Why we should listen to the 97%

Once again we have dumb asses claiming that some survey shows that most scientists are skeptical of AGW. Were that so, why does every Scientific Society in every nation state that AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger in their policy statements? And the same for every National Academy of Science, and every major University.

By the way, Watts and Monkton have zero scientfic credentials, and Spencer states that GHGs do warm the atmosphere, he just does not thing that presents that much of a problem.

In the words of the scientific society that has the most members that are actively engaged in climate research, the American Geophyical Union;

http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/05/agu-statement-on-climate-change/

Human-induced climate change requires urgent action.

Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.

“Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate system for millennia.

Extensive, independent observations confirm the reality of global warming. These observations show large-scale increases in air and sea temperatures, sea level, and atmospheric water vapor; they document decreases in the extent of mountain glaciers, snow cover, permafrost, and Arctic sea ice. These changes are broadly consistent with long-understood physics and predictions of how the climate system is expected to respond to human-caused increases in greenhouse gases. The changes are inconsistent with explanations of climate change that rely on known natural influences.

Climate models predict that global temperatures will continue to rise, with the amount of warming primarily determined by the level of emissions. Higher emissions of greenhouse gases will lead to larger warming, and greater risks to society and ecosystems. Some additional warming is unavoidable due to past emissions.

Climate change is not expected to be uniform over space or time. Deforestation, urbanization, and particulate pollution can have complex geographical, seasonal, and longer-term effects on temperature, precipitation, and cloud properties. In addition, human-induced climate change may alter atmospheric circulation, dislocating historical patterns of natural variability and storminess.

In the current climate, weather experienced at a given location or region varies from year to year; in a changing climate, both the nature of that variability and the basic patterns of weather experienced can change, sometimes in counterintuitive ways — some areas may experience cooling, for instance. This raises no challenge to the reality of human-induced climate change.

Impacts harmful to society, including increased extremes of heat, precipitation, and coastal high water are currently being experienced, and are projected to increase. Other projected outcomes involve threats to public health, water availability, agricultural productivity (particularly in low-latitude developing countries), and coastal infrastructure, though some benefits may be seen at some times and places. Biodiversity loss is expected to accelerate due to both climate change and acidification of the oceans, which is a direct result of increasing carbon dioxide levels.

While important scientific uncertainties remain as to which particular impacts will be experienced where, no uncertainties are known that could make the impacts of climate change inconsequential. Furthermore, surprise outcomes, such as the unexpectedly rapid loss of Arctic summer sea ice, may entail even more dramatic changes than anticipated.

Actions that could diminish the threats posed by climate change to society and ecosystems include substantial emissions cuts to reduce the magnitude of climate change, as well as preparing for changes that are now unavoidable. The community of scientists has responsibilities to improve overall understanding of climate change and its impacts. Improvements will come from pursuing the research needed to understand climate change, working with stakeholders to identify relevant information, and conveying understanding clearly and accurately, both to decision makers and to the general public.”

Adopted by the American Geophysical Union December 2003; Revised and
Reaffirmed December 2007, February 2012, August 2013.
 
Isn't that like accepting a survey showing 97% of Christian theologians believe the divinity of Jesus Christ?

Would be then believe that Jesus Christ is then divine?

It's a bit baffling to me that Sceptics arguing that Climate Change is to Science what Jesus is to Christian theologians.

Remember the days when sceptics still claimed they had science in their corner?

They still do. Anyone who goes around claiming AGW is true because of a "consensus" doesn't know diddly squat about science. Furthermore, the so-called "consensus" is mostly concocted.
 
Last edited:
In the words of the scientific society that has the most members that are actively engaged in climate research, the American Geophyical Union;

You mean "in the words of a few political hacks who run the organization." Political operatives don't determine scientific facts. That's another lesson the brethren of the Holy Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming need to learn.
 
Daveman -

You might want to read the article and correct your maths.

Someone posted this last week and made the same mistake.

You might also ask yourself why a survey of climate specialists would include engineers, but exclude biologists.

You might want to read it again. The survey was not of "climate specialists", but of scientists.

If you insist that only climate scientists may have an opinion on climate science, I'll have to ask you, a foreigner, to stop having opinions on the United States.

"Climate specialists" are all getting money from the government to prove that AGW is true. By definition, someone who isn't getting paid to do research on AGW isn't a "Climate specialist," and all the money for climate research comes from the federal government. Surveying "climate specialists" about global warming is like surveying a bunch of Ford Motor Company executives about which company makes the best cars.
 
Last edited:
In the words of the scientific society that has the most members that are actively engaged in climate research, the American Geophyical Union;

You mean "in the words of a few political hacks who run the organization." Political operatives don't determine scientific facts. That's another lesson the brethren of the Holy Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming need to learn.

Can you explain why "political hacks" in countries with conservative governments would fraudently represent the members who voted for them to represent the membership?

Seriously man, you must realise yourself that your theories here are laugh-out-loud stupid!

"Climate specialists" are all getting money from the government to prove that AGW is true.

And why are CONSERVATIVE governments doing this?
 
Last edited:
Daveman -

You might want to read the article and correct your maths.

Someone posted this last week and made the same mistake.

You might also ask yourself why a survey of climate specialists would include engineers, but exclude biologists.

You might want to read it again. The survey was not of "climate specialists", but of scientists.

If you insist that only climate scientists may have an opinion on climate science, I'll have to ask you, a foreigner, to stop having opinions on the United States.

I have read it - which is how I know that your maths is wrong.
Then perhaps you should write to the author.
btw, If it is a survey of scientists, why are engineers included?
The planet is like a machine. Who knows better how machines work than engineers?

I have a question for you: Why are there no statisticians writing climate models? After all, climate data is nothing but statistics.
 
Daveman -

Again, your maths are wrong. I suggest you read the report, add up the numbers in different categories, and tell us what the MAJORITY of those surveyed think.

Secondly, I do not think someone with two years polytechnic studies, qualifying him to be a lower level electrician, is an expert on climate or science, and neither do you.
 
Really?

Because I could list 10 things that you could go and check tomorrow with your own eyes.

You won't, though, because you know as well as I do what you would find.
I don't even have to look at your list to dismiss it:

Correlation does not imply causation.

Of course you won't look at the evidence, because you know what would happen if you did.
Yes. I'd find things that you insist are due to CO2 without sufficient evidence.
btw. Melting glaciers causing sea levels to raise is not a correlation - it is cause and effect, clear and simple. As you know, obviously. It is scientifically proven, and something you can check fairly easily online about your nearest coastal area.
But the insistence that man is releasing CO2 which is causing the planet to heat up thus melting the glaciers IS correlation without causation.

Get it now?

Probably not.
 
In the words of the scientific society that has the most members that are actively engaged in climate research, the American Geophyical Union;

You mean "in the words of a few political hacks who run the organization." Political operatives don't determine scientific facts. That's another lesson the brethren of the Holy Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming need to learn.

Can you explain why "political hacks" in countries with conservative governments would fraudently represent the members who voted for them to represent the membership?

Seriously man, you must realise yourself that your theories here are laugh-out-loud stupid!

"Climate specialists" are all getting money from the government to prove that AGW is true.

And why are CONSERVATIVE governments doing this?

When you claim a government is "conservative" you mean only a very thin layer of politicians at the top are conservative. The immense armies of bureaucrats underneath this layer are all statists committed to expanding their empires. In other words, they are left-wingers. They are the ones who determine who gets research money, not politicians.

When George Bush was president, he was nominally a "conservative." Yet the bureaucrats at the EPA did everything in their power to undermine his agenda. If you think politicians have absolute control over the bureaucracy, then you're a naive fool who doesn't understand the first thing about government.
 
Daveman -

Again, your maths are wrong. I suggest you read the report, add up the numbers in different categories, and tell us what the MAJORITY of those surveyed think.

Secondly, I do not think someone with two years polytechnic studies, qualifying him to be a lower level electrician, is an expert on climate or science, and neither do you.
Just as I thought.

Very well, you may no longer express an opinion on anything the United States does.

You're simply not qualified to have an opinion.

And I will remind you of this whenever you say anything about the US.

This is your own standard. Don't whine when it gets applied to you.
 
Bottom line: those who depend on AGW supporters, including the U.S. government, for most or all of their funding are not likely to come to ANY conclusion that suggests that AGW is not a problem. Those who do lose their funding. It is as simple as that.

So, if I was going to conduct a poll to promote AGW, especially one funded by AGW supporters, including the the U.S. government, who do I poll? All scientists indiscriminately? Or those who will give me the answer I want?

Of course that method produces a 100% consensus which nobody would buy, so just enought 'skeptics' have to be included to produce a more believable 97%. Which anybody with a computer and any ability at all to do a quick Google search knows is pure bunk.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/23/pbs-frontline-climate-change-special-cites-bogus-consensus/

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130729130257AAZzP8J


It is tragic that the ridiculous analogy used in the OP is presented as science. And tragic that so many scientists are being coerced into compromising their values and integrity to chase the almighty research dollar.
 
When you claim a government is "conservative" you mean only a very thin layer of politicians at the top are conservative.

Don't be ridiculous.

Conservative governments are as conservative as liberal governments are liberal. You might as well claim that US ministries are packed full of conservative scientists...somehow I don't think you are going to suggest that, though, are you?!

Your theorising here makes no sense whatsoever, and you know it doesn't.

Forget the conspiracy theories, man, no one believes the British Academy of Sciences are a bunch of pinkos - not even you.
 
Bottom line: those who depend on AGW supporters, including the U.S. government, for most or all of their funding are not likely to come to ANY conclusion that suggests that AGW is not a problem..

Another one!

So, Fox, why do you think scientists in countries with conservative governments are any different?

Is it too much to ask Sceptical posters to think through your theories just a little bit before posting them?
 
Bottom line: those who depend on AGW supporters, including the U.S. government, for most or all of their funding are not likely to come to ANY conclusion that suggests that AGW is not a problem..

Another one!

So, Fox, why do you think scientists in countries with conservative governments are any different?

Is it too much to ask Sceptical posters to think through your theories just a little bit before posting them?

Depends on how you define conservative. As you define it in Finland? Or as it is defined in the USA? What do you see as the definition of 'conservative' as it pertains to government?

The U.S. government has been promoting AGW as a valid concept now for a couple of decades. And it funds ONLY scientists and scientific groups who promote AGW. Does that make us conservative in your eyes?
 
When you claim a government is "conservative" you mean only a very thin layer of politicians at the top are conservative.

Don't be ridiculous.

Conservative governments are as conservative as liberal governments are liberal. You might as well claim that US ministries are packed full of conservative scientists...somehow I don't think you are going to suggest that, though, are you?!

Wrong. All government below the level of elected officials is liberal. Your analogy doesn't make sense because it's based on your view of reality, not mine. You're the one claiming US "ministries" are packed with conservatives the minute a Republican gets elected, not me.

Your theorising here makes no sense whatsoever, and you know it doesn't.

They aren't theories. They are facts. Bureacrats don't lose their jobs when a new administration comes into power. Politicians come and go, but the bureaucrats are there for life, and they all have a vested interest in expanding government.

Forget the conspiracy theories, man, no one believes the British Academy of Sciences are a bunch of pinkos - not even you.

You're ideological brethren in this forum keep telling us how 94% of scientists are liberals, do apparently they believe it. Furthermore, the British Academy of Sciences doesn't determine who gets government funding. A bunch of lifetime bureaucrats determine that.
 
Bottom line: those who depend on AGW supporters, including the U.S. government, for most or all of their funding are not likely to come to ANY conclusion that suggests that AGW is not a problem..

Another one!

So, Fox, why do you think scientists in countries with conservative governments are any different?

Is it too much to ask Sceptical posters to think through your theories just a little bit before posting them?

Depends on how you define conservative. As you define it in Finland? Or as it is defined in the USA? What do you see as the definition of 'conservative' as it pertains to government?

The U.S. government has been promoting AGW as a valid concept now for a couple of decades. And it funds ONLY scientists and scientific groups who promote AGW. Does that make us conservative in your eyes?

Apparently Saigon believes that the minute a Republican gets elected all the left-wing bureaucrats get fired and replaced by loyal conservatives.
 
Another one!

So, Fox, why do you think scientists in countries with conservative governments are any different?

Is it too much to ask Sceptical posters to think through your theories just a little bit before posting them?

Depends on how you define conservative. As you define it in Finland? Or as it is defined in the USA? What do you see as the definition of 'conservative' as it pertains to government?

The U.S. government has been promoting AGW as a valid concept now for a couple of decades. And it funds ONLY scientists and scientific groups who promote AGW. Does that make us conservative in your eyes?

Apparently Saigon believes that the minute a Republican gets elected all the left-wing bureaucrats get fired and replaced by loyal conservatives.

I am guessing that liberal and conservative have much different defintions in Finland than how they are more commonly understood in America.
 
You might want to read it again. The survey was not of "climate specialists", but of scientists.

If you insist that only climate scientists may have an opinion on climate science, I'll have to ask you, a foreigner, to stop having opinions on the United States.

I have read it - which is how I know that your maths is wrong.
Then perhaps you should write to the author.
btw, If it is a survey of scientists, why are engineers included?
The planet is like a machine. Who knows better how machines work than engineers?

I have a question for you: Why are there no statisticians writing climate models? After all, climate data is nothing but statistics.

Engineers that all too often ignore everything but what they are trying to build. We see that in the siting of nuclear reactors, and I have had all too many experiances of having to redisign machinery that the engineer forgot the need for lubrication on.

Dumb ass, you do not realize that stastics is a required course in any scientific field, even Geology?
 
Depends on how you define conservative. As you define it in Finland? Or as it is defined in the USA? What do you see as the definition of 'conservative' as it pertains to government?

The U.S. government has been promoting AGW as a valid concept now for a couple of decades. And it funds ONLY scientists and scientific groups who promote AGW. Does that make us conservative in your eyes?

Apparently Saigon believes that the minute a Republican gets elected all the left-wing bureaucrats get fired and replaced by loyal conservatives.

I am guessing that liberal and conservative have much different defintions in Finland than how they are more commonly understood in America.

Well, yes, you are correct. In most nations conservative and liberal are mostly related to economic policy. Here is the US, Conservative means willfully ignorant in science, disdainful of any kind of education, and the hate of anyone that looks differant from the North European norm. Just look at the posts in general on the US Message Board.
 

Forum List

Back
Top