Opposing the AGW Consensus are . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[abu afak]

"CrusaderFrank said:
Calling someone a "denier" for disagreeing with your "Consensus" is NOT science, it's a Cult"

see OP and much above above.

 

[ding]

See above

You are appealing to God?

 

[abu afak]

Wiki​

Opposing (the AGW Consensus)​

Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[32] No longer does Any National or International Scientific body Reject the findings of Human-induced effects on Climate Change.[31][33]


Wiki Continues

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia​

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]

In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[137] 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."
[sizee=5]
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.[138][139][140][141] [/size]

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 countries.[142] 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%. 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.[143]

The survey was made up 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".

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. 75 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:[144]

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 of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:[145]

(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.

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 that humans are causing global warming".[146] This study was criticised in 2016 by Richard Tol,[147] but strongly defended by a companion paper in the same volume.[148]


Peer-reviewed studies of the consensus on anthropogenic global warming

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.[149] 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.[150] 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.[151]

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%.[152] 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.[153]

Depending on expertise, a 2021 survey of 2780 Earth scientist showed that between 91% to 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]

`

 

[Crick]

Wiki​

Opposing (the AGW Consensus)​

Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[32] No longer does Any National or International Scientific body Reject the findings of Human-induced effects on Climate Change.[31][33]


Wiki Continues

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia​

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]

In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[137] 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."
[sizee=5]
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.[138][139][140][141] [/size]

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 countries.[142] 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%. 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.[143]

The survey was made up 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".

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. 75 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:[144]


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:[145]



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 that humans are causing global warming".[146] This study was criticised in 2016 by Richard Tol,[147] but strongly defended by a companion paper in the same volume.[148]


Peer-reviewed studies of the consensus on anthropogenic global warming

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.[149] 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.[150] 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.[151]

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%.[152] 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.[153]

Depending on expertise, a 2021 survey of 2780 Earth scientist showed that between 91% to 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]

`

Westwall, you gave this post a thumbs down. If you think this informaton does not accurately reflect the opinions of the world's climate scientists, what does? Those lovely declarations signed by emeriti after plumber after retired after oil geologist after interested-party?

 

[ding]

Westwall, you gave this post a thumbs down. If you think this informaton does not accurately reflect the opinions of the world's climate scientists, what does? Those lovely declarations signed by emeriti after plumber after retired after oil geologist after interested-party?

You do realize that replying to Westwall in this manner doesn't actually give him an alert that you are replying to him, right?

westwall

 

[ding]

I gave Apu a thumbs down because he is dumber than a talking monkey.

 

[ding]

Westwall, you gave this post a thumbs down. If you think this informaton does not accurately reflect the opinions of the world's climate scientists, what does? Those lovely declarations signed by emeriti after plumber after retired after oil geologist after interested-party?

No different than any other warming trend that litters the geologic record.

 

[westwall]

You do realize that replying to Westwall in this manner doesn't actually give him an alert that you are replying to him, right?

westwall

Yeah, I don't respond to the dock any longer. He spews the same debunked shot over and over and over again.

He's worse than a broken record.

 

[Crick]

Yeah, I don't respond to the dock any longer. He spews the same debunked shot over and over and over again.

He's worse than a broken record.

Perhaps because I am not constantly in search of a solution that doesn't exist. How many different tacks have you deniers tried? Have any of them worked?

 

[ding]

Perhaps because I am not constantly in search of a solution that doesn't exist. How many different tacks have you deniers tried? Have any of them worked?

I love how you tried to argue the other day that you don't believe you - and others like you - are peddling fear and then you show a projection of a 5C increase by the year 2100.

 

[Crick]

I love how you tried to argue the other day that you don't believe you - and others like you - are peddling fear and then you show a projection of a 5C increase by the year 2100.

If you're only argument against AGW is that it is fear-mongering, YOU should think about whether or not you're on the correct side of this question.

 

[ding]

If you're only argument against AGW is that it is fear-mongering, YOU should think about whether or not you're on the correct side of this question.

That's not my only argument. Not even close to being the only argument against it.

1. They have mistaken a normal climate fluctuation - which the geologic record is littered with - for AGW
2. Their models are flawed because of the datasets they use, because they routinely recalibrate their models to remove what they call drift and because their models drastically overestimate the feedbacks (i.e. climate sensitivity).
3. They aren't transparent in publishing their work because they don't show the radiative forcing component and the feedback component separately.
4. Their decision to speak with one voice squelches dissenting opinions and is anti-scientific.

And that's just my short list.

 

[Crick]

That's not my only argument. Not even close to being the only argument against it.

1. They have mistaken a normal climate fluctuation - which the geologic record is littered with - for AGW

No, they have not. You have mistaken AGW foir a normal climate fluctuation. It quite clearly is not.

1. Their models are flawed because of the datasets they use, because they routinely recalibrate their models to remove what they call drift and because their models drastically overestimate the feedbacks (i.e. climate sensitivity).

You wouldn't know a GCM from a hole in the ground.

1. They aren't transparent in publishing their work because they don't show the radiative forcing component and the feedback component separately.

Climate science has been quite transparent and that information is availabe in numerous publications

1. Their decision to speak with one voice squelches dissenting opinions and is anti-scientific.

No more than their "decision" wrt a thousand other widely accepted theories. Theories get accepted when they have not been falsified and satisfy testing. AGW has been very widely accepted on both those grounds.

And that's just my short list.

It is a list with no pertinent content.

 

[ding]

No, they have not. You have mistaken AGW foir a normal climate fluctuation. It quite clearly is not.

Yes, they have. The geologic record is littered with examples of warming and cooling trends that were not caused by CO2 or orbital forcing. This one is no different. Especially since the current interglacial is still 2C below the peak temperatures of previous interglacial periods and has 120 ppm more CO2.

 

[ding]

You wouldn't know a GCM from a hole in the ground.

Where does this fall on the pyramid?

 

[ding]

Climate science has been quite transparent and that information is availabe in numerous publications

If that were the case the feedback from CO2 would be shown on their radiative forcing component graphic instead of being lumped in with CO2.

Especially since it is 2 to 3 times greater than the radiative forcing of CO2 which is ridiculous and probably why they hide it.

 

[ding]

No more than their "decision" wrt a thousand other widely accepted theories. Theories get accepted when they have not been falsified and satisfy testing. AGW has been very widely accepted on both those grounds.

But they are using this to set government policy. So by excluding dissenting opinions policy makers are not shown the whole picture. That's dishonest.

 

[ding]

It is a list with no pertinent content.

I disagree. It still stands unchallenged.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But they are using this to set government policy. So by excluding dissenting opinions policy makers are not shown the whole picture. That's dishonest.

The only thing worse than leftist math and leftist science is leftist policy.