The US Navy folks at the Naval Post Graduate School in Monterey, California are a part of the '97%'. This is the facility where the navy trains its meteorologists. There is no more advanced facility for climate and weather study than this on the planet.
Their job is to make absolutely certain that the US Navy operations at sea or in the air ANYWHERE on 3/4 of the Earth's surface run into no surprises. From the equator to operations 'under the ice' in the artic and anywhere in the southern hemisphere where the US navy operates, today, tomorrow and to the end of the century requires climate knowledge. How else to decide what ships should be built? If hurricanes are going to be bigger and more violent ships have to be able to deal with that. If there's less ice, or greater winds or unpredictable ocean currents these things HAVE to be known. The idea that 'this isn't happening' doesn't fly with the US Navy. There's 100% agreement there that human activity is at the root of climate change, and there's almost no chance that it will be reversed. Oddly, all the other navies in the world agree. The deniers have their reasons, but the data, the science and the physics aren't on their side.
Global Warming ended 11/28/2012, Confirmed. Mike
You need to watch out for the circularity of some of the arguments. If you discount the views of dissenters on the grounds that they cannot be suitably qualified climate scientists then you are assured of getting a 100% result. This is why the formal rules for conducting any such survey need to be defined beforehand.
The only reason we have had these surveys to show that there is a consensus is because there isn't one. It is a political ploy to attempt to sway people's beliefs.
It is obviously an effective system. Many here are quite happy to quote 97% but who here knows exactly what was surveyed? Many are happy to believe the 97% figure because it reinforces their pre-existing belief.
The logic, I use the term loosely, seems to go like this: "97% of some things think or contain some things. Famous people mention 97% in connection with climate therefore what I believe about the climate is true." No-one has any idea what either one of the "some things" actually is!
I tend to believe this survey more than any of the 97% ones because it was conducted by, or certainly on behalf of, a reputable organisation (albeit not an impartial one): http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1...
The last page has some percentages. They claim the 78% of American Meteorological Society's members who mostly publish in climate believe that GW is happening and it is mostly man-made. This figure drops to only 52% when all members responses are taken into account. You still need to account for the bias created by asking people whose job depends on there being a problem. See the reference to circular reasoning above.
So that 52% is the figure you should have in mind when anyone tells you what the AMS public pronouncements on GW are. (Hey Dook, take note.)
If a society has not surveyed its members then how do you know if the members agree with the pronouncements or not?
It's plausible that 97% of scientists believe the planet is getting warmer. However, the studies that make this claim, tend to confuse that and declare to the audience that 97% agree that global warming is caused by humans, and humans are responsible for the majority of global warming if not the vast majority.
Cook et al classified many papers as supportive of this 'consensus' when the authors themselves were skeptics.
Adhere to the tenents of global warming?
I would suggest that 97% of scientists accept facts and value the truth.
Mike
Are the authors skeptics, or have the published articles that say that such factors as volcanoes and the Sun effect weather and climate.
There is no finite answer because sample data are probabilistic. Regardless, it is only important as an approximation of the weight of the scientific evidence as expressed in the opinions of those who are most knowledgeable. The 97% estimate is probably closer to some “true” answer than 85%, but not as close as 95%.
The number reflects that fact that, currently, AGW is the only scientific explanation that fits the data. The only alternative to AGW is “not AGW.” There is no scientific evidence of a physical mechanism other than AGW that could be responsible for the difference between the observed temperature data and the expected temperature based on the sum of known natural causes.
Maybe a more interesting question would be: How many scientists have changed their opinion on AGW based on any of the arguments put forth by Deniers? My guess is that answer would somewhere between 0-3% for the straightforward reason that Deniers have not put forth a single compelling (scientific) argument that contradicts AGW, let alone provide an alternative.
I am certain that we will see Deniers including the C-word (catastrophic) more frequently in their comments as more of them realize the insanity of continuing to deny the scientific reality of AGW.
=====
Graphicconception --
>>The only reason we have had these surveys to show that there is a consensus is because there isn't
one. It is a political ploy to attempt to sway people's beliefs. <<
That is absolute rubbish. The reason we had those surveys was to counter Deniers lies about the degree of agreement among scientists regarding the scientific evidence.
And the fact that no major scientific organization in the world has bothered to comment on it is reflection of it being a non-issue among scientists. All of them know that the exact number is meaningless, but that it is generally pretty close.
Someone uninformed, I guess.
Anyone checking out wikipedia will find the surveys. 97% of CLIMATE scientists conclude that man is having some effect. Among ALL scientists, who lack such expertise, the number is much lower, especially when the sample is biased.
Well, I don't believe that--but then nobody ever said they did. The "97%" figure comes from a few polls and studies, but it definitely never referred to all scientists, but only to a specific subset that actually work in the field of climate science. I think the farther you get from expertise in the specific field of climate, the less unanimity there is.
Specifically among climate scientists you will find large agreement that human activities are warming the planet. Once you understand things like the greenhouse effect, it's hard not to agree with that, since humans are making large changes to the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Whether the actual number is 97% or 93% or 99% probably depends on the actual sample and how you phrase the question, but I have no doubt that among climate scientists it's well over 90%.
For scientists outside the field, the number will typically be between how the general public feels about it and how climate scientists feel about it. In other words, it will be a large percentage, but not 97%.
I agree with wifflebob that "Catastrophic" is a term that is tacked on by people that don't want to appear so foolish as to deny anthropogenic global warming, but on the other hand they do want to ignore it with impunity. I believe that most climate scientists believe the global warming, if left unchecked, will cost many trillions of dollars and probably kill thousands to millions of people. If that occurs over a period of decades, is that "catastrophic"? I don't know, ask the deniers.
it is foolish to think there is a huge conspiracy going on in the scientific community and that scientists are paid to lie and conservative talk show hosts aren't paid to lie.
I'd imagine the figure is higher than 97%. It is difficult for anyone with a scientific background not to agree with the basic premise of the science - adding hundreds of billions of tonnes of additional greenhouse gases to our atmosphere as a result of a century of mass burning of fossil fuels will trap additional heat.
Any attempt to 'deny' that is nonsense. Arguing that the impact will be minor is at odds with the conclusions of thousands of scientists who contribute to the IPCC. Those scientists come from a wide range of countries, with a wide range of political systems, and have a wide range of political beliefs, and income levels. I have no reason to believe they are mistaken in their assessment and I think it is the absolute height of stupidity and pure anti-intellectualism for people with no training in climatology to argue they're wrong on the basis of what they choose to read on the internet rather than actual scholarship in the science they're criticising. Scientific journals, generally, charge a fee for accessing their papers. Since all those people offering their 'opinion' on climate science aren't accessing the journals (unless they're very wealthy) the immediate conclusion is that they a) haven't read any of the pertinent literature and b) aren't very well informed or as knowledgeable as they like to believe.
I'm wary about claiming a particular figure like 97% because it depends how it's measured but the proportion of Climate Scientists who accept AGW is clearly well above 90% and very likely above 95%.
Kano: "I accept that 97% of scientists believe CO2 can cause some warming, But a lot less believe in CAGW even though they might not admit it. "
First part is fine but why shift the question onto who accepts CAGW? *Catastrophic* seems to be tacked on by deniers to what the scientists are talking about to scare people.
Add in "climate", and I really believe that. And I think it's only reasonable to look at the scientists who *actually study* the subject. Someone who's, say, a theoretical physicist or a geologist, may not know any more about climate than a non-scientist who took a few science classes in college, and potentially less.
Are they climate scientists? Do they study the field or do they just report the weather?
Your attempt to frame the debate in religious terms betrays your ignorance and the fact that real science does not support your prejudices. Your embassing yourself, admit you've lost and retain what little dignity you have
I accept that 97% of scientists believe CO2 can cause some warming, But a lot less believe in CAGW even though they might not admit it.
Genuine scientists, unlike the "true scientists" of your Goebbels obsession delusions, do not "adhere to tenets," they study the natural world and how it functions.
Who cares? Agw is still real
Not you, obviously.
