Yes, 97%

[Crick]

The two Wikipedia articles have been presented to you on numerous occasions. Have you never even reviewed them? Please do so.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The two Wikipedia articles have been presented to you on numerous occasions. Have you never even reviewed them? Please do so.

Thanks. They were funny.

A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, 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" believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 75 out of 77 believe 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. A summary from the survey states that:

I love that they managed to ignore 3069 replies, in order to get the garbage result that I mock.
And that "significant factor" is undefined.
Like I said, funny.

 

[Crick]

I guess we can now conclude that you are fully aware there were numerous other polls, surveys and studies, with larger sample sizes, that arrived at essentially the exact same conclusion. However, despite that awareness, you choose to continue commenting solely about Doran.

So, aside from the fact that you obviously lack the familiarity with statistics that would tell you Doran's results have significance (your comment that he "ignored 3069 replies" tells us you've never had a statistics class in your life), you want to pretend that those other studies don't exist. That is, you choose to be dishonest.

 

[IanC]

I guess we can now conclude that you are fully aware there were numerous other polls, surveys and studies, with larger sample sizes, that arrived at essentially the exact same conclusion. However, despite that awareness, you choose to continue commenting solely about Doran.

So, aside from the fact that you obviously lack the familiarity with statistics that would tell you Doran's results have significance (your comment that he "ignored 3069 replies" tells us you've never had a statistics class in your life), you want to pretend that those other studies don't exist. That is, you choose to be dishonest.

it is an endless circle. every time one poll is shown to be lacking you go on to another one. after they have all been shown to be less than advertised you go away for a while. and then come back with the same talking points, as if it had never been discussed before.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I guess we can now conclude that you are fully aware there were numerous other polls, surveys and studies, with larger sample sizes, that arrived at essentially the exact same conclusion. However, despite that awareness, you choose to continue commenting solely about Doran.

So, aside from the fact that you obviously lack the familiarity with statistics that would tell you Doran's results have significance (your comment that he "ignored 3069 replies" tells us you've never had a statistics class in your life), you want to pretend that those other studies don't exist. That is, you choose to be dishonest.

Yes, lots of silly surveys that aren't worth much.
We're not going to crush our economy to reduce CO2 a tiny amount.
Even if that makes you sad.

your comment that he "ignored 3069 replies"

You feel he didn't? Pleae elaborate.

 

[Crick]

So YOU choose to ignore surveys of thousands of scientists. Got it.

Doran didn't ignore any of this replies. He categorized them according to each respondent's demographic information. The 75 out of 79 were clearly identified as being "actively publishing climate scientists". Those not included in that number did not meet that criteria.

Do you really find that so difficult to follow? Or is it that you don't want to?

ADDENDUM:

Can you agree that of all the people that responded to Doran's survey, those 79 were the most qualified to speak to questions regarding the climate?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So YOU choose to ignore surveys of thousands of scientists. Got it.

Doran didn't ignore any of this replies. He categorized them according to each respondent's demographic information. The 75 out of 79 were clearly identified as being "actively publishing climate scientists". Those not included in that number did not meet that criteria.

Do you really find that so difficult to follow? Or is it that you don't want to?

ADDENDUM:

Can you agree that of all the people that responded to Doran's survey, those 79 were the most qualified to speak to questions regarding the climate?

So YOU choose to ignore surveys of thousands of scientists. Got it.

Crick, you got me all wrong. I'm not ignoring these silly, stupid surveys, I'm openly mocking them.
The only thing dumber, that I've seen lately, is old SSDD's insistence on smart emissions of photons and waves.

Doran didn't ignore any of this replies.

In that case, he should publish how many, out of 3,146 replies, agreed with his premise.

Can you agree that of all the people that responded to Doran's survey, those 79 were the most qualified

Based on the funny business exposed in the Climategate emails, I won't agree they were the most qualified.

 

[Crick]

On what grounds do you mock the other surveys noted in the Wikipedia article?

What do you think Doran's survey has to do with the emails stolen from the CRU server?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

On what grounds do you mock the other surveys noted in the Wikipedia article?

What do you think Doran's survey has to do with the emails stolen from the CRU server?

What is the definition of "Significant Factor"?

Based on emails talking about suppression of opposing viewpoints, I won't agree that only active publishers are qualified.

 

[Crick]

On what grounds do you mock the other surveys noted in the Wikipedia article?

What do you think Doran's survey has to do with the emails stolen from the CRU server?

What is the definition of "Significant Factor"?

Taken out of context, I haven't the faintest idea.

Based on emails talking about suppression of opposing viewpoints, I won't agree that only active publishers are qualified.

A single statement is made in a single email that suggests one climate scientist would like to see opposing views not get published. Do you have any OTHER reason - any OTHER evidence - for assuming that NO opposing viewpoints get published in any science journal on the planet?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

On what grounds do you mock the other surveys noted in the Wikipedia article?

What do you think Doran's survey has to do with the emails stolen from the CRU server?

What is the definition of "Significant Factor"?

Taken out of context, I haven't the faintest idea.

Based on emails talking about suppression of opposing viewpoints, I won't agree that only active publishers are qualified.

A single statement is made in a single email that suggests one climate scientist would like to see opposing views not get published. Do you have any OTHER reason - any OTHER evidence - for assuming that NO opposing viewpoints get published in any science journal on the planet?

75 out of 77 believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

 

[Crick]

You have no intention of treating this issue honestly, do you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You have no intention of treating this issue honestly, do you.

I'm going to continue to mock silly warmer claims. Honestly.

 

[Crick]

Mock away

SCIENTIFIC OPINION ON CLIMATE CHANGE

Surveys of scientists and scientific literature[edit]

Summary of opinions from climate and earth scientists regarding climate change.

Just over 97% of published climate researchers say humans are causing most global warming.[107][108][109]

In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized 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. 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. 5% said they thought human activity did not contribute to greenhouse warming.[111][112][113][114]

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.

A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:

(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.[118]

A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers matching "global warming" or "global climate change". They found 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming, and of these 97.1% endorsed the consensus position.[119]

James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, 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 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[120] 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.[121]

SURVEYS OF SCIENTISTS VIEWS ON CLIMATE CHANGE

Bray and von Storch, 2008
Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 different countries.[11] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 373 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18.2%.

In the section on climate change impacts, questions 20, 21 were relevant to scientific opinion on climate change. Question 21 "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" received 34.6% very much convinced, 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.

Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2010

A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States(PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:

(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.[14]

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 489 scientists working in academia, government, and industry. The scientists polled were members of the American Geophysical Union or the American Meteorological Society and listed in the 23rd edition of American Men and Women of Science, a biographical reference work on leading American scientists. Of those surveyed, 97% agreed that global temperatures have risen over the past century. Moreover, 84% agreed that "human-induced greenhouse warming" is now occurring. Only 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global warming.[17][18]

John Cook et al., 2013
Cook et al. examined 11,944 abstracts from the peer-reviewed scientific literature from 1991–2011 that matched the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. 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 only 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.[21] Also, a reply to the criticism of the study was published, saying: "[critic] believes that every paper discussing the impacts of climate change should be placed in the 'no opinion' category".[22]

In their discussion of the results in 2007, the authors said that the large proportion of abstracts that state no position on AGW is as expected in a consensus situation,[23] 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."[21]

In Science & Education in August 2013 David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the corpus used by Mr. Cook. In their assessment, "inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic."

However, as the paper took issue in the definition of consensus, the definition of consensus was split into several levels: In the end, of all the abstracts that took a position on the subject, 22.97 % and 72.50 % were found to take an explicit but unquantified endorsement position or an implicit endorsement position, respectively. The 0.3 % figure represents abstracts taking a position of "Actually endorsing the standard definition" of all the abstracts (1.02 % of all position-taking abstracts), where the "standard definition" was juxtaposed with an "unquantified definition" drawn from the 2013 Cook et al. paper as follows:

• The unquantified definition: ‘‘The consensus position that humans are causing global warming’’
• The standard definition: As stated in their introduction, that ‘‘human activity is very likely causing most of the current warming (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW)’’

Criticism was also subjected to the "arbitrary" disclusion of non-position-taking abstracts as well as other issues of definitions. [24]

Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils-Axel Mörner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, also are cited as Climate scientists who assert that Cook misrepresented their work.[25]

Powell, 2013
James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, 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 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[26] 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.[27]​

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I will.

 

[Crick]

Tell us something Todd: if you were to achieve the greatest likely success "mocking" these studies, what would you hope to demonstrate? That is, what do YOU think is the actual acceptance of AGW among climate experts? Do you believe it is accepted by less than half of all climate experts? Do you think you can demonstrate that? Do you think anyone can honestly demonstrate that?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Maybe we'll get some real science, instead of liberals stomping their feet and whining, "The science is settled".

 

[Crick]

The science behind AR5 is not liberals stomping their feet.

What science do you think the world currently lacks? What do you believe is not now being adequately studied?