies, nothing more

Abu afuk, you claim there are studies, give us a link to one study. Not an abstract but the actual study.

The study is behind a pay wall, if you get that far. So go ahead, try.

I challenge everyone to post the consensus study, everybody from any side of the argument.

I can't find a study.

POST THE STUDY

You LYING LOSING POS.
You mentioned not just "study" but Mainly "Survey" THREE times in your OP's beginning.

Elektra: "Where is the consensus survey/study of the 99% scientists in aggreement? It is that simple. Lots of people here make the claim, nobody posts the survey. We can see the abstract, but not the survey/study."​

I posted the summaries (Survey OF Surveys) of many named/dated Surveys/studies, and some are Hot-linked with a Footnote YOU CAN CLICK ON.

A "consensus" is not itself science, but indeed a SURVEY of Scientists summarizing their views.
And I BURIED you with them/Shoved them up your sore little red @ss.

My Post also included Statements by Major Scientific Orgs (like The Natl Academy of Sciences, etc) specifically quoted because THEY are also calling it a "CONSENSUS."

On Your side to refute "Scientific Consensus" you posted NOTHING you slimy little F***er.
`

 

[abu afak]

Sorry, your link is to a wiki page with zero studies

The wiki says there are studies, nothing more

Abu afuk, you claim there are studies, give us a link to one study. Not an abstract but the actual study.

The study is behind a pay wall, if you get that far. So go ahead, try.

I challenge everyone to post the consensus study, everybody from any side of the argument.

I can't find a study.

POST THE STUDY

2. Footnotes with ALL The Studies cited. Click away![/SIZE]

Survey Links/References 1​

1. ^ Jump up to:a b c Myers, Krista F.; Doran, Peter T.; Cook, John; Kotcher, John E.; Myers, Teresa A. (20 October 2021). "Consensus revisited: quantifying scientific agreement on climate change and climate expertise among Earth scientists 10 years later". Environmental Research Letters. 16 (10): 104030. Bibcode:2021ERL....16j4030M. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ac2774. S2CID 239047650.
2. ^ John Cook; et al. (April 2016). "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming". Environmental Research Letters. 11 (4): 048002. Bibcode:2016ERL....11d8002C. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002.
3. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Powell, James Lawrence (20 November 2019). "Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 37 (4): 183–184. doi:10.1177/0270467619886266. S2CID 213454806. Retrieved 15 November 2020.
4. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Lynas, Mark; Houlton, Benjamin Z.; Perry, Simon (19 October 2021). "Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature". Environmental Research Letters. 16 (11): 114005. Bibcode:2021ERL....16k4005L. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966. S2CID 239032360.
5. ^ Benestad, Rasmus E.; Nuccitelli, Dana; Lewandowsky, Stephan; Hayhoe, Katharine; Hygen, Hans Olav; van Dorland, Rob; Cook, John (1 November 2016). "Learning from mistakes in climate research". Theoretical and Applied Climatology. 126 (3): 699–703. Bibcode:2016ThApC.126..699B. doi:10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5. ISSN 1434-4483.
6. ^ "Total radiative forcing is positive and has led to an uptake of energy by the climate system. The largest contribution to total radiative forcing is caused by the increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 since 1750." and "From 1750 to 2011, CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion and cement production have released 375 [345 to 405] GtC to the atmosphere, while deforestation and other land-use change are estimated to have released 180 [100 to 260] GtC." In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
7. ^ IPCC, 2013: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. "Extremely likely" is defined as a 95–100% likelihood on p 2.
8. ^ "Joint Science Academies' Statement" (PDF). 2005. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-09-09. Retrieved 2014-04-20. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001). This warming has already led to changes in the Earth's climate.
9. ^ "'Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis.' IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, Working Group I, Summary for Policymakers. 'The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.'" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 22 October 2018. Retrieved 26 December 2018.
10. ^ Julie Brigham-Grette; et al. (September 2006). "Petroleum Geologists' Award to Novelist Crichton Is Inappropriate". Eos. 87 (36): 364. Bibcode:2006EOSTr..87..364B. doi:10.1029/2006EO360008. The AAPG stands alone among scientific societies in its denial of human-induced effects on global warming.
11. ^ DiMento, Joseph F. C.; Doughman, Pamela M. (2007). Climate Change: What It Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren. The MIT Press. p. 68. ISBN 978-0-262-54193-0.
12. ^ Stoddard, Isak; Anderson, Kevin; Capstick, Stuart; Carton, Wim; Depledge, Joanna; Facer, Keri; Gough, Clair; Hache, Frederic; Hoolohan, Claire; Hultman, Martin; Hällström, Niclas; Kartha, Sivan; Klinsky, Sonja; Kuchler, Magdalena; Lövbrand, Eva; Nasiritousi, Naghmeh; Newell, Peter; Peters, Glen P.; Sokona, Youba; Stirling, Andy; Stilwell, Matthew; Spash, Clive L.; Williams, Mariama; et al. (18 October 2021). "Three Decades of Climate Mitigation: Why Haven't We Bent the Global Emissions Curve?". Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 46 (1): 653–689. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-012220-011104. hdl:1983/93c742bc-4895-42ac-be81-535f36c5039d. ISSN 1543-5938. S2CID 233815004. Retrieved 31 August 2022.
13. ^ Mann, Michael E.; Toles, Tom (2016). The Madhouse Effect. New York Chichester, West Sussex: Columbia University Press. doi:10.7312/mann17786. ISBN 978-0231541817.
14. ^ Oreskes, Naomi; Conway, Erik (2012). Merchants of doubt : how a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. Bloomsbury. ISBN 978-1408824832. OCLC 934374946.
15. ^ "Public perceptions on climate change" (PDF). PERITIA Trust EU - The Policy Institute of King's College London. June 2022. p. 4. Archived (PDF) from the original on 15 July 2022.
16. ^ Powell, James (20 November 2019). "Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 37 (4): 183–184. doi:10.1177/0270467619886266. S2CID 213454806.
17. ^ Lynas, Mark; Houlton, Benjamin Z.; Perry, Simon (19 October 2021). "Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature". Environmental Research Letters. 16 (11): 114005. Bibcode:2021ERL....16k4005L. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966. S2CID 239032360.
18. ^ Myers, Krista F.; Doran, Peter T.; Cook, John; Kotcher, John E.; Myers, Teresa A. (20 October 2021). "Consensus revisited: quantifying scientific agreement on climate change and climate expertise among Earth scientists 10 years later". Environmental Research Letters. 16 (10): 104030. Bibcode:2021ERL....16j4030M. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ac2774. S2CID 239047650.
19. ^ Jump up to:a b Oreskes, Naomi (2007). "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change: How Do We Know We're Not Wrong?". In DiMento, Joseph F. C.; Doughman, Pamela M. (eds.). Climate Change: What It Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren. MIT Press. pp. 65–66. ISBN 978-0-262-54193-0.
20. ^ Jump up to:a b "The Science of Climate Change". Science Magazine.[permanent dead link]
21. ^ "Climate Change Research: Issues for the Atmospheric and Related Sciences Adopted by the AMS Council 9 February 2003". Ametsoc.org. 9 February 2003. Retrieved 30 July 2012.
22. ^ "Joint Science Academies' Statement" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-09-09. Retrieved 2006-08-30.
23. ^ Jump up to:a b AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change www.aaas.org December 2006
24. ^ "Australian Coral Reef Society". Australian Coral Reef Society. Retrieved 30 July 2012.
25. ^ Australian Coral Reef Society official letter Archived 22 March 2006 at the Wayback Machine, 16 June 2006
26. ^ Jump up to:a b "Joint statement by the Network of African Science Academies (NASAC) to the G8 on sustainability, energy efficiency and climate change". Network of African Science Academies. 2007. Archived from the original (PDF) on 9 June 2017. Retrieved 28 August 2012.
27. ^ Jump up to:a b "INQUA Statement On Climate Change" (PDF).
28. ^ US NRC (2008). Understanding and Responding to Climate Change. A brochure prepared by the US National Research Council (US NRC) (PDF). Washington DC, US: US National Academy of Sciences. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2017-10-11. Retrieved 2013-06-27.
29. ^ "Did You Know?". www.ncdc.noaa.gov. National Centers for Environmental Information, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Retrieved 1 October 2019.
30. ^ Jump up to:a b c Climate Change to the Year 2000: A Survey of Expert Opinion (PDF) (Report). February 1978.
31. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e Stewart, Thomas R.; Mumpower, Jeryl L.; Reagan-Cirincione, Patricia (April 1992). Scientists' Agreement and Disagreement about Global Climate Change: Evidence from Surveys (PDF) (Report).
32. ^ Jump up to:a b Bray, Dennis; Hans von Storch (1999). "Climate Science: An Empirical Example of Postnormal Science" (PDF). Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. 80 (3): 439–455. Bibcode:1999BAMS...80..439B. doi:10.1175/1520-0477(1999)080<0439:CSAEEO>2.0.CO;2. ISSN 1520-0477.
33. ^ Cook, John; Oreskes, Naomi; Doran, Peter T.; Anderegg, William R. L.; Verheggen, Bart; Maibach, Ed W.; Carlton, J. Stuart; Lewandowsky, Stephan; Skuce, Andrew G.; Green, Sarah A.; Nuccitelli, Dana; Jacobs, Peter; Richardson, Mark; Winkler, Bärbel; Painting, Rob; Rice, Ken (2016). "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming". Environmental Research Letters. 11 (4): 048002. Bibcode:2016ERL....11d8002C. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002. ISSN 1748-9326.
34. ^ Cook, John; Nuccitelli, Dana; Green, Sarah A.; Richardson, Mark; Winkler, Bärbel; Painting, Rob; Way, Robert; Jacobs, Peter; Skuce, Andrew (15 May 2013). "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature". Environ. Res. Lett. IOP Publishing Ltd. 8 (2): 024024. Bibcode:2013ERL.....8b4024C. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024.
35. ^ "Scientific and Public Perspectives on Climate Change / Scientists' vs. Public Understanding of Human-Caused Global Warming". climatecommunication.yale.edu. Yale University. 29 May 2013. Archived from the original on 17 April 2019.
36. ^ Jump up to:a b Wuebbles, D.J.; Fahey, D.W.; Hibbard, K.A.; Deangelo, B.; Doherty, S.; Hayhoe, K.; Horton, R.; Kossin, J.P.; Taylor, P.C.; Waple, A.M.; Yohe, C.P. (23 November 2018). "Climate Science Special Report / Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4), Volume I /Executive Summary / Highlights of the Findings of the U.S. Global Change Research Program Climate Science Special Report". globalchange.gov. U.S. Global Change Research Program: 1–470. doi:10.7930/J0DJ5CTG. Archived from the original on 14 June 2019.
37. ^ "Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming". Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Archived from the original on 17 June 2019. Retrieved 18 August 2018. 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. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
38. ^ "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level." IPCC, Synthesis Report Archived 2018-11-02 at the Wayback Machine, Section 1.1: Observations of climate change Archived 2018-08-04 at the Wayback Machine, in IPCC AR4 SYR 2007.
39. ^ IPCC, "Summary for Policymakers" (PDF), Detection and Attribution of Climate Change, "It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century" (page 17) and "In this Summary for Policymakers, the following terms have been used to indicate the assessed likelihood of an outcome or a result: ... extremely likely: 95–100%" (page 2)., in IPCC AR5 WG1 2013.
40. ^ IPCC, Synthesis Report Archived 2018-11-02 at the Wayback Machine, Section 2.4: Attribution of climate change Archived 2018-11-03 at the Wayback Machine, in IPCC AR4 SYR 2007."It is likely that increases in GHG concentrations alone would have caused more warming than observed because volcanic and anthropogenic aerosols have offset some warming that would otherwise have taken place."
41. ^ [Notes-SciPanel] America's Climate Choices: Panel on Advancing the Science of Climate Change; National Research Council (2010). Advancing the Science of Climate Change. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. ISBN 978-0-309-14588-6. Archived from the original on 29 May 2014. (p1) there is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations. * * * (p. 21–22) Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.
42. ^ "The NOAA Annual Greenhouse Gas Index (AGGI)". NOAA.gov. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Spring 2023. Archived from the original on 24 May 2023.
43. ^ Ogden, Aynslie & Cohen, Stewart (2002). "Integration and Synthesis: Assessing Climate Change Impacts in Northern Canada" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 15 October 2007. Retrieved 12 April 2009.
44. ^ Jump up to:a b McGrath, Matt (2021-08-09). "Climate change: IPCC report is 'code red for humanity'". BBC News. BBC. Archived from the original on 2021-08-13. Retrieved 2021-08-09.
45. ^ IPCC, 2021: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 2391 pp. doi:10.1017/9781009157896.
46. ^ "UN climate science talks open amid heatwaves, floods and drought". UN News. 2021-07-26. Archived from the original on 2021-08-02. Retrieved 2021-08-02.
47. ^ Dunne, Daisy (2021-08-10). "How scientists around the world reacted to the IPCC's landmark climate report". The Independent. Archived from the original on 2021-08-13. Retrieved 2021-08-13.
48. ^ Jump up to:a b "The IPCC delivers its starkest warning about the world's climate". The Economist. 2021-08-09. ISSN 0013-0613. Archived from the original on 2021-08-12. Retrieved 2021-08-09.
49. ^ Plumer, Brad; Fountain, Henry (2021-08-11) [2021-08-09]. "A Hotter Future Is Certain, Climate Panel Warns. But How Hot Is Up to Us". Climate Change: U.N. Climate Report. The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on 2021-08-13. Retrieved 2021-08-09.
50. ^ Harvey, Fiona (2021-08-09). "Major climate changes inevitable and irreversible – IPCC's starkest warning yet". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2021-08-11. Retrieved 2021-08-11.
51. ^ Sullivan, Helen (2021-08-10). "'Code red for humanity': what the papers say about the IPCC report on the climate crisis". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2021-08-11. Retrieved 2021-08-11.
52. ^ "AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2023". www.ipcc.ch. Retrieved 2023-03-27.
53. ^ Synthesis Report Of The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) Longer Report (PDF). IPCC. Retrieved 2 April 2023.
54. ^ Synthesis Report Of The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) Summary for Policymakers (PDF). IPCC. Retrieved 2 April 2023.
55. ^ "Press conference slides FINAL_PDF" (PDF). IPCC Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change. United Nations. Retrieved 2 April 2023.
56. ^ "Headline Statements". IPCC Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change. United Nations. Retrieved 2 April 2023.
57. ^ Jump up to:a b IPCC (2014) The IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) leaflet
58. ^ Agenda item 3; Annex III. "REPORT OF THE 31ST SESSION OF THE IPCC" (PDF). IPCC.
59. ^ "Scope, Content and Process for the Preparation of the Synthesis Report (SYR) of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5)" (PDF). IPCC.
60. ^ Collins, M.; et al. (2013). Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (Working Group I contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report). Chapter 12: Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility (Section 12.3.1.3): Cambridge University Press. pp. 1045–1047. ISBN 978-1-107-66182-0.
61. ^ Jump up to:a b IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R. K. Pachauri and L. A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp.
62. ^ Nesbit, Jeff (2013). "Settled Science".
63. ^ Redfearn, Graham (27 September 2013). "IPCC climate change report by numbers". Planet Oz. Guardian.
64. ^ "Fossil fuels should be 'phased out by 2100' says IPCC". BBC. 2 November 2014. Retrieved 2 November 2014.
65. ^ "Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers" (PDF). IPCC. Retrieved 1 August 2015.
66. ^ IPCC (11 November 2013): B. Observed Changes in the Climate System, in: Summary for Policymakers (finalized version) Archived 9 March 2017 at the Wayback Machine, in: IPCC AR5 WG1 2013, p. 2
67. ^ IPCC (11 November 2013): B.5 Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles, in: Summary for Policymakers (finalized version) Archived 9 March 2017 at the Wayback Machine, in: IPCC AR5 WG1 2013, p. 9
68. ^ Jump up to:a b IPCC (11 November 2013): D. Understanding the Climate System and its Recent Changes, in: Summary for Policymakers (finalized version) Archived 9 March 2017 at the Wayback Machine, in: IPCC AR5 WG1 2013, p. 13
69. ^ IPCC (11 November 2013): Footnote 2, in: Summary for Policymakers (finalized version) Archived 9 March 2017 at the Wayback Machine, in: IPCC AR5 WG1 2013, p. 2
70. ^ Jump up to:a b Summary for Policymakers, p.14 (archived 25 June 2014), in IPCC AR5 WG2 A 2014
71. ^ Summary for Policymakers, p.23 (archived 25 June 2014), in IPCC AR5 WG2 A 2014
72. ^ SPM.3 Trends in stocks and flows of greenhouse gases and their drivers, in: Summary for Policymakers Archived 2020-01-28 at the Wayback Machine, p.8 (archived 2 July 2014), in IPCC AR5 WG3 2014
73. ^ Victor, D., et al., Executive summary, in: Chapter 1: Introductory Chapter, p.4 (archived 3 July 2014), in IPCC AR5 WG3 2014
74. ^ SPM.4.1 Long‐term mitigation pathways, in: Summary for Policymakers, p.15 (archived 2 July 2014), in IPCC AR5 WG3 2014
75. ^ "Warming 'very likely' human-made". BBC News. BBC. 1 February 2007. Retrieved 1 February 2007.
76. ^ "Summary for Policymakers", 1. Observed changes in climate and their effects, archived from the original on 2018-11-03, retrieved 2013-06-04, in IPCC AR4 SYR 2007
77. ^ "Summary for Policymakers", 2. Causes of change, archived from the original on 2018-02-28, retrieved 2013-06-04, in IPCC AR4 SYR 2007
78. ^ Jump up to:a b c Parry, M.L.; et al., "Technical summary", Industry, settlement and society, in: Box TS.5. The main projected impacts for systems and sectors, archived from the original on 2018-11-02, retrieved 2013-06-04, in IPCC AR4 WG2 2007
79. ^ IPCC, "Summary for Policymakers", Magnitudes of impact, archived from the original on 2018-11-02, retrieved 2013-06-04, in IPCC AR4 WG2 2007
80. ^ "Synthesis report", Ecosystems, in: Sec 3.3.1 Impacts on systems and sectors, archived from the original on 3 November 2018, retrieved 4 June 2013, in IPCC AR4 SYR 2007
81. ^ "Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I - Chapter 3: Detection and Attribution of Climate Change". science2017.globalchange.gov. U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP): 1–470. 2017. Archived from the original on 23 September 2019. Adapted directly from Fig. 3.3.
82. ^ "Downloads.globalchange.gov" (PDF).
83. ^ "Impacts of a Warming Arctic: Arctic Climate Impact Assessment New Scientific Consensus: Arctic Is Warming Rapidly". UNEP/GRID-Arendal. 8 November 2004. Retrieved 20 January 2010.
84. ^ "ACIA Display". Amap.no. Archived from the original on 14 December 2010. Retrieved 30 July 2012.
85. ^ Cook, John; Oreskes, Naomi; Doran, Peter T.; Anderegg, William R. L.; Verheggen, Bart; Maibach, Ed W.; Carlton, J. Stuart; Lewandowsky, Stephan; Skuce, Andrew G.; Green, Sarah A. (2016), "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming", Environmental Research Letters, 11 (44): 048002, Bibcode:2016ERL....11d8002C, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002048002
86. ^ Roper, Willem. "Global Warming Chart - Here's How Temperatures Have Risen Since 1950". World Economic Forum. Retrieved 5 November 2023.
87. ^ Slade, David H. (1989). "A survey of informed opinion regarding the nature and reality of a 'global greenhouse warming'". Climatic Change. 16: 1-4. doi:10.1007/BF00137342.
88. ^ GECR climate survey shows strong agreement on action, less so on warming (Report). Vol. 2. Global Environmental Change Report. 1990. pp. 1–3.
89. ^ "World warming at record 0.2 C per decade, scientists warn". Phys.org. Retrieved 23 November 2023.
90. ^ Jump up to:a b c Bray, Dennis; Storch, Hans von. "Climate Scientists' Perceptions of Climate Change Science" (PDF). GKSS Report 11/2007.
91. ^ "Climate scientists' views on climate change: a survey". Nature Climate Change. 8 August 2007. {{cite web}}: |archive-url= requires |archive-date= (help)
92. ^ Naomi Oreskes (3 December 2004). "Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" (PDF). Science. 306 (5702): 1686. doi:10.1126/science.1103618. PMID 15576594. S2CID 153792099.
93. ^ Lichter, S. Robert (24 April 2008). "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. Archived from the original on 11 January 2010. Retrieved 20 January 2010.
94. ^ ""Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change"". Journalist's Resource.org.
95. ^ Stephen J. Farnsworth; S. Robert Lichter (27 October 2011). "The Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change". International Journal of Public Opinion Research. Archived from the original on 11 March 2013. Retrieved 2 December 2011.
96. ^ Lavelle, Marianne (23 April 2008). "Survey Tracks Scientists' Growing Climate Concern". U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved 20 January 2010.
97. ^ Bray, Dennis; von Storch, Hans (2010). "A Survey of the Perspectives of Climate Scientists Concerning Climate Science and Climate Change" (PDF).
98. ^ Bray, Dennis (August 2010). "The scientific consensus of climate change revisited" (PDF). Environmental Science & Policy. 13 (5): 340–350. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2010.04.001., copy online at [1]
99. ^ Bray, D.; von Storch H. (2009). "Prediction' or 'Projection; The nomenclature of climate science" (PDF). Science Communication. 30 (4): 534–543. doi:10.1177/1075547009333698. S2CID 145338218.
100. ^ "Ice sheet melt on track with 'worst-case climate scenario'". www.esa.int. Retrieved 8 September 2020.

​

 

[abu afak]

Survey LINKS/references 2.
101-200

• ^ Slater, Thomas; Hogg, Anna E.; Mottram, Ruth (31 August 2020). "Ice-sheet losses track high-end sea-level rise projections". Nature Climate Change. 10 (10): 879–881. Bibcode:2020NatCC..10..879S. doi:10.1038/s41558-020-0893-y. ISSN 1758-6798. S2CID 221381924. Archived from the original on 2 September 2020. Retrieved 8 September 2020.
• ^ Grinsted, Aslak; Christensen, Jens Hesselbjerg (2021-02-02). "The transient sensitivity of sea level rise". Ocean Science. 17 (1): 181–186. Bibcode:2021OcSci..17..181G. doi:10.5194/os-17-181-2021. ISSN 1812-0784. S2CID 234353584.
• ^ Fox-Kemper, B.; Hewitt, H.T.; Xiao, C.; Aðalgeirsdóttir, G.; Drijfhout, S.S.; Edwards, T.L.; Golledge, N.R.; Hemer, M.; Kopp, R.E.; Krinner, G.; Mix, A. (2021). Masson-Delmotte, V.; Zhai, P.; Pirani, A.; Connors, S.L.; Péan, C.; Berger, S.; Caud, N.; Chen, Y.; Goldfarb, L. (eds.). "Chapter 9: Ocean, Cryosphere and Sea Level Change" (PDF). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, US: 1302.
• ^ Doran, Peter T.; Zimmerman, Maggie Kendall (20 January 2009). "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change". EOS. 90 (3): 22–23. Bibcode:2009EOSTr..90...22D. S2CID 128398335.
• 
  
• ^ Jump up to:a b Powell, James Lawrence (24 May 2017). "The Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming Matters". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 36 (3): 157–163. doi:10.1177/0270467617707079. S2CID 148618842.
  [*]
  
  [*]^ William R. L. Anderegg; James W. Prall; Jacob Harold & Stephen H. Schneider (April 9, 2010). "Expert credibility in climate change". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 107 (27): 12107–12109. Bibcode:2010PNAS..10712107A. doi:10.1073/pnas.1003187107. PMC 2901439. PMID 20566872.
• 
  
• ^ Scientists 'Convinced' of Climate Consensus More Prominent Than Opponents, Says Paper by Eli Kintisch, "Science Insider", Science, 21 June 2010
• ^ ""Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change" at Journalist's Resource.org".
• ^ Jump up to:a b Stephen J. Farnsworth; S. Robert Lichter (27 October 2011). "The Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change". International Journal of Public Opinion Research. 24: 93–103. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edr033. Retrieved 2 December 2011. Paywalled; full test online here, retrieved 30 November 2014. From Table I, "Q: In your opinion, is human-induced greenhouse warming now occurring?" Yes, 84%. No, 5%. Don't Know, 12%
• ^ Powell, James Lawrence (15 November 2012), "The State of Climate Science: A Thorough Review of the Scientific Literature on Global Warming", Science Progress, retrieved 21 September 2016
• ^ Powell, James Lawrence (2011). The Inquisition of Climate Science. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-15718-6.
• ^ Plait, P. (11 December 2012). "Why Climate Change Denial Is Just Hot Air". Slate. Retrieved 12 June 2014.
• 
  
• [b ]^ Sheppard, Kate (1 December 2012). "CHART: Only 0.17 Percent of Peer-Reviewed Papers Question Global Warming". Mother Jones. Retrieved 12 February 2014.[/b
• ]
• ^ Plait, P. (14 January 2014). "The Very, Very Thin Wedge of Denial". Slate. Retrieved 12 June 2014.
• ^ Gertz, Emily (10 January 2014). "Infographic: Scientists Who Doubt Human-Caused Climate Change". Popular Science. Retrieved 12 February 2014.
• ^ The study in question was: Avakyan, S. V. (2013). "The role of solar activity in global warming". Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences. 83 (3): 275–285. doi:10.1134/S1019331613030015. S2CID 154047107.
• ^ Jump up to:a b Cook, John; Dana Nuccitelli; Sarah A Green; Mark Richardson; Bärbel Winkler; Rob Painting; Robert Way; Peter Jacobs; Andrew Skuce (May 2013). "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature". Environmental Research Letters. 8 (2): 024024. Bibcode:2013ERL.....8b4024C. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024.
• ^ Oreskes, Naomi (2007). "The scientific consensus on climate change: how do we know we're not wrong?" (PDF). Climate Change: What It Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. p. 72. Retrieved 9 August 2013. [Scientists] generally focus their discussions on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather than on matters about which everyone agrees
• ^ Verheggen, Bart; Strengers, Bart; Cook, John; van Dorland, Rob; Vringer, Kees; Peters, Jeroen; Visser, Hans; Meyer, Leo (19 August 2014). "Scientists' Views about Attribution of Global Warming". Environmental Science & Technology. 48 (16): 8963–8971. Bibcode:2014EnST...48.8963V. doi:10.1021/es501998e. PMID 25051508.
• ^ Verheggen, Bart; Strengers, Bart; Vringer, Kees; Cook, John; Dorland, Rob van; Peters, Jeroen; Visser, Hans; Meyer, Leo (2 December 2014). "Reply to Comment on "Scientists' Views about Attribution of Global Warming"". Environmental Science & Technology. 48 (23): 14059–14060. Bibcode:2014EnST...4814059V. doi:10.1021/es505183e. ISSN 0013-936X. PMID 25405594.
• ^ Benestad, Rasmus E.; Nuccitelli, Dana; Lewandowsky, Stephan; Hayhoe, Katharine; Hygen, Hans Olav; van Dorland, Rob; Cook, John (November 2016). "Learning from mistakes in climate research". Theoretical and Applied Climatology. 126 (3–4): 699–703. Bibcode:2016ThApC.126..699B. doi:10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5. ISSN 0177-798X.
• ^ Tol, Richard S J (1 April 2016). "Comment on 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature'". Environmental Research Letters. IOP Publishing. 11 (4): 048001. Bibcode:2016ERL....11d8001T. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048001. ISSN 1748-9326.
• ^ Cook, John; Oreskes, Naomi; Doran, Peter T.; Anderegg, William R. L.; Verheggen, Bart; Maibach, Ed W.; Carlton, J. Stuart; Lewandowsky, Stephan; Skuce, Andrew G.; Green, Sarah A.; Nuccitelli, Dana (April 2016). "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming". Environmental Research Letters. 11 (4): 048002. Bibcode:2016ERL....11d8002C. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002. ISSN 1748-9326.
• ^ Cook, John; Oreskes, Naomi; Doran, Peter T.; Anderegg, William R. L.; et al. (2016). "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming". Environmental Research Letters. 11 (4): 048002. Bibcode:2016ERL....11d8002C. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002.
• ^ Ramanujan, Krishna. "More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change". Cornell Chronicle. Environmental Research Letters. Retrieved 20 October 2021.
• ^ "List of Worldwide Scientific Organizations That Hold the Position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action". Archived from the original on 7 August 2017. Retrieved 7 August 2017.
• ^ Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences the Arts; Royal Society of Canada; German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina; Indian National Science Academy; Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy); Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand; Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences; Royal Society (UK) (18 May 2001). "Editorial: The Science of Climate Change". Science. 292 (5520): 1261. doi:10.1126/science.292.5520.1261. PMID 11360966. S2CID 129309907.
• ^ Joint science academies' statement: Global response to climate change, 2005
• ^ "2007 Joint Science Academies' Statement" (PDF).
• ^ "2008 Joint Science Academies' Statement" (PDF).
• ^ "2009 Joint Science Academies' Statement" (PDF).
• ^ "Stanowisko Zgromadzenia Ogólnego PAN z dnia 13 grudnia 2007 r" (PDF) (in Polish). Polish Academy of Sciences. Retrieved 16 June 2009. Note: As of 16 June 2009, PAS has not issued this statement in English, all citations have been translated from Polish.
• ^ FASTS Statement on Climate Change (PDF), 2008 "Global climate change is real and measurable. Since the start of the 20th century, the global mean surface temperature of the Earth has increased by more than 0.7°C and the rate of warming has been largest in the last 30 years. Key vulnerabilities arising from climate change include water resources, food supply, health, coastal settlements, biodiversity and some key ecosystems such as coral reefs and alpine regions. As the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases increases, impacts become more severe and widespread. To reduce the global net economic, environmental and social losses in the face of these impacts, the policy objective must remain squarely focused on returning greenhouse gas concentrations to near pre-industrial levels through the reduction of emissions. The spatial and temporal fingerprint of warming can be traced to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, which are a direct result of burning fossil fuels, broad-scale deforestation and other human activity."
• ^ Jump up to:a b Committee on the Science of Climate Change, Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council (2001). Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions. Washington DC: National Academy Press. ISBN 0-309-07574-2. Archived from the original on 28 June 2001.
• ^ Wratt, David; Renwick, James (10 July 2008). "Climate change statement from the Royal Society of New Zealand". The Royal Society of New Zealand. Archived from the original on 22 May 2010. Retrieved 20 January 2010.
• ^ Gray, Louise (29 May 2010). "Royal Society to publish guide on climate change to counter claims of 'exaggeration'". The Daily Telegraph. London. Archived from the original on May 31, 2010.
• ^ Jump up to:a b "New guide to science of climate change". The Royal Society. Retrieved 9 June 2010.
• ^ Harrabin, Roger (27 May 2010). "Society to review climate message". BBC News. Retrieved 9 June 2010.
• ^ Gardner, Dan (8 June 2010). "Some excitable climate-change deniers just don't understand what science is". Montreal Gazette. Archived from the original on 11 June 2010. Retrieved 9 June 2010.
• ^ "Joint statement by the Network of African Science Academies (NASAC) to the G8 on sustainability, energy efficiency and climate change". 2007. Archived from the original on 9 June 2017. Retrieved 22 May 2015. 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 ... Although we recognize that this nexus poses daunting challenges for the developed world, we firmly believe that these challenges are even more daunting for the most impoverished, science-poor regions of the developing world, especially in Africa.
• ^ European Academy of Sciences and Arts Let's Be Honest
• ^ European Science Foundation Position Paper Impacts of Climate Change on the European Marine and Coastal Environment — Ecosystems Approach, 2007, pp. 7–10 "There is now convincing evidence that since the industrial revolution, human activities, resulting in increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases have become a major agent of climate change. These greenhouse gases affect the global climate by retaining heat in the troposphere, thus raising the average temperature of the planet and altering global atmospheric circulation and precipitation patterns. While on-going national and international actions to curtail and reduce greenhouse gas emissions are essential, the levels of greenhouse gases currently in the atmosphere, and their impact, are likely to persist for several decades. On-going and increased efforts to mitigate climate change through reduction in greenhouse gases are therefore crucial."
• ^ Revkin, Andrew C. (23 October 2007). "Panel Urges Global Shift on Sources of Energy". The New York Times – via NYTimes.com.
• ^ "InterAcademy Council". InterAcademy Council. Retrieved 30 July 2012.
• ^ "InterAcademy Council". InterAcademy Council. Retrieved 30 July 2012.
• ^ "InterAcademy Council". InterAcademy Council. Retrieved 30 July 2012.
• ^ "CAETS Statement on Environment and Sustainable Growth". Archived from the original on 10 December 2008. Retrieved 18 April 2008.
• ^ American Chemical Society Global Climate Change "Careful and comprehensive scientific assessments have clearly demonstrated that the Earth's climate system is changing rapidly in response to growing atmospheric burdens of greenhouse gases and absorbing aerosol particles (IPCC, 2007). There is very little room for doubt that observed climate trends are due to human activities. The threats are serious and action is urgently needed to mitigate the risks of climate change. The reality of global warming, its current serious and potentially disastrous impacts on Earth system properties, and the key role emissions from human activities play in driving these phenomena have been recognized by earlier versions of this ACS policy statement (ACS, 2004), by other major scientific societies, including the American Geophysical Union (AGU, 2003), the American Meteorological Society (AMS, 2007) and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS, 2007), and by the U. S. National Academies and ten other leading national academies of science (NA, 2005)."
• ^ American Institute of Physics Statement supporting AGU statement on human-induced climate change, 2003 "The Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics has endorsed a position statement on climate change adopted by the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Council in December 2003."
• ^ American Physical Society Climate Change Policy Statement, November 2007 "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes. The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now. Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth's climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.
• ^ AIP science policy document. (PDF), 2005 "Policy: The AIP supports a reduction of the green house gas emissions that are leading to increased global temperatures, and encourages research that works towards this goal. Reason: Research in Australia and overseas shows that an increase in global temperature will adversely affect the Earth's climate patterns. The melting of the polar ice caps, combined with thermal expansion, will lead to rises in sea levels that may impact adversely on our coastal cities. The impact of these changes on biodiversity will fundamentally change the ecology of Earth."
• ^ EPS Position Paper Energy for the future: The Nuclear Option (PDF), 2007 "The emission of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, among which carbon dioxide is the main contributor, has amplified the natural greenhouse effect and led to global warming. The main contribution stems from burning fossil fuels. A further increase will have decisive effects on life on earth. An energy cycle with the lowest possible CO2 emission is called for wherever possible to combat climate change."
• ^ Ledley, Tamara S.; Sundquist, Eric T.; Schwartz, Stephen E.; Hall, Dorothy K.; Fellows, Jack D.; Killeen, Timothy L. (28 September 1999). "Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases". EOS. 80 (39): 453–454, 457–458. Bibcode:1999EOSTr..80Q.453L. doi:10.1029/99EO00325. There is no known geologic precedent for large increases of atmospheric CO2 without simultaneous changes in other components of the carbon cycle and climate system. ... Changes in the climate system that are confidently predicted in response to increases in greenhouse gases include increases in mean surface air temperature, increases in global mean rates of precipitation and evaporation, rising sea level, and changes in the biosphere.
• ^ "AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate". Agu.org. Retrieved 30 July 2012.
• ^ "Human-induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action". Position Statement. American Geophysical Union. Retrieved 14 August 2013.
• ^ Boote, Kenneth J; Brouder, Sylvie M; Clay, David; Gepts, Paul; Hatfield, Jerry L; Hillel, Daniel; Izaurralde, R. Cesar; Mosier, Arvin R; Porter, John R; Rosenzweig, Cynthia E; Rice, Charles W (11 May 2011). "ASA, CSSA, and SSSA Position Statement on Climate Change" (PDF). Working Group Rep. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA. Madison, WI. p. 5. Retrieved 21 January 2019.
• ^ "Eurogeologists | The Voice of European Geologists". The European Federation of Geologists (EFG). Retrieved 23 July 2021.
• ^ EFG Carbon Capture and geological Storage
• ^ "EGU Position Statement on Climate Change and Recent Letters from the Chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce". Archived from the original on 5 October 2011. Retrieved 28 April 2011.
• ^ "EGU Position Statement on Ocean Acidification". Archived from the original on 18 January 2009. Retrieved 6 January 2009.
• ^ "EGU's reaction to IPCC report on Global Warming of 1.5°C". European Geosciences Union (EGU). 9 October 2018. Retrieved 21 March 2019.
• ^ "The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Global Climate Change". Geosociety.org. Archived from the original on 29 June 2012. Retrieved 30 July 2012.
• ^ "Geological Society - Climate change: evidence from the geological record". Geolsoc.org.uk. Archived from the original on 10 November 2010. Retrieved 30 July 2012.
• ^ "IUGG Resolution 6" (PDF).
• ^ "NAGT". NAGT.
• ^ "Position Statement - Teaching Climate Change". NAGT. Retrieved 28 November 2019.
• ^ "AMS Information Statement on Climate Change". Ametsoc.org. 20 August 2012. Retrieved 27 August 2012.
• ^ Maibach, Edward (March 2016). A 2016 National Survey of American Meteorological Society Member Views on Climate Change: Initial Findings. George Mason University. p. 25.
• ^ "Statement". AMOS. Retrieved 30 July 2012.
• ^ "CFCAS Letter to PM, November 25, 2005" (PDF).
• ^ Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Letter to Stephen Harper (Updated, 2007)
• ^ "News - Royal Meteorological Society". www.rmets.org.
• ^ "WMO's Statement at the Twelfth Session of the Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change" (PDF).
• ^ Council of the American Quaternary Association (2006). "Petroleum Geologists' Award to Novelist Crichton Is Inappropriate". Eos. 87 (36): 364. Bibcode:2006EOSTr..87..364B. doi:10.1029/2006EO360008.
• ^ AAWV Position Statement on Climate Change, Wildlife Diseases, and Wildlife Health "There is widespread scientific agreement that the world's climate is changing and that the weight of evidence demonstrates that anthropogenic factors have and will continue to contribute significantly to global warming and climate change. It is anticipated that continuing changes to the climate will have serious negative impacts on public, animal and ecosystem health due to extreme weather events, changing disease transmission dynamics, emerging and re-emerging diseases, and alterations to habitat and ecological systems that are essential to wildlife conservation. Furthermore, there is increasing recognition of the inter-relationships of human, domestic animal, wildlife, and ecosystem health as illustrated by the fact the majority of recent emerging diseases have a wildlife origin."
• ^ AIBS Position Statements "Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver."
• ^ Scientific societies warn Senate: climate change is real, Ars Technica, 22 October 2009
• ^ Letter to US Senators (PDF), October 2009
• ^ Global Environmental Change — Microbial Contributions, Microbial Solutions (PDF), American Society For Microbiology, May 2006 They recommended "reducing net anthropogenic CO2 emissions to the atmosphere" and "minimizing anthropogenic disturbances of" atmospheric gases. Carbon dioxide concentrations were relatively stable for the past 10,000 years but then began to increase rapidly about 150 years ago...as a result of fossil fuel consumption and land use change. Of course, changes in atmospheric composition are but one component of global change, which also includes disturbances in the physical and chemical conditions of the oceans and land surface. Although global change has been a natural process throughout Earth's history, humans are responsible for substantially accelerating present-day changes. These changes may adversely affect human health and the biosphere on which we depend. Outbreaks of a number of diseases, including Lyme disease, hantavirus infections, dengue fever, bubonic plague, and cholera, have been linked to climate change."
• ^ Australian Coral Reef Society official letter (PDF), 2006, archived from the original (PDF) on 22 March 2006 Official communique regarding the Great Barrier Reef and the "world-wide decline in coral reefs through processes such as overfishing, runoff of nutrients from the land, coral bleaching, global climate change, ocean acidification, pollution", etc.: There is almost total consensus among experts that the earth's climate is changing as a result of the build-up of greenhouse gases. The IPCC (involving over 3,000 of the world's experts) has come out with clear conclusions as to the reality of this phenomenon. One does not have to look further than the collective academy of scientists worldwide to see the string (of) statements on this worrying change to the earth's atmosphere. There is broad scientific consensus that coral reefs are heavily affected by the activities of man and there are significant global influences that can make reefs more vulnerable such as global warming. ... It is highly likely that coral bleaching has been exacerbated by global warming."
• ^ Institute of Biology policy page 'Climate Change' "there is scientific agreement that the rapid global warming that has occurred in recent years is mostly anthropogenic, ie due to human activity." As a consequence of global warming, they warn that a "rise in sea levels due to melting of ice caps is expected to occur. Rises in temperature will have complex and frequently localised effects on weather, but an overall increase in extreme weather conditions and changes in precipitation patterns are probable, resulting in flooding and drought. The spread of tropical diseases is also expected." Subsequently, the Institute of Biology advocates policies to reduce "greenhouse gas emissions, as we feel that the consequences of climate change are likely to be severe."
• ^ SAF Forest Management and Climate Change (PDF), 2008, archived from the original (PDF) on 22 February 2012, retrieved 29 January 2009 "Forests are shaped by climate. ... Changes in temperature and precipitation regimes therefore have the potential to dramatically affect forests nationwide. There is growing evidence that our climate is changing. The changes in temperature have been associated with increasing concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and other GHGs in the atmosphere."
• ^ SAF Forest Offset Projects in a Carbon Trading System (PDF), 2008, archived from the original (PDF) on 22 February 2012, retrieved 29 January 2009 "Forests play a significant role in offsetting CO2 emissions, the primary anthropogenic GHG."
• ^ Wildlife Society Global Climate Change and Wildlife (PDF), archived from the original (PDF) on 27 November 2008 "Scientists throughout the world have concluded that climate research conducted in the past two decades definitively shows that rapid worldwide climate change occurred in the 20th century, and will likely continue to occur for decades to come. Although climates have varied dramatically since the Earth was formed, few scientists question the role of humans in exacerbating recent climate change through the emission of greenhouse gases. The critical issue is no longer "if" climate change is occurring, but rather how to address its effects on wildlife and wildlife habitats." The statement goes on to assert that "evidence is accumulating that wildlife and wildlife habitats have been and will continue to be significantly affected by ongoing large-scale rapid climate change." The statement concludes with a call for "reduction in anthropogenic (human-caused) sources of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions contributing to global climate change and the conservation of CO2- consuming photosynthesizers (i.e., plants)."
• ^ AAP Global Climate Change and Children's Health, 2007, archived from the original on 22 July 2009, retrieved 13 February 2009 "There is broad scientific consensus that Earth's climate is warming rapidly and at an accelerating rate. Human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels, are very likely (>90% probability) to be the main cause of this warming. Climate-sensitive changes in ecosystems are already being observed, and fundamental, potentially irreversible, ecological changes may occur in the coming decades. Conservative environmental estimates of the impact of climate changes that are already in process indicate that they will result in numerous health effects to children. Anticipated direct health consequences of climate change include injury and death from extreme weather events and natural disasters, increases in climate-sensitive infectious diseases, increases in air pollution–related illness, and more heat-related, potentially fatal, illness. Within all of these categories, children have increased vulnerability compared with other groups."
• ^ ACPM Policy Statement Abrupt Climate Change and Public Health Implications, 2006, archived from the original on 7 November 2007, retrieved 21 November 2008 "The American College of Preventive Medicine (ACPM) accept the position that global warming and climate change is occurring, that there is potential for abrupt climate change, and that human practices that increase greenhouse gases exacerbate the problem, and that the public health consequences may be severe."
• ^ American Medical Association Policy Statement, 2008 "Support the findings of the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, which states that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that these changes will negatively affect public health. Support educating the medical community on the potential adverse public health effects of global climate change, including topics such as population displacement, flooding, infectious and vector-borne diseases, and healthy water supplies."
• ^ American Public Health Association Policy Statement Addressing the Urgent Threat of Global Climate Change to Public Health and the Environment, 2007, archived from the original on 31 December 2009 "The long-term threat of global climate change to global health is extremely serious and the fourth IPCC report and other scientific literature demonstrate convincingly that anthropogenic GHG emissions are primarily responsible for this threat....US policy makers should immediately take necessary steps to reduce US emissions of GHGs, including carbon dioxide, to avert dangerous climate change."
• ^ AMA Climate Change and Human Health — 2004, 2004[permanent dead link] They recommend policies "to mitigate the possible consequential health effects of climate change through improved energy efficiency, clean energy production and other emission reduction steps."
• ^ AMA Climate Change and Human Health — 2004. Revised 2008., 2008, archived from the original on 16 February 2009 "The world's climate – our life-support system – is being altered in ways that are likely to pose significant direct and indirect challenges to health. While 'climate change' can be due to natural forces or human activity, there is now substantial evidence to indicate that human activity – and specifically increased greenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions – is a key factor in the pace and extent of global temperature increases. Health impacts of climate change include the direct impacts of extreme events such as storms, floods, heatwaves and fires and the indirect effects of longer-term changes, such as drought, changes to the food and water supply, resource conflicts and population shifts. Increases in average temperatures mean that alterations in the geographic range and seasonality of certain infections and diseases (including vector-borne diseases such as malaria, dengue fever, Ross River virus and food-borne infections such as Salmonellosis) may be among the first detectable impacts of climate change on human health. Human health is ultimately dependent on the health of the planet and its ecosystem. The AMA believes that measures which mitigate climate change will also benefit public health. Reducing GHGs should therefore be seen as a public health priority."
• ^ World Federation of Public Health Associations resolution "Global Climate Change" (PDF), 2001, archived from the original (PDF) on 17 December 2008 "Noting the conclusions of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other climatologists that anthropogenic greenhouse gases, which contribute to global climate change, have substantially increased in atmospheric concentration beyond natural processes and have increased by 28 percent since the industrial revolution….Realizing that subsequent health effects from such perturbations in the climate system would likely include an increase in: heat-related mortality and morbidity; vector-borne infectious diseases,… water-borne diseases…(and) malnutrition from threatened agriculture….the World Federation of Public Health Associations…recommends precautionary primary preventive measures to avert climate change, including reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and preservation of greenhouse gas sinks through appropriate energy and land use policies, in view of the scale of potential health impacts".
• ^ WHO Protecting health from climate change (PDF), 2008, p. 2, retrieved 18 April 2009
• ^ Cissé, G., R. McLeman, H. Adams, P. Aldunce, K. Bowen, D. Campbell-Lendrum, S. Clayton, K.L. Ebi, J. Hess, C. Huang, Q. Liu, G. McGregor, J. Semenza, and M.C. Tirado, 2022: Chapter 7: Health, Wellbeing, and the Changing Structure of Communities. In: Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, B. Rama (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 1041–1170, doi:10.1017/9781009325844.009.
• ^ Marina Romanello, Claudia Di Napoli, Paul Drummond, Carole Green, Harry Kennard, Pete Lampard, Daniel Scamman, Nigel Arnell, Sonja Ayeb-Karlsson, Lea Berrang Ford, Kristine Belesova, Kathryn Bowen, Wenjia Cai, Max Callaghan, Diarmid Campbell-Lendrum, Jonathan Chambers, Kim R van Daalen, Carole Dalin, Niheer Dasandi, Shouro Dasgupta, Michael Davies, Paula Dominguez-Salas, Robert Dubrow, Kristie L Ebi, Matthew Eckelman, Paul Ekins, Luis E Escobar, Lucien Georgeson, Hilary Graham, Samuel H Gunther, Ian Hamilton, Yun Hang, Risto Hänninen, Stella Hartinger, Kehan He, Jeremy J Hess, Shih-Che Hsu, Slava Jankin, Louis Jamart et al. (2022) The 2022 report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: health at the mercy of fossil fuels, The Lancet, Vol 400 November 5, DOI: 10.1016/ S0140-6736(22)01540-9
• ^ Jump up to:a b Romanello, Marina; McGushin, Alice; Di Napoli, Claudia; Drummond, Paul; Hughes, Nick; Jamart, Louis; Kennard, Harry; Lampard, Pete; Solano Rodriguez, Baltazar; Arnell, Nigel; Ayeb-Karlsson, Sonja; Belesova, Kristine; Cai, Wenjia; Campbell-Lendrum, Diarmid; Capstick, Stuart; Chambers, Jonathan; Chu, Lingzhi; Ciampi, Luisa; Dalin, Carole; Dasandi, Niheer; Dasgupta, Shouro; Davies, Michael; Dominguez-Salas, Paula; Dubrow, Robert; Ebi, Kristie L; Eckelman, Matthew; Ekins, Paul; Escobar, Luis E; Georgeson, Lucien; Grace, Delia; Graham, Hilary; Gunther, Samuel H; Hartinger, Stella; He, Kehan; Heaviside, Clare; Hess, Jeremy; Hsu, Shih-Che; Jankin, Slava; Jimenez, Marcia P; Kelman, Ilan; et al. (October 2021). "The 2021 report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: code red for a healthy future" (PDF). The Lancet. 398 (10311): 1619–1662. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(21)01787-6. hdl:10278/3746207. PMID 34687662. S2CID 239046862.
• ^ Levy, Karen; Smith, Shanon M.; Carlton, Elizabeth J. (2018). "Climate Change Impacts on Waterborne Diseases: Moving Toward Designing Interventions". Current Environmental Health Reports. 5 (2): 272–282. doi:10.1007/s40572-018-0199-7. ISSN 2196-5412. PMC 6119235. PMID 29721700.
• ^ Baker, Rachel E.; Mahmud, Ayesha S.; Miller, Ian F.; Rajeev, Malavika; Rasambainarivo, Fidisoa; Rice, Benjamin L.; Takahashi, Saki; Tatem, Andrew J.; Wagner, Caroline E.; Wang, Lin-Fa; Wesolowski, Amy; Metcalf, C. Jessica E. (April 2022). "Infectious disease in an era of global change". Nature Reviews Microbiology. 20 (4): 193–205. doi:10.1038/s41579-021-00639-z. ISSN 1740-1534. PMC 8513385. PMID 34646006.
• ^ Wilson, Mary E. (2010). "Geography of infectious diseases". Infectious Diseases: 1055–1064. doi:10.1016/B978-0-323-04579-7.00101-5. ISBN 9780323045797. PMC 7152081.
• ^ "Closer than ever: It is 100 seconds to midnight". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Retrieved 29 January 2020.
• ^ Statement supporting AGU statement on human-induced climate change, American Astronomical Society, 2004, archived from the original on 7 May 2007 "In endorsing the "Human Impacts on Climate" statement [issued by the American Geophysical Union], the AAS recognizes the collective expertise of the AGU in scientific subfields central to assessing and understanding global change, and acknowledges the strength of agreement among our AGU colleagues that the global climate is changing and human activities are contributing to that change."

`

 

[abu afak]

3. Footnoted Links to Surveys, 200-213
and other Sources.

1. ASA Statement on Climate Change, 30 November 2007 "The ASA endorses the IPCC conclusions.... Over the course of four assessment reports, a small number of statisticians have served as authors or reviewers. Although this involvement is encouraging, it does not represent the full range of statistical expertise available. ASA recommends that more statisticians should become part of the IPCC process. Such participation would be mutually beneficial to the assessment of climate change and its impacts and also to the statistical community."
2. ^ Lapp, David. "What Is Climate Change". Canadian Council of Professional Engineers. Retrieved 18 August 2015.
3. ^ Policy Statement, Climate Change and Energy, February 2007 "Engineers Australia believes that Australia must act swiftly and proactively in line with global expectations to address climate change as an economic, social and environmental risk ... We believe that addressing the costs of atmospheric emissions will lead to increasing our competitive advantage by minimising risks and creating new economic opportunities. Engineers Australia believes the Australian Government should ratify the Kyoto Protocol."
4. ^ IAGLR Fact Sheet The Great Lakes at a Crossroads: Preparing for a Changing Climate (PDF), February 2009 "While the Earth's climate has changed many times during the planet's history because of natural factors, including volcanic eruptions and changes in the Earth's orbit, never before have we observed the present rapid rise in temperature and carbon dioxide (CO2). Human activities resulting from the industrial revolution have changed the chemical composition of the atmosphere. ... Deforestation is now the second largest contributor to global warming, after the burning of fossil fuels. These human activities have significantly increased the concentration of "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere. As the Earth's climate warms, we are seeing many changes: stronger, more destructive hurricanes; heavier rainfall; more disastrous flooding; more areas of the world experiencing severe drought; and more heat waves."
5. ^ IPENZ Informatory Note, Climate Change and the greenhouse effect (PDF), October 2001 "Human activities have increased the concentration of these atmospheric greenhouse gases, and although the changes are relatively small, the equilibrium maintained by the atmosphere is delicate, and so the effect of these changes is significant. The world's most important greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide, a by-product of the burning of fossil fuels. Since the time of the Industrial Revolution about 200 years ago, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased from about 280 parts per million to 370 parts per million, an increase of around 30%. On the basis of available data, climate scientists are now projecting an average global temperature rise over this century of 2.0 to 4.5°C. This compared with 0.6°C over the previous century – about a 500% increase ... This could lead to changing, and for all emissions scenarios more unpredictable, weather patterns around the world, less frost days, more extreme events (droughts and storm or flood disasters), and warmer sea temperatures and melting glaciers causing sea levels to rise. ... Professional engineers commonly deal with risk, and frequently have to make judgments based on incomplete data. The available evidence suggests very strongly that human activities have already begun to make significant changes to the earth's climate, and that the long-term risk of delaying action is greater than the cost of avoiding/minimising the risk."
6. ^ Jump up to:a b c Julie Brigham-Grette; et al. (September 2006). "Petroleum Geologists' Award to Novelist Crichton Is Inappropriate". Eos. 87 (36): 364. Bibcode:2006EOSTr..87..364B. doi:10.1029/2006EO360008. The AAPG stands alone among scientific societies in its denial of human-induced effects on global warming.
7. ^ Jump up to:a b Oreskes 2007, p. 68 harvnb error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFOreskes2007 (help)
8. ^ AAPG Position Statement: Climate Change from dpa.aapg.org
9. ^ "Climate :03:2007 EXPLORER". Aapg.org. Retrieved 30 July 2012.
10. ^ Sunsetting the Global Climate Change Committee, The Professional Geologist, March/April 2010, p. 28
11. ^ "AIPG Position Statements". Archived from the original on 2 February 2018. Retrieved 1 February 2018.
12. ^ "The Professional Geologist publications". Archived from the original on 5 March 2012. Retrieved 30 July 2012.
13. ^ AAPG Climate Change June 2007

Sources​

• IPCC AR4 WG2 (2007), Parry, M. L.; Canziani, O. F.; Palutikof, J. P.; van der Linden, P. J.; Hanson, C. E. (eds.), Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-88010-7, archived from the original on 2018-11-10, retrieved 2013-05-21 (pb: 978-0-521-70597-4).
• IPCC AR4 SYR (2007), Core Writing Team; Pachauri, R. K.; Reisinger, A. (eds.), Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report (SYR), Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC, ISBN 978-92-9169-122-7.
• IPCC AR5 WG1 (2013), Stocker, T.F.; et al. (eds.), Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group 1 (WG1) Contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 5th Assessment Report (AR5), Cambridge University Press. Climate Change 2013 Working Group 1 website.
• IPCC AR5 WG2 A (2014), Field, C.B.; et al. (eds.), Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II (WG2) to the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Cambridge University Press, archived from the original on 16 April 2014. Archived
• IPCC AR5 WG3 (2014), Edenhofer, O.; et al. (eds.), Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III (WG3) to the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Cambridge University Press, archived from the original on 29 October 2014. Archived

`

Thx Wiki for summarizing the CONSENSUS of Surveys re the Scientific Consensus which also includes the huge IPCC.

`

 

[abu afak]

Climate.NASA.gov

Do scientists agree on climate change?

Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science...

climate.nasa.gov

Earth Now – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Do scientists agree on climate change?​

Yes, the Vast Majority of actively publishing Climate scientists – 97% – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world. A list of these organizations is provided here.
READ MORE

• Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming
• “The scientific consensus on climate change,” N. Oreskes, Science, Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686, doi: 10.1126/science.1103618 (2004).
• “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature,” J. Cook et al., Environ. Res. Lett., 8 024024, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024 (2013).

ADDITIONAL CITATIONS

• "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming Environ," J. Cook et al., Res. Lett. 11 (2016) 048002, pp 1–7, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002 (2016).
• "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," P. Doran et al., EOS, Vol. 90, Issue 3, Pages 22–23, doi: 10.1029/2009EO030002 (2009).
• "Expert credibility in climate change," W. Anderegg et al., PNAS, Vol. 107 no. 27, 12107–12109, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107 (2010).
• "Meteorologists' Views About Global Warming: A Survey of American Meteorological Society Professional Members," N. Stenhouse et al., Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 95 No. 7, pp 1029–1040, doi: 10.1175/ BAMS-D-13-00091.1 (2014).
• "Scientists’ Views about Attribution of Global Warming," B. Verheggen et al., Environ. Sci. Technol., 48 (16), pp 8963–8971, doi: 10.1021/es501998e (2014).
• "The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists," J.S. Carlton et al., Environ. Res. Lett. 10 (2015) 094025, pp 1–12, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094025 (2015).

`

 

[luiza]

Where is the consensus survey/study of the 99% scientists in aggreement? It is that simple. Lots of people here make the claim, nobody posts the survey. We can see the abstract, but not the survey/study.

Abstracts, may not reflect anything in the survey or study.

I want to see the whole thing. But it is not available.

So here is the challenge, post the survey, the study, of the consensus of scientists so we can see for ourselves.

While we wait, here is my partial reply

Whenever you see the term , Consensus , run .

It is interchangeable with the swear term , Fact Checkers/ Fact Checked .

True meaning ?--- Fake News coming next ., Special offer for Gullibles and the innocent

 

[ReinyDays]

Where is the consensus survey/study of the 99% scientists in aggreement? It is that simple. Lots of people here make the claim, nobody posts the survey. We can see the abstract, but not the survey/study.

Abstracts, may not reflect anything in the survey or study.

I want to see the whole thing. But it is not available.

So here is the challenge, post the survey, the study, of the consensus of scientists so we can see for ourselves.

While we wait, here is my partial reply

https://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/environment.84/post-thread

The statistic comes from the fact that any scientific paper that doesn't mention AGW is a positive trial ... in other words, 1% of papers argue against AGW, 99% don't ... even if the conclusion doesn't support AGW, this paper would be counted as a positive ...

It's one photon per molecule ... and there's just not enough CO2 molecules in the atmosphere ...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Where is the consensus survey/study of the 99% scientists in aggreement? It is that simple. Lots of people here make the claim, nobody posts the survey. We can see the abstract, but not the survey/study.

Abstracts, may not reflect anything in the survey or study.

I want to see the whole thing. But it is not available.

So here is the challenge, post the survey, the study, of the consensus of scientists so we can see for ourselves.

While we wait, here is my partial reply

https://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/environment.84/post-thread

Truth does not mind being questioned, but a lie does not like being challenged and deniers should mind their own business because the science is settled -- AGWCult

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Climate.NASA.gov

Do scientists agree on climate change?

Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science...

climate.nasa.gov

Earth Now – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Do scientists agree on climate change?​

Yes, the Vast Majority of actively publishing Climate scientists – 97% – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world. A list of these organizations is provided here.
READ MORE

• Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming
• “The scientific consensus on climate change,” N. Oreskes, Science, Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686, doi: 10.1126/science.1103618 (2004).
• “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature,” J. Cook et al., Environ. Res. Lett., 8 024024, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024 (2013).

ADDITIONAL CITATIONS

• "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming Environ," J. Cook et al., Res. Lett. 11 (2016) 048002, pp 1–7, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002 (2016).
• "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," P. Doran et al., EOS, Vol. 90, Issue 3, Pages 22–23, doi: 10.1029/2009EO030002 (2009).
• "Expert credibility in climate change," W. Anderegg et al., PNAS, Vol. 107 no. 27, 12107–12109, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107 (2010).
• "Meteorologists' Views About Global Warming: A Survey of American Meteorological Society Professional Members," N. Stenhouse et al., Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 95 No. 7, pp 1029–1040, doi: 10.1175/ BAMS-D-13-00091.1 (2014).
• "Scientists’ Views about Attribution of Global Warming," B. Verheggen et al., Environ. Sci. Technol., 48 (16), pp 8963–8971, doi: 10.1021/es501998e (2014).
• "The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists," J.S. Carlton et al., Environ. Res. Lett. 10 (2015) 094025, pp 1–12, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094025 (2015).

`

Consensus is not a word used in science, it's a Cult word

 

[CrusaderFrank]

3. Footnoted Links to Surveys, 200-213
and other Sources.

1. ASA Statement on Climate Change, 30 November 2007 "The ASA endorses the IPCC conclusions.... Over the course of four assessment reports, a small number of statisticians have served as authors or reviewers. Although this involvement is encouraging, it does not represent the full range of statistical expertise available. ASA recommends that more statisticians should become part of the IPCC process. Such participation would be mutually beneficial to the assessment of climate change and its impacts and also to the statistical community."
2. ^ Lapp, David. "What Is Climate Change". Canadian Council of Professional Engineers. Retrieved 18 August 2015.
3. ^ Policy Statement, Climate Change and Energy, February 2007 "Engineers Australia believes that Australia must act swiftly and proactively in line with global expectations to address climate change as an economic, social and environmental risk ... We believe that addressing the costs of atmospheric emissions will lead to increasing our competitive advantage by minimising risks and creating new economic opportunities. Engineers Australia believes the Australian Government should ratify the Kyoto Protocol."
4. ^ IAGLR Fact Sheet The Great Lakes at a Crossroads: Preparing for a Changing Climate (PDF), February 2009 "While the Earth's climate has changed many times during the planet's history because of natural factors, including volcanic eruptions and changes in the Earth's orbit, never before have we observed the present rapid rise in temperature and carbon dioxide (CO2). Human activities resulting from the industrial revolution have changed the chemical composition of the atmosphere. ... Deforestation is now the second largest contributor to global warming, after the burning of fossil fuels. These human activities have significantly increased the concentration of "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere. As the Earth's climate warms, we are seeing many changes: stronger, more destructive hurricanes; heavier rainfall; more disastrous flooding; more areas of the world experiencing severe drought; and more heat waves."
5. ^ IPENZ Informatory Note, Climate Change and the greenhouse effect (PDF), October 2001 "Human activities have increased the concentration of these atmospheric greenhouse gases, and although the changes are relatively small, the equilibrium maintained by the atmosphere is delicate, and so the effect of these changes is significant. The world's most important greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide, a by-product of the burning of fossil fuels. Since the time of the Industrial Revolution about 200 years ago, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased from about 280 parts per million to 370 parts per million, an increase of around 30%. On the basis of available data, climate scientists are now projecting an average global temperature rise over this century of 2.0 to 4.5°C. This compared with 0.6°C over the previous century – about a 500% increase ... This could lead to changing, and for all emissions scenarios more unpredictable, weather patterns around the world, less frost days, more extreme events (droughts and storm or flood disasters), and warmer sea temperatures and melting glaciers causing sea levels to rise. ... Professional engineers commonly deal with risk, and frequently have to make judgments based on incomplete data. The available evidence suggests very strongly that human activities have already begun to make significant changes to the earth's climate, and that the long-term risk of delaying action is greater than the cost of avoiding/minimising the risk."
6. ^ Jump up to:a b c Julie Brigham-Grette; et al. (September 2006). "Petroleum Geologists' Award to Novelist Crichton Is Inappropriate". Eos. 87 (36): 364. Bibcode:2006EOSTr..87..364B. doi:10.1029/2006EO360008. The AAPG stands alone among scientific societies in its denial of human-induced effects on global warming.
7. ^ Jump up to:a b Oreskes 2007, p. 68 harvnb error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFOreskes2007 (help)
8. ^ AAPG Position Statement: Climate Change from dpa.aapg.org
9. ^ "Climate :03:2007 EXPLORER". Aapg.org. Retrieved 30 July 2012.
10. ^ Sunsetting the Global Climate Change Committee, The Professional Geologist, March/April 2010, p. 28
11. ^ "AIPG Position Statements". Archived from the original on 2 February 2018. Retrieved 1 February 2018.
12. ^ "The Professional Geologist publications". Archived from the original on 5 March 2012. Retrieved 30 July 2012.
13. ^ AAPG Climate Change June 2007

Sources​

• IPCC AR4 WG2 (2007), Parry, M. L.; Canziani, O. F.; Palutikof, J. P.; van der Linden, P. J.; Hanson, C. E. (eds.), Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-88010-7, archived from the original on 2018-11-10, retrieved 2013-05-21 (pb: 978-0-521-70597-4).
• IPCC AR4 SYR (2007), Core Writing Team; Pachauri, R. K.; Reisinger, A. (eds.), Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report (SYR), Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC, ISBN 978-92-9169-122-7.
• IPCC AR5 WG1 (2013), Stocker, T.F.; et al. (eds.), Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group 1 (WG1) Contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 5th Assessment Report (AR5), Cambridge University Press. Climate Change 2013 Working Group 1 website.
• IPCC AR5 WG2 A (2014), Field, C.B.; et al. (eds.), Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II (WG2) to the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Cambridge University Press, archived from the original on 16 April 2014. Archived
• IPCC AR5 WG3 (2014), Edenhofer, O.; et al. (eds.), Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III (WG3) to the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Cambridge University Press, archived from the original on 29 October 2014. Archived

`

Thx Wiki for summarizing the CONSENSUS of Surveys re the Scientific Consensus which also includes the huge IPCC.

`

Ask them to post one (1) repeatable experiment demonstrating the expected temperature increase by increasing CO2 from 280 to 420PPM and we get