255 members of the National Academy of Sciences oppose war on science

255 members of the US National Academy of Sciences including 11 Nobel Laureates have signed an open letter in opposition to the attacks on science and scientists from global warming deniers:

We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular. All citizens should understand some basic scientific facts. There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything. When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action. For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet.

Scientific conclusions derive from an understanding of basic laws supported by laboratory experiments, observations of nature, and mathematical and computer modelling. Like all human beings, scientists make mistakes, but the scientific process is designed to find and correct them. This process is inherently adversarial-- scientists build reputations and gain recognition not only for supporting conventional wisdom, but even more so for demonstrating that the scientific consensus is wrong and that there is a better explanation. That's what Galileo, Pasteur, Darwin, and Einstein did. But when some conclusions have been thoroughly and deeply tested, questioned, and examined, they gain the status of "well-established theories" and are often spoken of as "facts."

For instance, there is compelling scientific evidence that our planet is about 4.5bn years old (the theory of the origin of Earth), that our universe was born from a single event about 14bn years ago (the Big Bang theory), and that today's organisms evolved from ones living in the past (the theory of evolution). Even as these are overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, fame still awaits anyone who could show these theories to be wrong. Climate change now falls into this category: there is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend.

Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers, are typically driven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other scientific assessments of climate change, which involve thousands of scientists producing massive and comprehensive reports, have, quite expectedly and normally, made some mistakes. When errors are pointed out, they are corrected.

But there is nothing remotely identified in the recent events that changes the fundamental conclusions about climate change:

(i) The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere. A snowy winter in Washington does not alter this fact.

(ii) Most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the last century is due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

(iii) Natural causes always play a role in changing Earth's climate, but are now being overwhelmed by human-induced changes.

(iv) Warming the planet will cause many other climatic patterns to change at speeds unprecedented in modern times, including increasing rates of sea-level rise and alterations in the hydrologic cycle. Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are making the oceans more acidic.

(v) The combination of these complex climate changes threatens coastal communities and cities, our food and water supplies, marine and freshwater ecosystems, forests, high mountain environments, and far more.

Much more can be, and has been, said by the world's scientific societies, national academies, and individuals, but these conclusions should be enough to indicate why scientists are concerned about what future generations will face from business- as-usual practices. We urge our policymakers and the public to move forward immediately to address the causes of climate change, including the unrestrained burning of fossil fuels.

We also call for an end to McCarthy- like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by association, the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking distractions to avoid taking action, and the outright lies being spread about them. Society has two choices: we can ignore the science and hide our heads in the sand and hope we are lucky, or we can act in the public interest to reduce the threat of global climate change quickly and substantively. The good news is that smart and effective actions are possible. But delay must not be an option.

Peter H. Gleick, one of the signers adds:

It is hard to get 255 members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences to agree on pretty much anything, making the import of this letter even more substantial. Moreover, only a small fraction of National Academy members were asked to sign (the signatories are all members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences but were not speaking on its behalf). Because of a desire to produce a statement quickly, the coordinators of the letter focused on those sections of the NAS most familiar with climate science and the ongoing debate. But the NAS (and Academies of Sciences and other professional scientific societies from dozens of other nations) has previously published a long set of assessments and reviews of the science of climate change, which support the conclusions laid out in the Science essay.

Categories

More like this

I believe that it's "National". At the risk of sounding like a quibbler.

Sorry for steering things a bit off-topic, but denier Richard Steckis really âstepped in itâ over at realclimate.org

Just a warning to those of you out there who took thermo in college (and havenât forgotten it all): Secure all hot beverages before reading on. I wonât be held responsible for your scalded nasal passages. What you will see below is a Dunning-Kruger move that rates at least a 9 out of 10 on the Beverage-Through-The-Nose-O-Meter.

From http://www.realclimate.org/ index.php/ archives/ 2010/ 05/ solar/ comment-page-5/ #comment-174036

Steckis: âThe essential argument is that the heating of the Venusian atmosphere occurs through adiabatic processes and not through absorbance of IR by GHGs.â

Gavin Schmidtâs admirably polite reply: âSince âadiabaticâ means without input of energy it seems a little unlikely that it is a source of Venusian heating.â

By caerbannog (not verified) on 07 May 2010 #permalink

(iii) Natural causes always play a role in changing Earth's climate, but are now being overwhelmed by human-induced changes.

I have a serious problem with this statement. At best it's an exaggeration and at worst it is simply incorrect. Natural causes of course can at any time overwhelm human-induced changes, we've just been lucky for a while. One volcano eruption will apparently, if I read previous comments on this blog correctly, delay the onset of AGW. The only thing we might be overwhelming is the current highly stable and slowly varying equilibrium. Big whoop.

Second, this amazing agreement simply seems to amount to getting 255 government funded scientists to agree that government funding is desirable. Double big whoop.

Mr. Ben, meet Mr Dunning Kruger. Mr. Dunning Kruger, meet Mr. Ben. You two guys have a *lot* in common.

By caerbannog (not verified) on 07 May 2010 #permalink

#3 ben: "Second, this amazing agreement simply seems to amount to getting 255 government funded scientists to agree that government funding is desirable. Double big whoop."

You'll have to point me to the relevant part of the letter that asks governments to fund the signatories. Honestly, I can't find it.

"One volcano eruption will apparently, if I read previous comments on this blog correctly, delay the onset of AGW."

It will have a very temporary cooling effect (one-two years), then the warming continues because GHG's have still been increasing while the aerosols from the volcano wash out of the atmosphere. Pinatubo, for instance, did precisely that. You need far afar greater amount of volcanism than is seen at present to counter the warming from GHG's.

By Robert Murphy (not verified) on 07 May 2010 #permalink

Ben, we're not talking about personal preference here. You can *have a serious problem with* someone, say, wearing yellow clothing, because it just doesn't look nice. But you can't have a serious problem with demonstrably provable and measurable facts.

>But you can't have a serious problem with demonstrably provable and measurable facts.

Sure you can. It simply provides a good basis on which to judge person with the problem and no basis on which to judge the facts.

'For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet.'

Global cooling will be a minor disaster because its associated with abrupt climate change, unlike global warming.

Strongly suggest we dam the Bering Strait as a starter, the Royal Society is bound to put in a tender because its right up their alley. Does the CSIRO have any contingency plans in case the world turns cool in a hurry?

I am very heartened by this letter. Kudos to the scientists for standing up against the likes of "Ben" here. More scientific groups should follow their example.

This open letter has been covered at CBC-- for what it is worth, apart for the regular denialist trolls, there is much support for the scientists on the CBC forum. Nothing, yet, over at BBC-- what the heck happened to BBC? Andrew Black flips flops are worse than Pearce's, and he can't say anything positive about climate science without taking one or more digs at the IPCC or climate scientists, or making reference to McI. Not to mention Paul Hudson's sometimes bizarre posts. The fora at BBC are overwhelmed by D-Ks.

Talking of which, if you all want to see yet more wonderful examples of D-K, please go over to Bart Verheggen's place. I honestly tried to stem the tide of omniscience from the contrarians, but his blog seems to have been hi-jacked by several D-Ks including DLM, cohenite, Frank, Harry and manacker. Really, the threads there read like something from WFUWT, especially the following thread "Global average temperature increase GISS HadCRU and NCDC compared".

We apparently do not have anything to worry about folks, the CS problem has been solved by two anonymous posters at Bart's place-- CS for doubling CO2 is about +0.5 C according to someone called Max and Frank. High fives all around, and let us continue with BAU.

If only that were true and borne out by the real science.....

By MapleLeaf (not verified) on 07 May 2010 #permalink

'Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers, are typically driven by special interests or dogma...'

Climate McCarthyism

http://dailybayonet.com/?p=3846

It is also important to look at the other side of the argument.

Dave R

Uncertainty + Inertia = Danger

El Thicko says,

It is also important to look at the other side of the argument.

We've looked at the *other side*. Nothing but kooks, cranks, and con-men there. Why should anyone give those losers the time of day?

When I made the decision about getting vaccinated for H1N1, I relied on advice from the professional medical establishment. I didn't talk to any homeophaths, "naturophaths", or any of the other antivaccination kooks out there.

Ditto for climate-change information.

By caerbannog (not verified) on 07 May 2010 #permalink

caerbannog

One of us is suffering from illusory superiority and lack the metacognitive ability to realize it.

Shorter el thicko
Look at me, look at me

For El Gordo, who so far as I can see has only himself to blame if those 'debating' him end up with an 'illusory' sense of superiority -

[W]hen was the last month that global temperatures were below average? Anyone remember? A global long-term average. The answer is February 1994 by three ten-thousandths of one degree, it was really close but it was below average. That's 192 consecutive months...

Now imagine! You've just flipped a coin that's come up heads 192 times in a row and you're being accused of having a coin that's loaded to come up tails. That's really pretty spectacular. By the way, if you don't think that three ten-thousandths of one degree is enough, the last time when temperature was one one-hundredth of a degree Celsius below average, below the long-term average on a global scale was, guess what, a quarter of a century ago right now; 300 consecutive months.

William Freudenberg channeling Seth Borenstein at the AAAS earlier this year.

>*One of us is suffering from illusory superiority and lack the metacognitive ability to realize it.*

Illusory El gordo?

When asked for evidence to backup for baseless (which is a civil way of calling out your bullshit) claims of cooling, you provide zero. Instead your argument for cooling is *"Uncertainty + Inertia = Danger*". You demonstrate the traits of pathological moron.

I think you've made the case that it's not illusory. Nice big fat words though.

You deserve no more civility el gordo, you are a propagandist (a pusher of bullshit in favor of the BAU fossil fuel use). No one thinks you are clever, and your family is embarested by your obsession with denial. I hoe your son dosen't suffer (along with hundreds of millions of others) as a result of your activities that you see a a fun little game.

What ever your real name is el gordo, you demonstrate a part of your character that is very ugly, and is a blight on our species.

el gordo (15):
One of us is suffering from illusory superiority and lack the metacognitive ability to realize it

Yep, and the first step in conquering a problem is recognising you've got one. We wish you well in your recovery :-)

"It is also important to look at the other side of the argument."

Sorry, but the "other side" of a scientific argument still has to fit the evidence and be logically coherent.

Spouting bullshit because you like the way it sounds doesn't count as an argument, let alone as a legitimate challenge to AGW.

El Gordo sez:

"It is also important to look at the other side of the argument."

What other side? Harping on constantly about the PDO does not an argument make. "PDO therefore global cooling" is going to convince precisely nobody. Why? Because it's stupid, that's why.

Honestly, crack a book before you go around saying stupid things.

Ben sez:

Second, this amazing agreement simply seems to amount to getting 255 government funded scientists to agree that government funding is desirable. Double big whoop.

Did you actually read the letter? Did you actually look at the credentials and research of any of the signatories? Did you even notice that the letter didn't call for additional research funding of basic Earth and Climatological sciences, but instead called for action on climate change and an end to the constant personal attacks on scientists (much like the one in the quote above)?

If you want to criticise the letter, fine. But criticise it for something that it actually says, rather than just making stuff up.

I think the NAS left it long enough to say something but that at last is an appropriately strongly worded statement. Well done!

Tim I would never tell you how to run your site, but Gordo is derailing every thread with his global cooling nonesense. Might I suggest moderation, or at the very least contain him to his own thread where he can babble on without disrupting other threads?

The NAS is bias. Of course they are going to take the side of science: SCIENCE is right in their fricking NAME.

Call me when you have an unbias source, like Vibe magazine or perhaps a sandwich.

I have always sided with the climate science but until I started getting my hands dirty and began to play with CO2 impulse response response within the past couple of weeks, I had no clue as to how obvious the CO2 rise has become.

Basic first-order rate models will show the rise in CO2. The temperature effects aside, I would sign anything and potentially risk my reputation with evidence and science this clear.

John

You are right, I will remove myself to the open thread and we needn't bother Tim on such a lovely afternoon. I'll just leave this quote from the Hun and scram.

[*Baiting deleted - Tim*]

Bait ignored.

I used to think Monckton was all bravado and bullshit, but having just read his take on ocean acidification, I'm beginning to think he really is genuinely stupid to boot.

el gordo @ 27 - it is a measure of your desperation that you not only mention the IPA (what next - a link to the Marohasy Bog?) but cite the Hun (aka the Bolt-Hole) quoting the IPA.

ROFLsome :-)

"I'll just leave this quote from the Hun and scram."

God forbid you might have some actual science to contribute...

el gordo, your comment is spectacularly accurate...whether intended as satire or unintentional irony, it's risible!

Now foul troll, begone.

I am glad to see an open letter of this sort. It would be even better if each and every one of the signatories could target some of the most important politicians and write letters/emails directly. This would add significant weight to their protestations.

Meanwhile, back at the Oz, we have a story about a monk wandering about the primary school halls, telling kids how climate change is all made up by scientists and it doesn't matter because Jesus was a good guy (or something religious, anyway). Or something like that. What in Holy Toledo's name is Tony Abbott doing, instructing school kids about Abbott's own personal view concerning climate science, which are a long way removed from the mainstream views (and for good reason - the mainstream is completely at odds with "Abbotastic Mythology" of climate science).

By Donald Oats (not verified) on 07 May 2010 #permalink

Please, people, please...

This is rather like watching Lusitania survivors arguing with Titanic survivors about who had better life jackets.

A bunch of prominent NAS scientists (as well as thousands of other scientists around the world), tend to agree that the world faces a very real problem.

The science as articulated in AR4 is supported by thousands of publications and contained within a coherent hypothesis based on a variety of empirical datasets. The contrarian view is supported by 1) zero coherent alternative hypotheses, 2) demonstrably poor data analysis, and 3) a few political letters to the editor or senator of your choice.

Gee, I know which perspective I would support. The one with data. Sorry. That's just my scientific training at work.

By wanderers2 (not verified) on 07 May 2010 #permalink

I see that there are no Canadian researchers on that list. Canadian climate denial is centred in Calgary. The latest tenor is that CO2 has essentially no effect. A CO2 denier talk has made it into http://www.geocanada2010.ca/program/program-schedule/tuesday/pm-2/climate-change-through-time.html>next week's GeoCanada 2010:

We are running a small but fine blog taking on these deniers with something they do not have: humour.

Check it out and pass us on to their friends and colleagues - and join us:
http://friendsofginandtonic.org/page1/page1.html

Derek - that website is brilliant! Very, very amusing.

And as Andrew pointed out in #26, Monckton has 'testifiedâ in the US Congress recently.

http://solveclimate.com/blog/20100507/eminent-u-s-climate-researchers-s…

I liked the following comment which sums it all up:-

The decision to let Monckton testify outraged Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.), who said the fact that the GOP "couldn't produce one scientist to deny this clear consensus...says a lot about the status of this debate, which we should not be having."

Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon) had similarly harsh words for Monckton.

"I find it a little embarrassing and sad that the minority's witness is a journalist with no scientific training, who didn't come here with any information against the science," said Blumenauer. "It's entertaining but...there's nothing here that contradicts the basic science."

(Sorry, I donât know how to put stuff in âquotesâ here)

By Clippo (UK) (not verified) on 07 May 2010 #permalink

Dear people,

I apologize, on behalf of my fellow Canadian citizens who still have half a brain, for the link recently posted by Derek Schweinsguber at: http://friendsofginandtonic.org/page1/page1.html

Google Scholar lists zero publications by Dr Schweinsgruber either in the environmental field or the energy field, or indeed in any field of academic study.

Dr Schweinsgruber's website indicates that he runs a small oil company in Calgary. This is not a fine blog representing humour...it is a calculated attack on science...by somebody that has no understanding of science.

Or of the importance of grandchildren.

By wanderers2 (not verified) on 07 May 2010 #permalink

255 more scientists have just made it onto Inhofe's hitlist...

By Donald Oats (not verified) on 07 May 2010 #permalink

Donald Oats:

Meanwhile, back at the Oz, we have a story about a monk wandering about the primary school halls, telling kids how climate change is all made up by scientists and it doesn't matter because Jesus was a good guy (or something religious, anyway).

And it was "considerably warmer than it is now" when Jesus was here even though at best there is no evidence that it was warmer then.

Or something like that. What in Holy Toledo's name is Tony Abbott doing, instructing school kids about Abbott's own personal view concerning climate science, which are a long way removed from the mainstream views

I guess he's an absolute professional - liar that is, lying to children as he does.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 08 May 2010 #permalink

Wanderers2,

I have long been convinced of the threat of AGW, but after reading FoGT I'm converted. It is their refreshingly honest approach that did it for me:

>*We like to think of ourselves as a science organization; we even have a couple of PhDs on staff. Although we donât perform any original research, we do carry out extensive literature reviews â but not from the broad body of the corrupt âpeer reviewedâ literature. We feed instead from fringe science, the grey literature, blog diatribes, and single studies with conclusions that can be spun in our favour or ignore the mass of research that proves the opposite.*

Gee Jakerman,

Its good to know that Abbott is a better new testament scholar than people like Peter Jensen et al. As to my reading of the gospels I can't remember weather reports in any of them but then I'm sure our Tony knows better after all we've heard him over the past few weeks having to correct that known unreliable leftist Jesus of Galilee.

Denial at the Ballot Box.

Here in the UK we've just had an election. The economy was (not surprisingly) the main issue - but also there was global warming. Now it's impossible to unpick that issue from all the other issues, but it is notable that there are 2 political parties that have strong global warming denial positions - UKIP (with Monkton as the science advisor) and the fascist BNP. Both have not done well. While both have slightly increased their votes http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/ (though I think issues like immigration and dissatisfaction with the mainstream parties had a greater role to play in that - the was a large turn-out of people who didn't vote for them, which drowned out any gain they might have hoped to make. Plus our first-past the post voting system does not favour small parties. As a result they lost 29 local councillors between them. http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/election2010/council/html/region_99999…

In the election the party with the most representatives was the Conservatives - but not enough to take power alone. I know that there are prominent Conservatives (and the supporting press) who are into global warming denial too, however the fact that they don't have the majority means that wing of the party will be held in check by the alliances they will have to make with parties who reject global warming denial totally.

Put simply in the UK denial of global warming has not been shown to be a vote winner. (Oh and we have elected our first Green member of parliament).

>*we've heard him over the past few weeks having to correct that known unreliable leftist Jesus of Galilee.*

I missed that, but I'm sure Tony would need to work his spin pretty hard to make turn JoG into member of Abbott's political party.

Start scape-goating a few refugees, appeal to our darker nature, then make excuses for pushing our unsustainable BAU that will generate more refuges (and more scape-goats to distraction from the widening gap between the rich and poor).

[Ben](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/255_members_of_the_natianal_ac…) says:

(iii) Natural causes always play a role in changing Earth's climate, but are now being overwhelmed by human-induced changes.

I have a serious problem with this statement. At best it's an exaggeration and at worst it is simply incorrect. Natural causes of course can at any time overwhelm human-induced changes, we've just been lucky for a while. One volcano eruption will apparently, if I read previous comments on this blog correctly, delay the onset of AGW. The only thing we might be overwhelming is the current highly stable and slowly varying equilibrium. Big whoop.

OK Ben, where to start?

First, the fact that "[n]atural causes of course can at any time overwhelm human-induced changes" is irrelevant - a tawdry strawman - because those same "natural causes" would in many cases be just as damaging, or more so, to human society and to the biosphere. What matters is the scope that we heve to control our own impacts.

It's the scientific fact that humans are in the process of voluntarily FUBARing their own life-support system that is important. If 'Nature' ever decides to call last drinks on humanity there's probably not much that we can do about it, but to actively work to do so ourselves is short-sighted at the least, and insane at worst.

And about that "current highly stable and slowly varying equilibrium"... well, it's the whole point really. I know that Marcel objects to my anthropomorphisation in this context, but intelligent naked apes are an evolutionary 'experiment' whose success is significantly enhanced by the geologically-recent climate stability: things become fraught for the trial's subjects once the climate starts going awry.

If 'Nature' had perchance decided to give us, say, another 50k yr to get our evolutionary shit together before throwing ice or GHG burps at us, and we squander the time by farting out GHG by our own choice, well, that makes us quite a gaggle of geese, doesn't it?

Full marks to the NAS, I say. Sadly though, I suspect that the letter will mark the start of the time where scientists around the world seriously started to ring the warning bells, and in response to which the rest of the world continued along its blithe path to an ecological/evolutionary figurative self-immolation.

Tony Abbott's appalling religious nonsense typifies this human inclination. That our society at large can accept, unblinkingly, such drivel spouting from a potential alternative leader of the nation simply cements the fact of our country's wrong-headed approach to fact.

Yeah, 'intelligence' might have seemed like a nifty idea at the time, and religiosity might have appeared to be a clever relief valve to incorporate into the design, but in the end I reckon that evolution will shrug its shoulders and try something different once the dust settles.

Perhaps I should pray for the gift of a bit more optimism.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 08 May 2010 #permalink

I feel appalled by the attacks on my qualifications as a incorporated academic climate skeptic denier. Contrary to your statement do I have an extensive publication record in the opinion section of the Calgary Herald and the National Post, and I visited a three hour lunchtime seminar by Lord Monckton/the Friends of Science. What you do is not ad hominem anymore, this is assassinatio characteris

Opinion matters - science does not! Join us, write for us:
http://friendsofginandtonic.org/page1/page1.html

You'll have to point me to the relevant part of the letter that asks governments to fund the signatories. Honestly, I can't find it.

You are suggesting these scientists' work is funded with private money like OISM?

And I don't recall writing anywhere that I deny AGW. I simply have a problem with the use of the term "overwhelming" in the letter. Are you accusatory twits cool with the term " knee jerk reaction?"

Shorter ben:

The scientists did not ask governments to give them more money. Therefore, they're very greedy people.

ben,

>I simply have a problem with the use of the term "overwhelming" in the letter.

Given that natural variability averages something like 0.25C, or more correctly, ±0.125C on multi-decadal scales, and AGW is very likely attributable to most of an increase of â0.5C since 1975, then, yes, 'overwhelming' is an appropriate use of terminology.

By luminous beauty (not verified) on 08 May 2010 #permalink

"Are you accusatory twits cool with the term " knee jerk reaction?""

In a word, no. The scientists have been urging action from the authorities for around 25 years now and the only things that have changed in the intervening time is that the science has become more certain and that CO2 emissions have continued to increase. Given everything, we probably could have done with a knee-jerk reaction back when.

@ Clippo (UK)

< blockquote > use blockquotes like this < / blockquote >

close all spaces within the greater/less-than signs and it should look like this.

Ae the risk of being flamed, I would point out that there seem to be very few prominent climate scientists who have signed that letter.

By Dave Andrews (not verified) on 08 May 2010 #permalink

Anarchist606,

"(Oh and we have elected our first Green member of parliament)."

Yes and what a poisoned chalice that might be. Caroline Lucas comes across as a very self satisfied, smug person who knows the answers to everything. Typical politician in other words. Just at the time the UK people have said they want their politicians to be different.

By Dave Andrews (not verified) on 08 May 2010 #permalink

Dave Andrews, No flaming...

Understanding past climate and the potential for future climate change requires scientists from different disciplines because human activities, climate, ecological system in land, geophysical processes and water and hydrological systems are all linked through the carbon cycle. These interdisciplinary efforts have yielded extraordinarily consistent results, although there is still a lot to be learned about how the system will respond as a whole to continued forcing. That consistency is a large part of what is compelling about the case for AGW. I look through these names and see quite a large percentage engaged in climate related research.

I also note that to get evoutionary biologists (and there are a few on this list) to sign onto raising AGW to the level of acceptance of evolution is truly very telling. I know some of these people personally...they would NOT do that lightly.

These are 255 of the leading scientists in the world. They work in climate science or related fields. They are aware of what the current scientific consensus is. They have strong opinions by definition and yet still agree. You cant make any of those statements for the OISM Petition (which I think is where you're going with your comment).

The funding argument stated elsewhere is completely bogus. This letter is arguing that more money should NOT be spent establishing the case for AGW (which is implicitly what the "science is unsettled" crowd are arguing for). Rather they argue we accept the consensus and move on to more fruitful problems, like getting a better sense of the consequences and finding possible solutions that everyone can agree on.

By Stephen Baines (not verified) on 08 May 2010 #permalink

The fact that Dave Andrews (or flame boy, as perhaps he should now be known) does not seem to like Caroline Lucas very much really shouldn't surprise us all that much. I suspect that most of us UK based posters are pretty happy that someone positive, different and enthusiastic got elected, while mourning the loss of Evan Harris (a real fighter for science), who lost by just 172 votes.

The worry for science policy in Britain is that with the Conservative party possibly about to rule in a minority administration (perhaps including the Unionists), all the loons and dinosaurs are about to become a lot more powerful. Since there are going to be major spending cuts (perhaps as much as 30%) to the public sector, climate change research could become something both politically more unpopular, and much easier to justify cutting.

May we live in interesting times.......

Mike B,

It could be that whatever arrangement the Lib Dems come to with the Tories in the UK the loons in the Tory ranks maybe muzzled just so Cameron can stay in power. The other thing is that if things do get bad then the pundits are predicting another election within 12 months.

Thanks for reply Mike, The Conservatives and Unionists will have to reply on other parties to pass any vote. All of whom accept AGW. I think this will clip the wing of the minority of Denialist Conservatives because they cannot piss the other parties off becase they need them to function.

"ust at the time the UK people have said they want their politicians to be different. "

Dave boy it sounds like you have been drinking the Tory kool aid. If what you said above was true then Cameron would've stormed the election like Margeret Thatcher and Tony Blair did respectively. Instead Cameron made less of an impact than Tony boy parading up and down Manly Beach in his budgie smugglers proclaiming himself as the man to beat up on Rudd (yawn). It was really funny watching Osborne being interviewed on the BBC's cack handed election night coverage and declaiming that the Tories had a mandate when less than 25 seats were declared. No wonder the tories kept him in a back room during the campaign.

The Tory loons will have to move by stealth against climate change work in the UK because of the lack of a mandate...... but, oh, wait a minute, thats the way denialists move anyway......

"...I would point out that there seem to be very few prominent climate scientists who have signed that letter."

Hey Dave, we're breaking a bit with tradition here. The comedy denialist stuff is supposed to be left to El Gordo. Your role is normally the first carp on a thread, although this time ben usurped you.

By Don Wigan (not verified) on 08 May 2010 #permalink

@54

At the risk of being flamed, I would point out that there seem to be very few prominent climate scientists who have signed that letter.
You do realise, Dave, that if you go to the Guardian link, each signatory is linked to their website or webpage describing their research interests?

I clicked on about half a dozen random samples and found: an astrophysicist, a geophysicist and expert in plantery habitability, an expert in plant molecular biology (might help explain the "tree ring" problem to you Dave), an Emeritus Professor of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary sciences, an Emeritus Professor from a Department of Earth and Space Sciences, a Director of the Ocean Sciences Mass Spectrometry facility researching the carbon cycle, and a Professor in Limnology and Marine Science specialising in ecosystem analysis and long term change.

But sure, this was only a tiny random sample. And what the hell would these people know about climate, adaptability, or any of the earth sciences?

You don't want me to go through all 255 of them do you Dave?

Methinks Dr. Schweinsgruber may fall victim to Poe's law. I rather enjoyed 'Climate Change is a hoax - sea levels are rising because Jesus is crying'!

Dave Andrews writes:

I would point out that there seem to be very few prominent climate scientists who have signed that letter.

That's only because there are very few prominent climate scientists who are members of the NAS. That, in turn, is because you don't get invited to join the NAS until you've proven yourself to be an eminent scientist. That takes several decades to do. Most climate scientists are pretty young. Hence there are few climate scientists in the NAS. The real question is, what percentage of climate scientists in the NAS signed the NAS letter?

By Erasmussimo (not verified) on 08 May 2010 #permalink

Ben writes:

>*I simply have a problem with the use of the term "overwhelming" in the letter.*

Ok Ben thanks for your opinion, how do you think it stack up against the opinion expressed here:

>*For instance, there is compelling scientific evidence that our planet is about 4.5bn years old (the theory of the origin of Earth), that our universe was born from a single event about 14bn years ago (the Big Bang theory), and that today's organisms evolved from ones living in the past (the theory of evolution). Even as these are **overwhelmingly accepted** by the scientific community, fame still awaits anyone who could show these theories to be wrong. Climate change now falls into this category: there is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend.*

My guess is that your opinion stacks-up not too well againts the considered opinion of these 255 eminent scientist. Which leaves your best course of retort being some evidence.

Have you perhaps got sample survey or census to support your opinion? Or perhaps you don't think [>85%](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/97_of_active_climatologists_ag…) is overwhelming?

***

---------

Dave Andrews, for ever the poor judge. Who do you think NAS admittees are? I suggest you re-read the post again including [Gleick's comment](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/climate-change-and-the-in_…)

Shub, [he's talking](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/remarkable-insight-into-t_…) about people [like you](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/255_members_of_the_natianal_ac…)!

>This focus on the art the editors chose to accompany the letter is an attempt by climate deniers to divert public attention once again from the facts of climate change. **This is exactly what the scientists are talking about in the letter**.

Shub if you world view is wrong (is that beyond the realms of possibility?) who you you be acting as a useful tool for?

Ever hear the term useful idiot? It might be to thin a description for some, and a more accurate update would be a useful ideologue.

> If you are wondering what Shub's talking point is about, it's this.

If you were inclined to conspiracy theories, you could see this as nicely played by the photo editors ;-) They hung out a little tidbit knowing the denialist machine couldn't resist trying to manufacture yet another faux controversy - then took them to the cleaners by calling them out for doing exactly what the distinguished scientists are objecting to.

However most of the conspiracy theorising is undertaken by the people who think the photo was somehow significant in the realm of climate science which they're convinced is manipulated for political ends - and it's most likely that the photo was a result of a normal selection process for a release where the it merely needed to be evocative of the subject, not a record of a particular geographical location on a given date.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 08 May 2010 #permalink

Statement by scientists:

>(iii) Natural causes always play a role in changing Earth's climate, BUT ARE NOW being overwhelmed by human-induced changes.

Statement by Ben:

>I have a serious problem with this statement. At best it's an exaggeration and at worst it is simply incorrect. Natural causes of course can at any time overwhelm human-induced changes, we've just been lucky for a while.

A dictionary definition of NOW:

>"at the present time or moment"

Strangely this caused a long string of comments, despite the fact that Bens response could have been shut down in one single post.

Unfortunately it wouldn't have made Ben understand what was wrong with his statement any sooner.

@71: I'm still struggling to understand the psychology of sceptics/denialists. They so desperately want global warming to be proven a great conspiracy (and to rewrite the laws of physics in the process) that they are now coming up with arguments that are more overwhelmingly stupid than ever before. Mars didn't work for them, so now it's time to pick on Venus.

Jeff Id has [a post](http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/05/08/the-null-theory/) about this over on the Air Vent.

Again, because Dr Curry claims to see something of value at this site I tried to read this with an open mind. Again, I am immediately alienated by references to "religion" and "dogma". Again I see unsupported assertion paraded as fact. Again I see obvious fallacious reasoning and cheap smears. Again I see clear examples in the article of the very accusations they level against scientists.

I'm genuinely trying to find some value in the article somewhere, or some point where constructive discussion may be started, but it is such a reactionary, self-congratulatory and closed-minded screed that I find it impossible.

Weird what passes for "skepticism" these days.

> The real question is, what percentage of climate
> scientists in the NAS signed the NAS letter?

Fair question, I wondered the same thing. Of those who might be called climate scientists who I happened to wonder about, Judith Lean and Bill Chameides did not.
(I asked the latter over at his blog; it often takes 2-3 weeks for posts to appear, not until there's a response with them, it's the poster child for "slow meditative blogging" -- http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/thegreengrok/accord#comments

I recognise the "what proportion of climatologists" question as a shrubbery. This is 250-odd NAS members, not just any common or garden scientists. If the same number of climatologists had signed the letter, the question would have been different but the intent would have been the same: to focus attention on those who did not sign, implying without evidence that many were asked but refused to sign.

By Tony Sidaway (not verified) on 09 May 2010 #permalink

MikeB #57,

I don't want to start an OT run here, but my wariness about Caroline Lucas goes back to the early 2000s when she started spouting off about depleted uranium (DU) and obviously knew little of what she was talking about. Science didn't come into it at all.

By Dave Andrews (not verified) on 09 May 2010 #permalink

Jeremy C,

Excuse me but I wouldn't touch the Tories, or their 'Kool Aid' with a barge pole.

By Dave Andrews (not verified) on 09 May 2010 #permalink

jakerman,

"Have you perhaps got sample survey or census to support your opinion? Or perhaps you don't think >85% is overwhelming?"

The two opening questions of that survey were so broad as to be meaningless. Not even sceptics say the Earth has not been warming since the mid 1880s and many would also agree that man is making a contribution to the warming. The debate is about the extent of that contribution and what its significance might be.

By Dave Andrews (not verified) on 09 May 2010 #permalink

dang, typo, 'mid 1800s'

By Dave Andrews (not verified) on 09 May 2010 #permalink

Dave Andrews, You have purposefully and selectively misrepresented the survey by ignoring [the question](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/97_of_active_climatologists_ag…) relevant to my post:

>*Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?*

Do you get tired of being so consistently dishonest? And do you see how your reliance on dishonest tactics reflects on your denialist argument?

Ok Ben thanks for your opinion, how do you think it stack up against the opinion expressed here:

I agree that the above paragraph demonstrates a correct usage of the term overwhelming. Seriously, what is the problem with you people? Where did I deny AGW? Where did I argue against scientific facts? Use of the term overwhelming is in the case I cited early totally subjective and arguable at best. Quit being so rigid, dogmatic, and knee-jerk defensive in your worship of climate change. It's embarrassing.

Let me guess Ben. You're not denying climate change, why, the climate has always changed! You're not even denying AGW! Man only has a small effect on the climate after all...

Don't worry about Ben. He believes he has us i.e. we worship and are being defensive about our beliefs and that these are beliefs not reason and evidence.

Like most deniers he needs to hold onto these touchstones of belief about climate science otherwise where will the collective denier ego go. It can't accept that climate science as that is too great a climb down.

Ignore him, he is not going to abondon his beliefs and after all given Deltoid and Tim's reputation amongst deniers (witness Jo Nova's references) its a badge of honour to be able to say to yourself and the denier community that, "I showed em, those idiots over at Deltoid, I'm stronger than they, yep they can't hurt my beliefs..... yep, they can't hurt my beliefs, yep, they can't hurt my beliefs... yip.....".

ben, notice how you keep changing the goal posts. What is it with that?

The NAS back their claims with evidence. You don't.

Dave Andrews wrote : "...my wariness about Caroline Lucas goes back to the early 2000s when she started spouting off about depleted uranium (DU) and obviously knew little of what she was talking about. Science didn't come into it at all."

European Parliament passes far reaching DU resolution in landslide vote

Resolution tabled by:

- Els De Groen, Caroline Lucas and Angelika Beer - on behalf of the Green/EFA Group
(My emphasis)

She must have bluffed her way through that pretty well, seeing as how 'science didn't come into it at all'.

Like most deniers...

Eh? Who's this denier you are referring to?

ben, notice how you keep changing the goal posts. What is it with that?

The NAS back their claims with evidence. You don't.

Eh? What claims? The claim that I don't think the human effect is overwhelming? This is a subjective claim no matter how you slice it. A month or so ago I mentioned that I thought that wind farms made up of giant wind turbines were a horrible eye-sore. Another commenter here replied "no they're not!!" Really productive argument.

jakerman
I am happy to be an useful idiot than being an useless idiot. :)

You would think that the wind turbine makers and the EV car salesmen care about your belief or mine about the veracity of anthropogenic global warming. I don't think so.

I have more non-polar-bear photo details about Gleick's letter in my post. I asked him some questions on Roger Pielke's blog as well when he commented on a thread there.

I am not getting any answers for these questions as well.

http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2010/05/07/integrity-science-gleick/

The claim that I don't think the human effect is overwhelming? This is a subjective claim no matter how you slice it.

ben, read luminous beauty and have finally the decency to stand corrected.

By Martin Vermeer (not verified) on 10 May 2010 #permalink

MFS,

Did I say I stopped looking at things Caroline Lucas said and did after the early 2000s? That was an example.
She has been wide of the mark on so many issues - because she promotes herself continually she is the lazy media person's 'rent-a-green', cropping up here, there and everywhere.

No doubt she thinks she is doing a good job and is revelling in being the first Green MP. Pity then that the Green's overall share of the vote fell is it not?

By Dave Andrews (not verified) on 10 May 2010 #permalink

J Murphy,

Did you not notice this in the resolution?

"whereas, despite the fact that scientific research has so far been unable to find conclusive evidence of harm, there are numerous testimonies as to the harmful and often deadly effects on both military personnel and civilians"

In other words anecdote is more important than science.

By Dave Andrews (not verified) on 10 May 2010 #permalink

Dave Andrews,

The structure of [your aspersion on Caroline Lucas](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/255_members_of_the_natianal_ac…), i.e. that her opinion on DU (or some other issue she has spoken on) somehow should affect how much weight we put on her other statements on unrelated issues, pronounced at later dates, is the classic structure of an ad-hominem attack.

I don't know where you're going with your [following post](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/255_members_of_the_natianal_ac…), what you said is on the record.

ben, read luminous beauty and have finally the decency to stand corrected.

I already read that and I was not overwhelmed, nor even moved.

o·ver·whelm:

âverb (used with object)

1. to overcome completely in mind or feeling: overwhelmed by remorse.

2. to overpower or overcome, esp. with superior forces; destroy; crush: Roman troops were overwhelmed by barbarians.

3. to cover or bury beneath a mass of something, as floodwaters, debris, or an avalanche; submerge: Lava from erupting Vesuvius overwhelmed the city of Pompeii.

4. to load, heap, treat, or address with an overpowering or excessive amount of anything: a child overwhelmed with presents; to overwhelm someone with questions.

5. to overthrow.

Nature's just not that much of a wuss that we are overwhelming her. I'm starting to think some of you need a lesson in basic English. Here's what was written in the letter signed by the scientists:

(iii) Natural causes always play a role in changing Earth's climate, but are now being overwhelmed by human-induced changes.

I would claim that natural causes are entirely overwhelming human-induced changes. If this were not true, the world would not be inhabitable, and would not have been habitable for the last million years. The fact that we can affect climate doesn't imply that we can overwhelm the natural climate.

The authors of the paper have style issues as well, using the term overwhelm more than once in a short document:

Even as these are overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, fame still awaits anyone who could show these theories to be wrong.

I will at this moment agree that this use of overwhelm is correct.

ben writes:

>*I would claim that natural causes are entirely overwhelming human-induced changes.*

I am forced to restate the NAS group statement (as you seem to be willfully misrepresenting what they say by contrasting it with your little straw statments);

>*Even as these [theories] are **overwhelmingly** accepted by the scientific community, fame still awaits anyone who could show these theories to be wrong. Climate change now falls into this category: there is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend.*

Notice how you keep changing the goal posts ben? What is with that?

ben:

I would claim that natural causes are entirely overwhelming human-induced changes.

Of course ben never tells us what change in natural forcing is overwhelming the human-caused change in CO2 forcing.

What is it called when someone makes a claim without evidence? Arrogance.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 10 May 2010 #permalink

Shub writes:

>*jakerman I am happy to be an useful idiot*

Then goes on to prove the point:

>*You would think that the wind turbine makers and the EV car salesmen care about your belief or mine about the veracity of anthropogenic global warming. I don't think so.*

So Shub thinks that 'cui bono' is the key questions in the issue, which must be why he being so usful to the [most profitable](http://157.166.226.108/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2010/performers/com…) corporations in history.

But Exxon's got nothing to gain by backing groups who push for perpetual delay in aciton [do they](http://anarchist606.blogspot.com/2009/12/how-much-is-global-warming-den…)?

Good point Shub, cui bono? Those powerful wind turnbine monoplies or Exxon and their well funded ideological allies. How many former executives of wind turnbine corps were in the Bush admin? And how many have bought the election of the current congress?

Dave Andrews wrote : "In other words anecdote is more important than science."

Actually, if you were more interested in finding out more about the subject, rather than attempt to use it as an excuse to belittle a politician whose views are the opposite of yours, you would have found some scientific papers, reports and studies from the same link.

I'm sure Caroline Lucas has read them but doubt that you have - and yet you feel able to criticise her supposed lack of science knowledge on this topic ?

Notice how you keep changing the goal posts ben? What is with that?

Dude, what the heck are you talking about? Did I disagree with that paragraph somewhere? I just docked them for style points, not for content. Sheesh!!!!!

>I just docked them for style points, not for content. Sheesh!!!!!

Dude, your backpedaling is risible in its clumsiness. Negative style points for you!!!!!

So your complaint is about diction? What word choice would you, as a renowned literary critic, recommend? (rhetorical question)

By luminous beauty (not verified) on 11 May 2010 #permalink

J Murphy,

FYI, I have box file after box file of papers and information about DU and Lucas is wrong.

By Dave Andrews (not verified) on 11 May 2010 #permalink

jakerman,

If you are that concerned about it please define what 'significant contribution' meant and how it was ensured that all 255 signatories interpreted it in the same way.

Dave (the Idiot) Andrews said:

I have box file after box file of papers and information about DU

You have to read the papers, not just pile them up in your basement. Wow, how much more of an idiot are you going to be?

I bet you couldn't find your way into one of those boxes, and if you ever did it is even more unlikely that you would ever find your way out again. Such idiocy, and you were educated in the UK?

By Ian Forrester (not verified) on 11 May 2010 #permalink

Dave Andrews wrote : "FYI, I have box file after box file of papers and information about DU and Lucas is wrong.

More details, please. What is she wrong about and what studies do you base that on ?

Dude, your backpedaling is risible in its clumsiness. Negative style points for you!!!!!

Dude, you apparently do not know the meaning of backpedaling!!!! On what points do you think I"m backpedaling? Risible indeed.

Ian Forrester,

You are a twat!

J Murphy,

You tell me what she is 'right about' and then I'll produce the list of papers and studies to show you she is wrong.

By Dave Andrews (not verified) on 12 May 2010 #permalink

Dave Andrews writes:

>*You are a twat!*

Still a pot looking for his kettle.

I [notice that you opt](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/255_members_of_the_natianal_ac…) to stick to you deceit in preference to correcting the record.

How many times have I [caught you using similar dishonesty](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/leakegate_leake_based_story_re…) Dave? then add in the multiple times that others have caught you.

jakerman,

You keep, sort of, linking your own previous comments but no-one can understand why.

By Dave Andrews (not verified) on 13 May 2010 #permalink

Dave Andrews writes:

>*You keep, sort of, linking your own previous comments but no-one can understand why.*

How many people do you think you speak for Dave?

In case anyone really does wonder about the relevance of the example I link to I will clarify:

Dave Andrews MO is to [smear and misrepresent](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/leakegate_leake_based_story_re…). As evident in many threads.

Dave Andrews also has disregard for adherence to the truth seeking practices exemplified by his [continuing failure](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/255_members_of_the_natianal_ac…) to as correct the record and continuing trail of making things up.

Dave I'm happy to give more details if you continue with your MO.

jakerman,

Give as many supposed details as pleases you only, for heaven's sake, try to make them make some kind of sense.

By Dave Andrews (not verified) on 14 May 2010 #permalink

Dave Andrews has another [MO of becoming obtuse](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/bad_news_sea_level_rise_may_be…) when hes is caught out in one of his untruths.

Dave you want details I'll trickle feed some examples for you:

Dave Andrews is simply dishonest: article one, an example of Dave Andrews' strawman tactic. Dave misrepresent my argument by making one up for me, he then continues to [persist pushing his dishonest argument](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/leakegate_leake_based_story_re…) despite [repeated correction](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/bad_news_sea_level_rise_may_be…).

This is relevant to his recent dishonest misrepresentation f the [survey of position of climate change](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/97_of_active_climatologists_ag…). [Here the survey was used] to provide evidence of overwhelming acceptance by the scientific community of significant human contribution to climate change.

Dave is a very weasel like manner dishonestly tried to portray some phony perception of criticism of the result by by arguing that the survey also ask tow opening questions that were broad and which Dave Andrews claims were uncontested issue. (Not sure who Dave knew they were uncontested) but neither is this any argument against the result to questions cited in support of overwhelming support in the scientific community.

Dave tactic appears to be to try to make some noise of hand wave to distract from his errors and illogical argument.

>Dave Andrews, You have purposefully and selectively misrepresented the survey by ignoring the question relevant to my post

>*Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?*

Dave's current obtuseness appears to be a similar tactic. Rather than correct the record by Dave prefers to act dumb. Dave Andrews consistent behavior sums up as a pattern of dishonesty. Interest given that Dave Andrews is seeking to argue that climate scientist are dishonest.

Dave,

>Do you get tired of being so consistently dishonest? And do you see how your reliance on dishonest tactics reflects on your denialist argument?

jakerman,

The second question talked about 'significant contribution'. This was not defined in any way. Each one of the 255 signatories could have interpreted that phrase in a different way and, perhaps more importantly, have very different ideas about the significance of that 'significance'.

Perhaps if the questionnaire had ranked things in terms of percentages of significance it might carry more weight.

By Dave Andrews (not verified) on 15 May 2010 #permalink

MFS,

"I don't know where you're going with your following post, what you said is on the record."

For your delectation follow the link below and see Lucas moaning about the fact that the British electorate, despite having voted for and possibly achieved a very different kind of politics, has not produced the result that she would like.

Her arrogance is astounding. As if the election of a single Green MP, or even if PR had been available a possible 4 or 5 MPs, amounts to a hill of beans.(Incidentally, of course, her remark that if PR had been available more people would have voted Green also applies in far greater numbers to those who would have voted Lib-Dem)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/15/caroline-lucas-green-par…

By Dave Andrews (not verified) on 15 May 2010 #permalink

MFS,

Here's another pointer to the arrogance of Lucas. The Greens total vote was 285,616. This was roughly half the votes that the fascist BNP achieved and a third of the votes secured by the somewhat barmy UKIP.

The Lib-Dems got 6.6m votes, Labour 8.6m and Tories 10.8m.

The Greens % share of the vote was 0.96.

Yet she is still turned to by lazy media types, especially in the BBC, and accorded a weight far beyond the status the results should give her. She also seems to lack any understanding of the true reality of her situation.

By Dave Andrews (not verified) on 15 May 2010 #permalink

Dave Andrews employs move hand waving in hope of distracting from his dishonest misrepresentation.

His latest attempt at distraction included implying that scientist are incapable of interpreting what 'significant' means to them complaining that it is not defined.

Here is the questions Dave want to pretend is illegitimate:

>Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

Significance requires a threshold, and that threshold was surpassed on this question for >85% of actively publishing scientist. And actively publishing scientist are quite capable of setting there own appropriate thresholds.

But I remind readers that Dave Andrews latest attempt is a distraction from his [previous dishonesty](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/255_members_of_the_natianal_ac…). That is Dave's MO.: Dishonesty and then hand-waving to transition to the next bogosity.

jakerman,

Of the 3146 respondents to the questionnaire 79 (2.5%) listed climate change as their area of expertise and had published recently on the topic. The authors say that overall 'approximately 5% of respondents were climate scientists' (Presumably half of them hadn't published much on climate change recently).

This still leaves 95 - 97.5% of respondents having to make a value decision about what 'significant' means. the report shows that when faced with this decision there were considerable levels of disagreement amongst those who were not climate scientists.

By Dave Andrews (not verified) on 16 May 2010 #permalink

jakerman,

BTW, I was perfectly ready to come here and say 'mea culpa' for conflating the survey results with the Science letter in my post 115.

But apparently you take no notice of what people actually post.

By Dave Andrews (not verified) on 16 May 2010 #permalink

>*But apparently you take no notice of what people actually post.*

Apparently DA thinks I should be taking more time to engage with this his distractions. Sorry Dave a distraction is a distraction:

>Dave Andrews latest attempt is a distraction from his previous dishonesty. That is Dave's MO.: Dishonesty and then hand-waving to transition to the next bogosity.

Dave even with Dave's feeble attempt to distract from the findings of the survey, he inadvertantly reinforces the finding.

[Here are](
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf) the respondents:

>Of our survey participants, [...] More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had masterâs degrees. With survey participants asked to select a single category, the most common areas of expertise reported were geochemistry (15.5%), geophysics (12%), and oceanography (10.5%). General geology, hydrology/hydrogeology, and paleontology each accounted for 5â7% of the total respondents.

>Approximately 5% of the respondents were climate scientists, and 8.5% of the respondents indicated that more than 50% of their peer-reviewed publications in the past 5 years have been on the subject of climate change. While respondentsâ names are kept private, the authors noted that the survey included participants with well-documented dissenting opinions on global warming theory.

Dave Andrews tries to complain of the low number of climate scienctist in the group, but the sampled groups is

>all geosciences faculty at reporting academic institutions, along with researchers at state geologic surveys associated with local universities, and researchers at U.S. federal research facilities (e.g., U.S. Geological Survey, NASA, and NOAA (U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) facilities; U.S. Department of Energy national laboratories; and so forth).

And what did the survey find? It found **the more qualified you were to understand the intricacy of the science (and assess significance) the more likely that respondents were humans as a significant contribution.**

Thanks Dave.

But I remind you this was an attempt at distraction, as is Dave's MO.

Dave,

I do really care very little about a Green politician in the other side of the world. Thank you for sharing the links though.

Mi problem was with your ad hominem attacks on her (I would have had the same problem had your target been anyone else) to try and distract from the topic of discussion here (255 members of the NAS signing the open letter)

jakerman,

"the more likely that respondents were humans as a significant contribution."

Thank god (possibly) for that , the respondents were humans:-)

By Dave Andrews (not verified) on 17 May 2010 #permalink

Thanks again Dave, alway happy to better communicate the point that you were so hoping to dismiss:

And what did the survey find? It found **the more qualified you were to understand the intricacy of the science (and assess significance) the more likely that respondents were to rate human contribution to climate change as a significant.**

jakerman,

"And what did the survey find? It found the more qualified you were to understand the intricacy of the science (and assess significance) the more likely that respondents were to rate human contribution to climate change as a significant."

But that is essentially meaningless as well because it is obvious that it would be the case and doesn't address the problem of people having to rate the significance in the first place and says nothing about how qualified to understand the intricacies the respondents were.

By Dave Andrews (not verified) on 18 May 2010 #permalink

Wrong again Dave, your comments are what is worthless, the survey is quite meaningful. It clearly shows that the more competent you are with the facts the more likely you are to judge human contribution to climate change as significant.

Further more, in addition to Dave's attempt at word games tried on here, he's just shown the persistence of his dishonesty in [an adjacent thread](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/tony_abbott_and_the_roman_warm…).

Poor form Dave Andrews, and a convinced that your dishonest approach has affected your cognitive functioning. Do you want to continue your life with this impairment? Seek help Dave.

jakerman,

it clearly shows that the more competent you are with the facts the more likely you are to judge human contribution to climate change as significant.,/i.

Where exactly does it show this?

BTW,96% of respondents were from the US and Canada and only 4% from the rest of the world. How representative is this?

By Dave Andrews (not verified) on 20 May 2010 #permalink

Dave it shows it in [the data](http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf) that is graphed.

I'd also like to add this clear finding:

>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.

The demographics are clearly stated:

>all geosciences faculty at reporting academic institutions, along with researchers at state geologic surveys associated with local universities, and researchers at U.S. federal research facilities (e.g., U.S. Geological Survey, NASA, and NOAA (U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) facilities; U.S. Department of Energy national laboratories; and so forth).

Dave Andrew's feeble attempt to try to discredit the result shows more about Dave than anything.

jakerman,

They clearly state that 90% of respondents were from the US and 6% from Canada, leaving only 4% from the rest of the world.

So how was I "lying"?

By Dave Andrews (not verified) on 21 May 2010 #permalink

Dave, Obtuse a expected. but [the link](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/tony_abbott_and_the_roman_warm…) in there for you click. Then follow back through your long lying streak.

Continuing your run from this:

>Further more, in addition to Dave's attempt at word games tried on here, he's [just shown](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/tony_abbott_and_the_roman_warm…) the persistence of his dishonesty in an adjacent thread.

For context read the prior comments from you than each of the linked posts are responding to.

The same lying streak [continuing from here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/255_members_of_the_natianal_ac…). Which will guide you back several layers longer.

Seek help Dave, your approach is affecting your cognition.

jakerman,
You keep telling me my cognition is affected over and over again. Are you sure you have not mixed yourself up in this and can't remember whom you are referring to :-)?

By Dave Andrews (not verified) on 22 May 2010 #permalink