The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

This is a difference between

"Most respondents (93.6%) believe that mean temperatures have risen and most (91.9%) believe in an anthropogenic contribution to rising temperatures."

and

"Scientists in all disciplines agree with climate scientists that global warming is real and caused by humans. "

contribution vs caused by - a big difference!

I wish scientists would stop using the words "belief" and "believe" when they discuss that which is demonstrated true by the evidence.

Natural Resources. Does that perchance include people working both sides of a revolving door with exploitive industries? On a similar note, geologists don't do quite as well as astonomers or oceanographers...

Meteorologists... Tsk, tsk... Still, better than I expected.

Three items:

1)
I’m always fascinated by how much emphasis scientists and alleged lovers of science put on “consensus”.

Obviously, “consensus” has no necessary relationship to truth.

“Consensus” is a word used, and a goal sought, by politicians, not truth-seekers.

But for what it’s worth…
……..
2)
I hadn’t heard of this group before, but anyway…
“31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs”
http://www.petitionproject.org
………..
3)
George Mason University conducted a survey regarding global warming of the 7,000+ voting members of the American Meteorological Society. The survey drew enough interest only for about 1,800 responses.

Some responses to questions I found noteworthy:

Question 4: Over the next 100 years, how harmful or beneficial do you think global warming will be to people and society, if nothing is done to address it?

38% - Very harmful.
62% - Very beneficial to somewhat harmful, and “Don’t know”

Question 5: ‘How much global warming harm can be prevented through our actions?’

22% - All or a large amount of GW harm can be prevented.
78% - No amount to a moderate amount of GW harm can be prevented, and “I don’t know”.

http://www.climatechangecommunication.org/report/american-meteorologica…

@Desertphile - Scientists have to be careful about using the words 'true' and 'fact' because we can't be 100% certain about anything. That's why we hear the phrase 'evidence suggests'. I agree with you in that they shouldn't say 'belief' and 'believe' for it sound more like something of a gut feeling with little or no evidence to back it up.

Second posting attempt:

Three items:
1)
I’m always fascinated by how much emphasis scientists and alleged lovers of science put on “consensus”.
Obviously, “consensus” has no necessary relationship to truth.
“Consensus” is a word used, and a goal sought, by politicians, not truth-seekers.
But for what it’s worth…
……..
2)
I hadn’t heard of this group before, but anyway…
“31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs”
http://www.petitionproject.org
………..
3)
George Mason University conducted a survey regarding global warming of the 7,000+ voting members of the American Meteorological Society. The survey drew enough interest only for about 1,800 responses.
Some responses to questions I found noteworthy:
Question 4: Over the next 100 years, how harmful or beneficial do you think global warming will be to people and society, if nothing is done to address it?
38% – Very harmful.
62% – Very beneficial to somewhat harmful, and “Don’t know”
Question 5: ‘How much global warming harm can be prevented through our actions?’
22% – All or a large amount of GW harm can be prevented.
78% – No amount to a moderate amount of GW harm can be prevented, and “I don’t know”.
http://www.climatechangecommunication.org/report/american-meteorologica…

1. Almost half of them do research concerning climate change or its effects (this blows the whole premise of the study away) Their grant money relies on the climate change theory;
2. What are the missing questions? (Q6-9, Q14-17 and Q21-24)
3. The questions are vague, again, most of them would get positive responses by skeptics as well;
4. Push polls are useless see video below
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=136&v=G0ZZJXw4MTA

It would be interesting to see the crosstabs on how different disciplines vary in ideology. From my work in natural resources, conservative ideologies seem to be much more prevalent there (especially in forestry, agriculture, and mining departments). I wonder how the variance-partitioning would come out on the independent contribution of discipline, after accounting for ideology (same with engineers, too).

Though for natural resource folks, it does take a certain willful ignorance to avoid the climate-change literature which is so prevalent in pretty much every journal...

See Noevo, you're someone who allows a "broader" interpretation of data than many scientists, right? I see you reference the Petition Project and its 9000 PhD signatures. Maybe you'd like to offer an explanation for why (or how, if that's your preference) Edward Teller's signature got on PP's list. It appears that Teller had been dead for some time before the date on the petition. It's a mystery!

For an extra point, you could explain the relevance of Geri Halliwell (Ginger Spice) to the climate discussion, as she's on PP's list as well.

P.S. And yes, scientists are born, not "made."

sn is a member of the camp who thinks that scientific results are/should be the product of a political debate: Whoever propounds their argument most vociferously wins the day and decides the outcome.

sn believes he can rebuke the wind, and it shall cease, hence his continued bluster. But first, sn, you must demonstrate that you can walk on water.

Until then, like it or not, you are a slave to the Laws of Nature. And those laws, like it or not, are not subject to being bent to your political agenda.

Here is a facet of human behavior that is interesting to think about.... What are the social and psychological factors that cause people to champion a cause in the face of overwhelming evidence that the tenets of their cause are wrong or irrelevant? People typically don't like to accept defeat, so there is that. The hormonal consequences of defeat are typically not beneficial. Then too, people don't want others to think that they are stupid for having been on the wrong side of a debate, so there is that. Some people just love to fight, so being on the right or wrong side is irrelevant, and being on the minority side practically guarantees that they can find someone in the majority who wants to wrestle with them.

I think too that people create or accumulate evidence to support their world view, even though the evidence may be corrupted and have no integrity, and finding out that some important facet of their structure is wrong, lacking or weak can threaten the entire logical structure of their belief system.

I expect that we are going to see hardened snipers nests of hold outs in the climate destabilization argument for many years to come. For some, I suppose that a comfortable, well furnished snipers nest is hard to give up when the war and battle is over.

Finally, I suspect too that the financial interests of the fossil fuel industry are such that it is still completely beneficial for them to have partisans fighting for the lost cause of fossil fuel as long as possible. So the fossil fuel companies probably don't mind sending some support under the radar to their defenders, long after they have publicly accepted that AGW is real and needs to be addressed..

SteveP, I think the greater factor is that these people realize that accepting the evidence and corresponding consequences that follow will ultimately result in them having to alter their cherished lifestyles in undesirable ways. By shouting down the messengers (scientists), they hope to stave off such changes.

It is, obviously, a losing battle. The longer they succeed in their childish game, the worse the outcome will be for them. "You can pay me now, or you can pay me later -- with interest and penalties." They keep choosing the penalties, hoping beyond reason that they will escape somehow at the last moment...

I have a warning for them: Hell hath no fury like Mother Nature scorned.

sn is a fundagellical cultist. They:
- Reject logic because it is a tool of the devil against faith.
- Embrace ignorance because apples, snakes, and faith.
- Embrace childishness because sheep and shepherds.
- Embrace authoritarianism because sheep are too stupid to read the bible without extensive coaching, holy sounding rationalizations, and glib threats of torture in the afterlife.
- Will never let go of this ideation because hooray for martyrs and gloating over tortured souls in the afterlife, because peer pressure, and because of hydraulic anointing, and because thinking they're chosen as god's very special BFFs gives them chills --because being a broken cultist let's you believe you're a superior being without any of the pressure of being an adult. With god's permission (GOD'S!!!!) you get to have all the fun of being a jackass and get rewarded for it in the end with extra special magic.
- Want this ideologic pyramid scheme to grow and last forever so the illusion won't be shaken and they can get lots of power thereby...

Goobers.

You also need to realize that sn has never "studied" anything: he once referenced a journal article as supporting his contention that the accepted explanation for the formation of galaxies could not really explain what we saw - reading the article showed the exact opposite. His defense included the statement that the "headline writer" for the article had written it in a confusing way.

It isn't simply climate science either: modern cosmology is all wrong, evolution of course is right out, and so on. It would not be a surprise to find out he accepts neither relativity and believes in geocentrism.

Of course, he did say at Ethan's that modern research in physics is bound to be worthless without the influence of Catholicism to guide it. (That would also explain his comment that the current pope's mind is so open that his brain is in danger of falling out.)

Desert-baked writes: “The world’s scientists have reached consensus regarding human-caused climate change for exactly the same reason the world’s scientists have reached consensus regarding atomic theory, the heliocentric model of the Solar System, the cause of polio, how evolution happened and happens, and why Things Fall Down.”

If he can find a petition signed by anything like 31,487 American scientists, including 9,029 with PhDs, disputing the common view regarding atomic theory or the heliocentric model of the Solar System or the cause of polio or why Things Fall Down, then,
I hope he'll let me know.
....................

And speaking of signing documents, here's one regarding evolution:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=660

To Brainstorms #14:

“sn is a member of the camp who thinks that scientific results are/should be the product of a political debate: Whoever propounds their argument most vociferously wins the day and decides the outcome.”

That’s more of a brainf*rt, Brainstorms.
Your statement is pretty much the exact opposite of what I think.

That was giving you the nice way out, sn. If that's the case, I'll have to concede that Dean or Desertphile must be correct.

Impressive. I'm interested in this stuff! How did Edward Teller sign his name to the Petition Project after his death?

Since this ''31,487 American scientists, with 9,029 Ph.Ds'' has something to do with the credibility of this famous petition and its consensus, surely Teller is as important in death as he was in life, is he not?

@ 4 & 6. See Noevo :

" I’m always fascinated by how much emphasis scientists and alleged lovers of science put on “consensus”.

Because science relies on evidence and the more peer reviewed studies confirm something the more likely that something is to be true.

For example one study could be disputed for instance in astronomy sometimes one group will note the presence of an exoplanet . Then another group will replicate that study or examine the claim using a different method and either refute or confirm say the existence of that exoplanet.

Case A. Suppose you get two groups talking about that exoplanet and one group finds it exists say based on a certain recurring pattern in the stars' light dipping and another does not. The existence of that exoplanet is then in doubt. (Eg. Gliese 581g, Alpha Centauri Bb, Lalande 21185 b) Suppose the evidence is then examined by a third group that finds say a star spot cycle or rotation rate or instrumental factor likely to explain the first studies results. It then seems less likely that a planet exists as described in that first study doesn't it?

Alternatively, case B, suppose the second study of that claimed exoplanet confirms the first teams observations, suppose that as well as getting a dip in the stars light caused by the planet they observe certain features in the stars spectrum that confirm and match the first studies observations. That a third team then looks closely at the data and finds that the exoplanet is actually visible using infra red space telescope s and another visually confirms it using say the Hubble Space Telescope. In that case, it becomes increasingly clear that the evidence from multiple studies and multiple groups is confirming the first teams claim and that the exoplanet in question has been verified and shown to exist. (Eg. 55 Cancris b, PSR 1257+12 b, & c, 51 Pegasi b.)

Now back from those examples and to the one in question. When 98% of climate scientists have come to a consensus based on multiple lines of evidence, peer-reviewed studies by a whole range of experts in the field(s) some of them even starting as skeptics (Richard Muller, BEST) then what conclusion do you draw?

Would you stick with say one study showing that an exoplanet does exist in the case A scenario when say three other studies have casts significant doubt on its existence and given good reasons and provided good evidence for why that putative exoplanet doesn't exist and the initial observation was wrong?

Worse yet, would you reject 98 studies showing that something is real coming forma whole range of observations and an overwhelming amount of data based on two outdated and highly disputed claims by scientists who have evident biases and reasons to find otherwise? Because that's the equivalent of what you, See Noevo are actually doing here.

Does that explain it properly for you? Do you really not get that? If not, then please explain what you don't get about that and why.

"I hadn’t heard of this group before, but anyway…“31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs”

Really? You seriously hadn't heard about that long ago (at least five years)and multiplely debunked and discredited Oregon petition rubbish before?

See : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py2XVILHUjQ&list=PL029130BFDC78FA33&ind…

"32000 Scientists" by Peter Sinclair (Greenman3610)
Especially from about the 5 minute mark onwards.

Incidentally, I'd highly recommend you watch the rest of the clips in that series too. As well as a lot of other sources.)

Among a whole lot of other places. Basically if you are treating that petition seriously you are gravely in error here and have damaged your own credibility.

"George Mason University conducted a survey regarding global warming of the 7,000+ voting members of the American Meteorological Society. The survey drew enough interest only for about 1,800 responses."

Okay. Meteorologists aren't climate scientists and America is only one though admittedly large and influential nation.

Also .. y'know I clicked on the link and I'm pretty sure it doesn't actually support your Denialist case here. What I found noteworthy here were its key findings which included :

* More than 9 in 10 TV weathercasters have concluded that climate change is happening.

* Of TV weathercasters who have concluded that climate change is happening, nearly 9 in 10 think human activity is at least partly responsible over the past 50 years, although they underestimate the extent of the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change.

* Most TV weathercasters think that climate change has influenced the weather and other conditions in their area over the past 50 years, and even more think climate change will influence the weather in their area over the next 50 years. Specifically:

* More than two thirds think that climate change has had an impact on the weather in their area over the past 50 years, and more than three quarters think that climate change will influence weather in their area over the next 50 years.

..And that's just the first few points.

Thanks for the info there I guess.

Mathematical Models vs. Real-World Data
If models cannot hindcast successfully, why should anyone
believe they can forecast successfully?
http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/models/models.pdf

PS. Putting it another way, See Noevo, scientific consensus is very different from a political consensus or a consensus of people putting up their hands to decide what sort of takeaway to get (pizza or Chinese or Indian) because its based on actual scientific evidence and reason not say what people feel like eating that night or which candidate they like more and would rather have a beer with etc ..

@22. Greg H. "..surely Teller is as important in death as he was in life, is he not?

Much more important I'd say! He's proof of an afterlife and the ability to sign petitions after death which is truly cosmically earth shattering (yeah, I know) if true. Emphasis on last two words there!

Teller's signature is as valid as those of all telhe non Phds who have a name on that list, as well as all of those who have no expertise in any area related to science. Valid to folks like an, that is, whonlookbfor any tool they can use for propaganda.

Relevant to the issue? No, their signatures have no relevance to the discussion. That isn't the issue to the denial set.

By the way, I use the Ouija Board six or seven hours a day, and my fingers always bleed over the board. Am I doing it wrong?

Pin side down.

To StevoR #23:

A lot of thinking and concluding going on
“… weathercasters have CONCLUDED that climate change is happening… nearly 9 in 10 THINK human activity is at least partly responsible over the past 50 years…
Most TV weathercasters THINK that climate change has influenced the weather… and even more THINK climate change will influence the weather … More than two thirds THINK climate change has had an impact on the weather…”

But not much in the way of scientific demonstration.

AGWers forecast climatic catastrophe using models.
But I’ve heard that those climate catastrophe models are invalid, because they failed to come close to predicting current climate conditions when fed past climate data.

Any new news on whether these models have been validated, and if so, how?
…………….
Here’s a piece titled “The climate ‘consensus’ myth” by Lorrie Goldstein:

“One of the most ludicrous arguments climate alarmists make is that those they deem “climate deniers” should not be allowed to air their views because 97% of climate scientists agree man-made global warming is real.

One of the most alarming developments in media coverage of this issue is that many journalists agree with them.

For today’s purpose, let’s concede the 97% “consensus” figure is accurate, even though, rather than a scientific survey of climate scientists themselves, this number typically comes from studies that do key word searches on academic papers, looking for such phrases as “global warming” or “global climate change”.

The real point is that even assuming the 97% figure is accurate, there are many things about climate change on which there is no scientific consensus.

For example, there is no consensus among climate scientists that anthropological climate change represents an imminent, existential threat to humanity, contrary to the beliefs of the famous non-scientist, U.S. President Barack Obama.

To cite one of many examples, Obama tweeted (or rather, someone on his staff tweeted in his name) on May 16, 2013 to his 60 million followers that: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous”, containing a link to a Reuters story.

But nowhere does that article, in citing the 97% consensus figure, claim 97% of climate scientists agree global warming is “dangerous.”

The article never mentions the word “dangerous”, or any word like it.

Similarly, there is no consensus among climate scientists on whether it is necessary, as the world’s most famous climate alarmist and non-scientist Al Gore insists, for the U.S. to abandon using coal to produce electricity by 2018, which he called for in 2008.

Since the U.S. gets 39% of its electricity from coal, that would in fact be very dangerous for millions of Americans, given how much it would drive up the cost of electricity, forcing millions of people into fuel poverty, where one has to pay more than 10% of one’s income, simply to power one’s home.
Nor is there any scientific consensus on what the rate of warming will be over the next century.

Climate models in fact predict a wide range of possible scenarios, although media typically report on only the most extreme, worse-case scenarios.

Nor is there any consensus among climate scientists on whether, or when, the world should abandon fossil fuel use.

Nor on how fast anthropological climate change is occurring and what its precise effects will be regionally and globally.

Or on whether carbon pricing schemes such as cap-and-trade and carbon taxes will slow the growth of industrial greenhouse gas emissions.

Real-world experience with carbon taxes and cap-and-trade suggests neither are effective or efficient in reducing emissions and only “work” insofar as they make everyone poorer, thus having less money to spend on goods and services produced through the use of fossil fuel energy.

The final point is that regardless of any consensus among climate scientists, it is not for them to decide how we should live our lives or how governments should tax us.

Indeed, if they want to do that, and some clearly do, then they should get out of their labs and off their speaking tours, and run for political office.”

See Noevo: You just became aware of the OISM Petition Project?

One more indication that you aren't aware of what's really going on in the climate science debate.

See Noevo: I’m always fascinated by how much emphasis scientists and alleged lovers of science put on “consensus”.
Obviously, “consensus” has no necessary relationship to truth.
“Consensus” is a word used, and a goal sought, by politicians, not truth-seekers.

There is political consensus, and then there is scientific consensus. They are not the same.

A political consensus is reached when everyone involved (or at least the majority) agrees on accepting a certain action. They may not think the result will be desirable or even agree that the action will be effective. They go along in the interests of amity.

A scientific consensus is reached when the amount of evidence for a particular conclusion mounts up to the point where it convinces everyone (or at least the majority) that this conclusion is valid. To put it another way, good science does not come from a scientific consensus; a scientific consensus comes from good science.

See Noevo: George Mason University conducted a survey regarding global warming of the 7,000+ voting members of the American Meteorological Society. The survey drew enough interest only for about 1,800 responses.
Some responses to questions I found noteworthy:
Question 4: Over the next 100 years, how harmful or beneficial do you think global warming will be to people and society, if nothing is done to address it?
38% – Very harmful.
62% – Very beneficial to somewhat harmful, and “Don’t know”
Question 5: ‘How much global warming harm can be prevented through our actions?’
22% – All or a large amount of GW harm can be prevented.
78% – No amount to a moderate amount of GW harm can be prevented, and “I don’t know”.

Why are you combining separate categories like this? It almost looks like you might be trying to slant the results toward some desired conclusion.

Second attempt:

To StevoR #23:
A lot of thinking and concluding going on
“… weathercasters have CONCLUDED that climate change is happening… nearly 9 in 10 THINK human activity is at least partly responsible over the past 50 years…
Most TV weathercasters THINK that climate change has influenced the weather… and even more THINK climate change will influence the weather … More than two thirds THINK climate change has had an impact on the weather…”
But not much in the way of scientific demonstration.
AGWers forecast climatic catastrophe using models.
But I’ve heard that those climate catastrophe models are invalid, because they failed to come close to predicting current climate conditions when fed past climate data.
Any new news on whether these models have been validated, and if so, how?
…………….
Here’s a piece titled “The climate ‘consensus’ myth” by Lorrie Goldstein:
“One of the most ludicrous arguments climate alarmists make is that those they deem “climate deniers” should not be allowed to air their views because 97% of climate scientists agree man-made global warming is real.
One of the most alarming developments in media coverage of this issue is that many journalists agree with them.
For today’s purpose, let’s concede the 97% “consensus” figure is accurate, even though, rather than a scientific survey of climate scientists themselves, this number typically comes from studies that do key word searches on academic papers, looking for such phrases as “global warming” or “global climate change”.
The real point is that even assuming the 97% figure is accurate, there are many things about climate change on which there is no scientific consensus.
For example, there is no consensus among climate scientists that anthropological climate change represents an imminent, existential threat to humanity, contrary to the beliefs of the famous non-scientist, U.S. President Barack Obama.
To cite one of many examples, Obama tweeted (or rather, someone on his staff tweeted in his name) on May 16, 2013 to his 60 million followers that: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous”, containing a link to a Reuters story.
But nowhere does that article, in citing the 97% consensus figure, claim 97% of climate scientists agree global warming is “dangerous.”
The article never mentions the word “dangerous”, or any word like it.
Similarly, there is no consensus among climate scientists on whether it is necessary, as the world’s most famous climate alarmist and non-scientist Al Gore insists, for the U.S. to abandon using coal to produce electricity by 2018, which he called for in 2008.
Since the U.S. gets 39% of its electricity from coal, that would in fact be very dangerous for millions of Americans, given how much it would drive up the cost of electricity, forcing millions of people into fuel poverty, where one has to pay more than 10% of one’s income, simply to power one’s home.
Nor is there any scientific consensus on what the rate of warming will be over the next century.
Climate models in fact predict a wide range of possible scenarios, although media typically report on only the most extreme, worse-case scenarios.
Nor is there any consensus among climate scientists on whether, or when, the world should abandon fossil fuel use.
Nor on how fast anthropological climate change is occurring and what its precise effects will be regionally and globally.
Or on whether carbon pricing schemes such as cap-and-trade and carbon taxes will slow the growth of industrial greenhouse gas emissions.
Real-world experience with carbon taxes and cap-and-trade suggests neither are effective or efficient in reducing emissions and only “work” insofar as they make everyone poorer, thus having less money to spend on goods and services produced through the use of fossil fuel energy.
The final point is that regardless of any consensus among climate scientists, it is not for them to decide how we should live our lives or how governments should tax us.
Indeed, if they want to do that, and some clearly do, then they should get out of their labs and off their speaking tours, and run for political office.”

... it is not for them to decide how we should live our lives or how governments should tax us.

Clearly, See Noevo thinks that he should be the one to decide how we should live our lives or how governments should tax us.

(No one here ever said that climate scientists should play that role. I guess that's what's called distortion.)

"Lorrie Goldstein"

Hmm, a journalist? You can't find a scientist to quote sn? Someone who knows what they are talking about?

Oh wait - you dismiss people in any field who understands the issues you deny.

To Christopher Winter...
#36:
“A scientific consensus is reached when the amount of evidence for a particular conclusion mounts up to the point where it convinces everyone (or at least the majority) that this conclusion is valid. To put it another way, good science does not come from a scientific consensus; a scientific consensus comes from good science.”

Agreed.
But it is also true, as I said before, that scientific consensus is NOT the same as scientific truth.

I would say the probability of a consensus reflecting actual truth is higher (though not 100%) when the consensus is unanimous. More importantly, unanimous consensus is essentially guaranteed when the subject of the consensus HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED and proven (e.g. my response to Desert-Baked in #19).

Alas, such is not the case with AGW.
…………………
#35:
“See Noevo: You just became aware of the OISM Petition Project?”

Yes, if you’re referring to this:
http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

But perhaps you’re among those who want to invalidate the petition because of what I hear are some bogus signatories (e.g. “Ginger Spice”). I’d be all for expunging the bad votes. But I’d bet that even if they cleaned up the list, it would still have about 30,000 American scientists, including about 9,000 with PhDs.

But speaking of eliminating the possibility of bogus votes, you’re probably like me in being FOR voter ID laws, right?
……………
#37:
“Why are you combining separate categories like this? It almost looks like you might be trying to slant the results toward some desired conclusion.”

Not really. The AGW agenda is built on hysteria and extremes - on insisting on action NOW, otherwise environmental apocalypse. My summaries show that, at least regarding the meteorologists’ responses, the extreme view is not widely-shared (38%, 22%).

Is it just me that thinks See Noevo posts in a similar manner to another who deposited repeated piles of Gish Gallop such as in here: http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/08/20/how-do-you-explain-judith-… under the name of Swallow?

SN's reference to that laughable Oregon petition, as if it was news to them, gives them away as a novice on this topic, as do those gish gallops.

"But speaking of eliminating the possibility of bogus votes, you’re probably like me in being FOR voter ID laws, right?"

No, you ignoramus, because study after study shows fraud in voting is so small as to be essentially indistinguishable from zero.

On the other hand, the laws you support suppress the votes of the people you despise: the poor and aged.

The difference is that the "petition" you mention is not a vote, it is essentially a document that people chose to sign or not sign as they will. It's been amply demonstrated that in addition to the bogus signatures (people who are dead, fictional characters) the number of "scientists" with a name on it are almost uniformly
a) not scientists
b) not in fields with any experience in the relevant disciplines - it would be as though you had signed it, despite your complete lack of understanding

That is why it is dismissed as having a bogus message, not because the people who signed it disagree with the science.

Um, under the qualifications required for that petition, I am just as qualified as their "scientists". BS in mechanical engineering. So are about 10 million other people. So 30k signers out of 10 million possible signers is?

That's right, about 0.3%. That means, under their terms, 99.7% of scientists agree with the consensus. That is as close to unanimous as things get.

As far as a more detailed breakdown of qualifications, well over a third of the signatories are engineers in non-environmental disciplines, not scientists.

Another 10% are doctors. Last I checked, an MD program didn't include much in the way of environmental research.

Ditto the close to 10% that are in biology or agriculture. Or computer science or math (although I admit a few of the latter could be working in atmospheric modeling or the like, although I highly doubt it.

About 13% of the total signatories are in fields that the petition creators claim relate to environmental concerns, and of those almost half are geologists, which isn't really surprising since the fossil fuel industry employs a significant fraction of working geologists. (Which would provide a likely explanation for the high number of chemists and chemical engineers as well).

Oh, and out of curiosity, how are astronomers and astrophysicists categorized as "atmospheric scientists"?

I don't do modeling, but I'm basically an applied climatologist. I research how climate (and other environmental factors) affect human health and disease distributions. Although I'm one of the 97%, personally I would like to see the climate research community either step back from that particular meme, or else more fully explain it's significance. Anthropogenic climate change is not true because 97% of climatologists say it is. In fact, 97% of climatologists accept the AGW hypothesis because it's the best (and in fact only) one that explains the current changes we are observing. If the "skeptics" can provide another mechanism that explains the range of real world temperature changes we are currently observing, I'll listen to them. If not, then I won't. Simple. So far, none of them have.

[Link deleted. No links to denialist garbage. This is a science blog, not a link farm for the dark side of the Internet -gtl]

I wonder if climate change could be responsible for individual issues within the context of human health. It could be feasible that my less-than stellar health yesterday was in fact due to climate change. A cold front blew in and this ushered in a swath of frigid air into our region. My better half, the sweet Fanny Lynn Busby, developed a rash on her posterior. Nobody should deny that the climate does change on a daily basis.

The weather changes on a daily basis.

Climate is something that emerges from the holistic total of the yearly weather for the geographic region in question.

Your health yesterday has a large number of factors that contribute to it, your weather may be part of it, but your climate is one of the smaller of the contributors.

Both the daily weather and the climate of my lady changes on a daily basis... such is woman!