Here is what Bast said right after that: "Rather than use the program to put an end to the myth of scientific consensus on this complex issue, Hockenberry repeatedly invokes the discredited myth of a 97 percent consensus. Evidence in support of that claim is farcical. The issue of what role, if any, consensus should play in science is not addressed at all."
In that context, I read that as saying that these scientists are representative of a 97% consensus when in fact there are many who are skeptical of the dangerous aspect of man's CO2 emissions which was not one of the "consensus" questions. I.e. the "consensus" is not representative. I believe that is his point along with the lack of airing those views or making that distinction clear.
And your list of those persons' credentials simply show they are part of the mainstream climate science community. That alone doesn't doesn't mean they are representative.
_______________________________________...
@pegminer: "Ottawa Mike, the 97% number is not a "discredited myth.""
The myth is that the 97% represents the climate science community belief that CO2 emissions will cause harmful warming, that warming would be harmful and that CO2 reductions are a good solution. If you read the survey the two questions that were asked were if there has been warming and if humans have had a significant contribution to that warming. And that's leaving aside the methodology of receiving over 3000 replies yet basing the conclusion on 79 of them.
I hope I don't need to prove any of the above since it is common knowledge. Yet despite that, the 97% figure is still commonly misused to to try to extend it to the number of climate scientists worldwide who believe man's CO2 emissions are going to be harmful. I can give you a really good example of a distortion by a prominent scientist Ralph Cicerone:
"The consensus statement is that climate changes are being observed, are certainly real, they seem to be increasing, and that humans are mostly likely the cause of all or most of these changes,"
Notice the subtle additions that he makes?
_______________________________________...
"If you want to claim something is wrong, you should provide evidence to the contrary."
Survey done by George Mason University. The only number that is 97% is for this: "Ninety-seven percent of the climate scientists surveyed believe “global average temperatures have increased” during the past century."
I'm actually surprised there's 3% that disagree. All of the other questions about global warming don't even come close to having a 97% agreement. And on the important questions: "the survey finds that scientists are still debating the dynamics and dangers of global warming,"
http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_war...
The word "consensus" and the 97% figure are often misused clearly for deceptive purposes.
Joseph Bast is paid to lie and spread misinformation.
Ottawa Mike, the 97% number is not a "discredited myth." Although people like yourself question the surveys that have come up with that number, no one else has come up with a "better" survey that has a different number, so saying it is a myth is your own work of fiction. As someone in the field and that goes to scientific conferences, I can tell you the number is quite high. Although 97% sounds very high, I would estimate it is certainly greater than 90%. If you want to claim something is wrong, you should provide evidence to the contrary.
Another EDIT for Ottawa Mike: So, as I expected, you came up with nothing.
EDIT for Sagebrush: Einstein didn't flunk out of anything, and those 31,000 "scientists" that you praise has been discredited numerous times. There are practically no climate scientists among that 31k.
Joseph Bast flunked out of undergraduate economics at the University of Chicago. For Bast, the standard of achievement is people that can't finish a mere undergraduate degree in an unrelated field. Bast is envious and projecting his own inadequacy on his betters. Gavin Schmidt, Katharine Hayhoe, Andrew Dessler, and Ralph J. Cicerone have a different level of achievement and are representative of the mainstream scientific community.
Those people are VERY representative of the mainstream scientific community.
Apparently Mr. Bast and/or Mr. Watts have unique views of what constitutes the mainstream scientific community.
Which scientist's represent what,
How many scientist's believe this.
What the Public thinks
Who flunked college or who has the best qualifications.
All this is meaningless, and goes no way to proving or disproving Climate Change
Define 'mainstream scientific community'. I don't understand the term. Are people who are not 'mainstream' able to balance rotweillers on their heads whilst walking the tightrope? Are they experimenting with mind altering drugs and into the alternative music scene?
Are there accountants who are not 'mainstream'? Or pilots? Or plumbers?
Of course not .
The Heartland institute thinks "Pretend Lord" Monckton represents the only scientific community of any use
That shows just how credible the Heartland Institute and and Anthony What are.
Al Gore controls the IPCC.
"Notorious global warming alarmists Gavin Schmidt, Katherine Hayhoe, Andrew Dessler, and Ralph Cicerone are presented as representative of the mainstream scientific community, which they are not." -Joseph Bast, (president of The Heartland Institute), as published by James Watts on his blog last October (remove spaces) http ://tinyurl .com/ b88 otm5
Gavin Schmidt is a climatologist and climate modeler at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
Katharine Hayhoe is Associate Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Texas Tech University.
Andrew Dessler is a Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Texas A&M University.
Ralph J. Cicerone is an atmospheric chemist, president of the National Academy of Sciences and chair of the National Research Council.
In what ways are these people not representative of the mainstream view of climate science? Specific examples please.
You got four and we got over 31,000. Which one is more 'main stream'?
d/dx: Einstein flunked also. I guess he didn't amount to much either.
Because they haven't felt the Rapture yet
