Now when it comes to Global Warming, the consensus shattered after climategate, and took a whipping from the real-world data that there has been no further warming for the last 15 years: That is an inconvenient fact!
In the end the question is irrelevant: Science is about data that supports or disproves your hypothesis: consensus is for Politics! Which is pretty much what Climate Science is, although in its appeals to higher authority, and to faith in an unproven theory, it sometimes more resembles a Religion.
When I see that list of over 3 million scientists who agree with AGW in comparison to the 31,000 who have stated so in 'petitionproject.org', and done so voluntarily, then we can START to talk about consensus. Until then, the honest greenies will shut up.
So now we have a benchmark of who is honest and who is not.
Always funny to watch deniers lurch from consensus doesn't count, to trying to claim consensus with nonsense like the OISM petition.
I think any pretense that this is a real paper is easily demonstrated by the quoting of senator Inhofe (very scientific) as is the source of the claim of lack of consensus (meteorologists and geologists) if that is even genuine it's about the same as gathering the opinions of dentists and proctologists on a human heart transplant theory.
Of course rather than quote Inhofe, have they checked the public views of the main organizations for Meteorologists or Geologists (but strangely they didn't) these are groups run by their members
http://www.agu.org/sci_pol/pdf/position_...
or the AMS (American Meteorological Society)
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2012climat...
These clearly show the 'opinion' of real scientists in these respective fields (for the U.S.) not the fiction of pretend peer review stories based on complete fiction. from Forbes.
As always nothing but empty rhetoric from you.
There is a consensus that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
There is a consensus that without greenhouse gases the earth average temperature would be 33C colder. (a giant snowball)
There is a consensus that we humans have added 40% more CO2 to the atmosphere.
There is a consensus that the extra CO2 will warm the earth.
There is not a consensus by how much the earth will warm.
James Taylor works for The Heartland Institute, an extreme free marketeer think tank (which worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question the science linking secondhand smoke to health risks, and to lobby against government public-health reforms) Confirming the study YET AGAIN that climate change deniers are either extreme free marketeers or conspiracy theorists.
Well there's never been a consensus. Even during the 30 year MGT rise most appropriately skeptical scientists knew the gains were not really outside the normal temperature fluctuations of the Globe. When the hockey stick turned into a Plateau... that's when the Warmons pulled out the Argumentum ad Populum arguments & the highly speculative world of AGW magically became 'settled science'.
Even then the consensus arguments were fake. The oft quote 97% turned out to be 77 of 75 scientists submitting papers to AGW journals. It's like saying 97% of Catholic Priests believe in God.... of course they do, if they didn't they wouldn't be Priests.
The Religion of Warmonism is however in no danger of the truth coming out. The low information voter, if they listen at all, are religiously tuned to Liberal media outlets & speeches by Obama.... they don't read Forbes, they don't even see a lack of warming as cause to question a theory on warming.
They don't even know there's been a lack of warming.
These are the folks that think Obama has improved the economy.
And if Capitalists Republicans grow a pair & put a stop to the Socialist Liberal bullshit of AGW... well the whole thing will be folded into the growing 'Sustainability' movement.
Yes folks, on a Planet where virtually nothing leaves the gravity well, somehow resources are vanishing. The idiocy of Enlightenment marches on.
The difference seems to be between people who can read and those who cannot. You obviously did not read the study.
The study you link to is based on a survey of primarily petroleum interests in Alberta, six years ago, 2007. Even of that small, biased and aged population, the authors of the study clearly explain that their sample is non-probabalistic. They plainly state "It is not our intent to generalize to larger populations", but stupid people who have no concept of survey-taking and extrapolation will falsely generalize anyhow, either because they can't read are are just really that stupid. The intent of the study is to look only at how expertise is expressed in opinions, it is not close to a measure of consensus. You only post it here because you hope to mislead and you hope nobody will actually read the study and realize your lack of personal integrity. There is no possible way an honest person, other than perhaps an utterly stupid one, can read that study and find that it in any way can be generalized to current beliefs of scientists of the world.
We can look to the most recent joint statement of national science academies. It represents the views of the greatest scientists in the 13 leading countries; it is the closest thing possible to representing all of the greatest scientists in the world.
Consensus? No, well past that. Scientists are closer to unanimous than to consensus.
"The need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable."
"Indisputable" from an international statement from world's greatest science academies. It is well past consensus. AGW is real, the atmosphere is warming and the cause is at least mostly human (more likely at least 100%). This is no longer debatable. It cannot be scientifically disputable. The point of science-based climate debates has moved well past this, and did so about in 2007.
The consensus is among climatologist. I wonder what the consensus would be among Baptist and Mormons on Catholics concerning religion?
There is something wrong with that site. It flashes on and off and I get to read about 2 words before it shuts down. Hopefully it isn't my computer. There are some things that scientists generally agree on. There is a long list of things that they thought was true and ended up being bass ackwards to the truth. That said, there isn't a consensus that human emissions of CO2 have or will cause catastrophic warming. Warmmongers try to narrow the concensus to scientist agree that there is a greenhouse effect or scientist agree that it has warmed in the last century and then take that "consensus" and suggest that scientists say we need to enact their socialism.
Of coarse there is a consensus. Every major scientific society in the world has adopted a statement like that of the American Chemical Society which says,” 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. 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.” A recent CNN poll found that 97% of scientists who are actively engaged in research in climate science agree that man’s activities are the main causes of global warming.
Those who do wish to deny climate change find that inconvenient and have hired people like James Taylor to cast doubt on the work of legitimate scientists using distortions and misinformation. James Taylor's recent article titled: "Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis", was a complete distortion of the meaning of the study. It was not a "majority of scientists", but the majority of a small group of geologists and engineers in Alberta associated with the oil industry. The study was designed to see how their employment affected their scientific attitudes. The authors of the study responded as a comment in Forbes, saying in part, "This is not a representative survey and should not be used as such!"
James Taylor is a senior fellow at the Heartland Institute, which is a part of the Climate Change Denial Machine. His association with Forbes is a concern as he often writes articles that are serious violation of journalistic ethics. The second link is to a petition to Forbes to express your concern about James Taylor's violation of ethics. If you're concerned about this issue please read the petition, sign it if you agree, and pass it on to your contacts.
Well the warmers certainly don't like that one. Here's a typical reaction: http://scholarsandrogues.com/2013/02/18/...
That will pretty well cover all the complaints about this survey. However, there is one small problem. That author near the end states:
"... every serious attempt to measure the degree of consensus among scientists and climate experts has concluded that the overwhelming majority of experts agree that climate is changing rapidly, that humans are the dominant drivers of the changes, and that model projections indicate that the changes will be highly disruptive..."
After going on and on about this study being misrepresented, this author then converts most famous "97% consensus" survey by Doran which asked if the Earth has "warmed" and if man had a "significant contribution" into "climate is changing rapidly" and "dominant driver". And then he throws in model projections as if somebody asked their opinion. And the cherry is that graphic on the right which shows 0.17% of over 13,000 studies which reject global warming.
So I don't find the linked study informative and I don't find previous 97% consensus studies informative either including the Oregon petition.
There's a consensus on some aspects and disagreements on others. Biased people pick and choose to formulate their own narrative.
_______________________________________...
@pegminer: I know you think I poop on climate science and sometimes I may unintentionally apply a broad brush when I mean a narrow focus on one person in one situation.
But you put a pretty broad brush to engineers of which I am one. Strictly speaking, engineers are applied scientists for the most part. And some of us branch off into research and development (like my Master's thesis) where we strictly apply the scientific method.
On top of that, many engineers and especially mechanical engineers have extensive knowledge and experience of thermodynamics which is directly applicable to climate science. And then there's chemical engineers who have in depth knowledge of the properties of gasses.
While I agree that this survey is not very informative, you could have at least posted your opinion without the broad brush that you accuse me of painting from time to time.
Will alarmists continue talking about a consensus... when it's clear there isn't one?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/
The only consensus hysterical alarmists have is that which exists amongst themselves. Otherwise no they do not. A consensus means not a theory is accurate. In the early 1600s there was a consensus among scientists and religous orders that everything in the universe orbited the earth.
Pure BS
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/20...
Climate Scientists have a big burden to bear (bare?). They are paid to prove that "Climate Change" is caused by humans. if there isn't a consensus among them, they're out of business. The question should be about the % of greenhouse gases being "out-of-balance" and their forcing of the climate to change. It's obvious that CO2 is rising, but temperatures are not showing to be anything beyond normal variation. People are more concerned about disastrous effects of 'stirring the pot" of available carbon. We know it cycles. I would be happy if they would figure a way to help keep an equilibrium in our atmosphere so people would quit worrying about it. The science hasn't shown any disastrous effects recently because their climate models are coming in-line with reality.
Yes, because their hand picked scientists are the only ones that matter and they bury anything that doesn't agree with them.
The headline is pretty misleading. As with the misleading "97% of Scientists believe in AGW",
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/...
it depends on who you ask and how the question is asked.
@Pegminer...You're saying that Engineering and Geology aren't real sciences? Coming from a profession that has pretty much shat on the "scientific method" ("Hey, the data doesn't support my hypothesis, I guess we need to adjust the data.") that is harsh.
@Pegminer...That was a dig at Climatology.
@Pegminer... Oh, I know. That most of the temperature adjustments happen to increase present temps is just a huge coincidence.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/ushcn-adjustments1.png
Among those who understand science, there is a consensus. Right wing denialist drivel doesn't count
Yes, scientists believe global warming is occurring and they believe that the largest part of that warming is caused by anthropogenic release of greenhouse gases.
Now if you start doing surveys of non-scientists, like the survey that Taylor refers to (a survey of ENGINEERS and geoscientists), you'll start to find more dissent. Taylor's article also links to another survey of TV weather people, who go by the puffed-up title of "broadcast meteorologists". These people are also NOT SCIENTISTS. He does link to another survey of the entire American Meteorological Society body (primarily scientists), and surprise surprise, almost 90% agree that the Earth is warming and most of them believe greenhouse gas emissions are the primary cause of the warming. If all of those pretend scientists (TV weather people, etc.) were deleted from the survey, then I'm sure the numbers would be even higher.
Pretty soon we will probably see Taylor referring to a survey of SCIENTISTS (in large print) and tea party members (in tiny tiny print) and he'll pretend that is a survey of just scientists also.
Virtually every major scientific society in the world has issued a statement agreeing that warming is happening with greenhouse gas emissions being the major cause, so the only reason people like you and Taylor persist in this charade is to try and trick people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_...
EDIT for Ian: As a former engineer, I'm saying that engineering is not science at all....it is engineering.
Geologists are scientists, and you'll see that organizations like the American Geophysical Union and Geological Society of America agree that global warming is happening and to a large extent caused by human activities. Thanks to Ottawa Mike's link for pointing out just how limited a survey that was--I had not realized it was a survey of engineers and geoscientists in Alberta, home of the Tar Sands project.
If people really doubt there is a consensus on the reality of AGW, they should go to the meetings of the American Geophysical Union or European Geosciences Union and wander around. The AGU meeting is the largest non-medical science meeting in the world, and if you listen to the talks, look at the posters and generally chat with the participants, you'll find that the overwhelming majority of them believe in AGW.
You can pretend it's some sort of mass delusion of scientists, but trying to act like there's no consensus either on the reality of the warming, or on the human causes of it, is your own delusion. Of course there are some scientists that don't believe in it, but take a large enough survey and you'll find there are a few crackpots that believe in anything.
EDIT for Ottawa Mike: I'm not trying disparage engineers, but I don't think most of them are scientists. Certainly there are some that are, but not most. Even when they do research (for example I did research on high order Gaussian analog filters) it is not necessarily science. Engineering is its own field, which relies on science, mathematics, design, etc. I think most engineers could understand the basics of climate science without difficulty...if they studied it...but they don't. Trying to convince people there's no consensus by reporting a survey of oilfield engineers and scientists as if it's a survey of scientists in general is sophistry.
Another EDIT for Ian: You can try and insult my field of study, but as someone who has been done research in geology (plate tectonics), solar collectors, plasma physics (electron beams), electrical engineering, earthquake warning systems, landmine detection, thermodynamics, as well as meteorology and climatology, I think I have a better handle on what is and isn't real science than you do.
As for your dig at "adjusting" data, that's just a tip-off that you have not done much work with data.
One more EDIT for Ian: Don't blame climate scientists for your reading comprehension problem.
They survey engineers and geologists, many of whom are pressured into opposing global warming by their resource industry bosses. Hardly a representative sample of scientists.
how can there be consensus when "scientists" dont even agree what temperture scale to use!!!
Among those who understand science, there is a consensus. Right wing denialist drivel doesn't count
Yes, scientists believe global warming is occurring and they believe that the largest part of that warming is caused by anthropogenic release of greenhouse gases.
Now if you start doing surveys of non-scientists, like the survey that Taylor refers to (a survey of ENGINEERS and geoscientists), you'll start to find more dissent. Taylor's article also links to another survey of TV weather people, who go by the puffed-up title of "broadcast meteorologists". These people are also NOT SCIENTISTS. He does link to another survey of the entire American Meteorological Society body (primarily scientists), and surprise surprise, almost 90% agree that the Earth is warming and most of them believe greenhouse gas emissions are the primary cause of the warming. If all of those pretend scientists (TV weather people, etc.) were deleted from the survey, then I'm sure the numbers would be even higher.
Pretty soon we will probably see Taylor referring to a survey of SCIENTISTS (in large print) and tea party members (in tiny tiny print) and he'll pretend that is a survey of just scientists also.
Virtually every major scientific society in the world has issued a statement agreeing that warming is happening with greenhouse gas emissions being the major cause, so the only reason people like you and Taylor persist in this charade is to try and trick people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_...
EDIT for Ian: As a former engineer, I'm saying that engineering is not science at all....it is engineering.
Geologists are scientists, and you'll see that organizations like the American Geophysical Union and Geological Society of America agree that global warming is happening and to a large extent caused by human activities. Thanks to Ottawa Mike's link for pointing out just how limited a survey that was--I had not realized it was a survey of engineers and geoscientists in Alberta, home of the Tar Sands project.
If people really doubt there is a consensus on the reality of AGW, they should go to the meetings of the American Geophysical Union or European Geosciences Union and wander around. The AGU meeting is the largest non-medical science meeting in the world, and if you listen to the talks, look at the posters and generally chat with the participants, you'll find that the overwhelming majority of them believe in AGW.
You can pretend it's some sort of mass delusion of scientists, but trying to act like there's no consensus either on the reality of the warming, or on the human causes of it, is your own delusion. Of course there are some scientists that don't believe in it, but take a large enough survey and you'll find there are a few crackpots that believe in anything.
EDIT for Ottawa Mike: I'm not trying disparage engineers, but I don't think most of them are scientists. Certainly there are some that are, but not most. Even when they do research (for example I did research on high order Gaussian analog filters) it is not necessarily science. Engineering is its own field, which relies on science, mathematics, design, etc. I think most engineers could understand the basics of climate science without difficulty...if they studied it...but they don't. Trying to convince people there's no consensus by reporting a survey of oilfield engineers and scientists as if it's a survey of scientists in general is sophistry.
Another EDIT for Ian: You can try and insult my field of study, but as someone who has been done research in geology (plate tectonics), solar collectors, plasma physics (electron beams), electrical engineering, earthquake warning systems, landmine detection, thermodynamics, as well as meteorology and climatology, I think I have a better handle on what is and isn't real science than you do.
As for your dig at "adjusting" data, that's just a tip-off that you have not done much work with data.
One more EDIT for Ian: Don't blame climate scientists for your reading comprehension problem.
They survey engineers and geologists, many of whom are pressured into opposing global warming by their resource industry bosses. Hardly a representative sample of scientists.
how can there be consensus when "scientists" dont even agree what temperture scale to use!!!
