First let me point out that even if it was true, it would mean nothing. Climate scientists have a vested interested in keeping the scam going because that is where their paycheck comes from. Such an obvious and blatant conflict of interest would negate any such consensus by the nature of the conflict. BUT, the fact is, there is ZERO evidence that any such consensus exist or ever did exist.
While Warmists often claim that 97% of the world’s climate scientists agree that man-made Global Warming is happening. That claim was totally discredited because it was found to be made on the basis of the responses from only 77 scientists --- even though the online survey conducted in 2009 was directed to 10,257 scientists !!
The online survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers because in the end, they chose to highlight only the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists. Of the 77, there were 75 in agreement with the ‘consensus’ view that humans contribute to climate change. So, the ratio 75/77 produced the 97% figure that they touted --- even though the survey was directed to more than ten-thousand scientists.
Read all about the original online survey here:
http://sppiblog.org/news/that-97-solutio...
The stench of that dishonest claim soon became too smelly for even the Warmist to bear. So more recently they have come up with a new way to make that same dishonest claim.
The new claim is made via this June 2010 PNAS document:
http://junksciencecom.files.wordpress.co...
Dr. Judith Curry said of the PNAS document: "My first comment about the paper is that I suspect it was not peer reviewed. Since the 4th author Steve Schneider is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, a paper submitted by a member is published without review, sort of a “vanity press” for national academy members." Dr. Curry also stated of the paper: "This is a completely unconvincing analysis...".
The paper indeed looked at 1,372 climate scientists BUT this number represents ONLY scientists that have published at least 20 papers on climate AND who have either participated in the IPCC or signed public statements on the state of the science. If you didn’t meet those conditions then your opinion didn’t count.
In other word, the 1,372 was composed almost entirely of those who had already identified themselves as AGW zealots. Not to mention the conflict of interest, without doubt many of this number were being paid from the AGW grants trough.
The paper was ridiculous and manufactured a claim just as dishonest as the original 2009 survey.
This article goes into all the details of the obvious guile employed by this paper:
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinside...
(and)
Thomas Fuller, Environmental Policy Examiner open letter concerning the paper:
http://www.examiner.com/environmental-po...
(and)
Prof. Nir J. Shaviv says it was “the most meaningless papers I have ever seen”
http://www.sciencebits.com/node/214
There is no AGW consensus, just smoke and mirrors as evidenced by this paper and the previous survey.
-------------------
Oh Dear, here we go again, more pointless rhetorical nonsense.
All you seem to demonstrate with nonsense like this is your complete lack of understanding of science, as for "Research scientist at Cadburys? Electronic scientist working for British Aerospace?" these are the sort of scientists you will find on the denier petition, a sad attempt to try and pretend they have some scientific support.
You will as you always do ignore my answer but the sad facts are the scientific community is behind AGW not because of some silly denier conspiracy theory but because it is supported by the evidence.
It is not just climate scientists, but marine scientists, geologists, glaciologists, solar scientists there vast bulk of the peer reviewed literature, but then you know this as no denier can post any scientific group that do not support AGW and most of these groups do not rely on climates funding as they are not directly linked to climate research but are doing long term studies on things like ice that are showing the effects of climate change.
Then we have this, "Head of the IPCC is a railway engineer by trade" an often used denier excuse, which tells us a lot about how deniers work. For a start the head of the IPCC is an administrative position he does not need to be a scientist and in reality (sorry to use such a strange word for a denier) a common trick deniers try to use is to leave out detail in this case "railway engineer" (in 1958) went on to an MS degree in Industrial Engineering and a joint Ph.D. in Industrial Engineering and Economics and from the early 90's he has worked on or lead a range of boards and committees that are not operationally that different to the IPCC, but you seem to have left all that out, as usual.
The only ones with "Global Warming myths" are deniers and you have a large number to choose from
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument...
All easily dismissed by science long ago, but deniers simply ignore that, just as they ignore the fact many of these fairy tales actually conflict with each other.
Do you *honestly* think that any scientist doing research on AGW couldn't make more money, with less work, by being a shill for Big Oil, Big Coal, and the like?
But, let's see. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_... suggests that the people who agree that AGW is real include:
the Network of African Science Academies
the Polish Academy of Sciences
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Royal Society of New Zealand
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
Soil Science Society of America
European Federation of Geologists
The American Meteorological Society
International Union for Quaternary Research
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
World Health Organization
That's just a sampling. Do you really think *all* of those scientists "depend on scaring children in order to hang onto their positions"? In what way do, say, wildlife veterinarians depend on "scaring children" to keep their jobs? Or soil scientists? And this is a small fraction of the names, I mostly picked ones that I thought either looked impressive, or looked like people who couldn't possibly have a significant financial stake in AGW.
Edit: Gary: When one is the stupidest fossil fuel industry dupe of a dupe of a tool here (e.g. this "questioner" is a leading contender), pride in stupidity becomes a substitute for the lack of a brain.
As for the moronic "question" itself, most of the hundred-plus Nobel Prize winning scientists in the U.S. National Academy of Sciences are not climate scientists and have no "stake" in whether other top scientists (below) or Billy http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;... has the more accurate handle on climate science.
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record...
“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpine...
“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”
http://www.physics.fsu.edu/awards/NAS/
“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”
http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/...
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timel...
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index...
The head of the IPCC is an engineer who designs rail systems, rather than someone who drives trains. If he majored in a mechanical engineering before specializing in the design of rail systems, then he would have a very good understanding of thermodynamics. And he would be in a unique position to understand how the granddaddy of all heat engines, Earth's atmosphere, works.
Let's get over it. Let everything melt. Just move to higher ground. Problem solved. In a few billion years, the sun will become a red giant anyway. You want to see some global warming? Stick around for that one and you'll see some serious global warming.
Well the 97% applies to climatologists (the people who study climate and have degrees in the field) who believe GW is man made. And actually climate scientists as a whole prefer not to spread doom and gloom, they only mention worst case scenario so they don't get accused of not alerting us in case it actually happens that way.
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/20...
More consensus
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/...
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Dor...
BTW 34 of the top 50 hottest years have been since 1970 which of course includes the top ten all occurring since 1998. Those numbers would tell an intelligent person the planet has been getting warmer. These are yearly average global temps.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/10...
Twenty-thirty years ago 90% od climate scientists did not accept global warming. They all had jobs then that did not depend at all on global warming - and they would all still have jobs if they still did not believe in global warming (which, of course, could only be true if global warming was not real).
What is it about Deniers that makes them take such pride in being stupid?
Not very many, the scientific consensus is that man only contributes 3% of atmospheric greenhouse gasses, making it a real bad idea to starve half the world to drop that about one percentage point.
People in the meat industry. The meat industry creates more greenhouse gases then all of transportation.
"97% of scientists believe global warming is a consequence of our fossil fuels use. 98% believe global warming is happening, that means only 1% believe it's not done by humans"
Who outside the climate industry, i.e. folk who depend on scaring the children in order to hang onto their positions actually believes this AGW?
Research scientist at Cadburys?
Electronic scientist working for British Aerospace?
Head of the IPCC is a railway engineer by trade, did his training include global warming studies?
Please when making these claims put a rider like "Well scientists who have an interest in perpetuating Global Warming myths tell us it exists".
In the immortal words of Mandy Rice Davies, "Well he would, wouldn't he."
Sources please. Also, a listing of the individual scientists who have signed off personally on the claim you make.
Also, a listing of those scientists who are receiving taxpayer-provided grants/subsidies for their "climate change research".
Thank you!
And who pays the denialists? Big oil, Monsanto. vested interests. It cuts both ways
how is this proving CO2 is not a cause of warming????
global warming = hoax
