97% of active climatologists agree that human activity is causing global warming

Eos has just published the results of a survey of 3146 Earth Scientists conducted by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman. The graph below shows the results for this question:

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

i-53bd554612884f2d57067c1845ddfc23-DoranAndZimmerman2009.png

The 97% of active climatologists is 75 out of the 77 in the survey. Doran and Zimmermann say:

While respondents' names are kept private, the authors noted that the
survey included participants with well-documented dissenting opinions
on global warming theory.

I'm guessing that Lindzen and Spencer are the two that said "no".

The difference between the opinion of the general public and the scientists is striking. For comparison, despite the ongoing efforts of right-wing pundits here, 80% of Australians answered "yes" to a similar question.

James Annan is a little peeved, because last year Eos refused to publish the results of his poll on the basis that Eos did not publish the results of opinion polls. I think it is good that they have changed their policy, but of course they should have published the results of the other poll last year.

My thanks to reader MarkG for sending me a copy of the Doran and Zimmermann article.

Update: Here are links to the EOS article and the full report on the survey. (From Doran's home page.)

More like this

Andrew Bolt may have the worst case of confirmation bias ever seen. To Bolt, whether something is true or not has nothing to do with its accuracy and everything to do with whether it suits him or not. Here in its entirety, If the evidence were so strong, there'd be no need for such untruths Dennis…
Chris Mooney seems somewhat bemused by Jennifer Marohasy's response to his interview on Lateline. Marohasy claimed: according to an interview Mr Mooney gave last night on Australian television if you don't believe in AGW you aren't even a scientist. Compare with what Mooney actually said: If you…
Randy Olson (maker of Sizzle) has an interview with Mark Morano. RO: Are you an anti-evolutionist? MM: Haha, not at all. In fact, you know it's not an issue. The implication of your question is that somehow the skeptics are aligned with creationists. In all my years of dealing with Senator…
Enough! That's Peter Doran's opinion on the "debate" about a scientific consensus on climate change. There clearly is one -- a strong one. So why do the public and the politicians think otherwise? Why the big disconnect between what the vast majority of scientists know to be fact, and what the…

but there is no consensus!

and WATTSUP won the best blog award!

and all those comments know more than scientists anyway!

Will any of this change the outlooks of the cranks and kooks that populate this and other erudite blogs and who prepare pieces for papers like The Australian?

Silly question!

According to Eurekalert, Petroleum geologists and Weather forecastors were the most skeptic.

This doesn't surprise the poll researchers or me.

Feh.

The OISM Petition has ten times the number of scientists. How can anyone take these tiny numbers seriously?!?

[/dumb*ss]

Best,

D

Unfortunately it is easy to see how the denialists are going to misrepresent this - climate scientists, whose funding depends upon global warming, all believe in it; meteorologists and petroleum geologists, who are funded from sources independent of climate science, are much more sceptical. Therefore, climate scientists are "promoting" this "conspiracy" to protect their funding.

Pure baloney of course, but inevitable.

D,

What is the OISM Petition?

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine

Sorry, I'm new here. I've figured out what it stands for; I am just curious about D's explanation of the Petition.

Juniper: take your pick from sarcasm or irony. I suppose you could add "disgust" and "incredulity". :-)

No doubt, Eos was threatening the published climatologists with dire consequences if they didn't answer "Yes", where the dire consequences include such things as

1. a visit from your local Ninja Inquisitor;
2. a total ban on publishing in any scientific journal, in any country, in any discipline, at any time;
3. loss of prizes and awards, in particular
4. an entry in the Nobel Prize Conspiracy's Secret Blacklist; and
5. secret rendition to countries ruled by THIRD WORLD KLEPTOCRATS!!!!!!!!!!!

But...but...but...AAAAAALLLLLL GOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRE!

Tim,

Your headline is misleading.

"Significant contributing factor" as worded in the survey and the word "causing" in your headline are not the same thing.

If a guy is overweight, sedentary, eats a high fat diet and smokes and you asked his doctor if his lack of exercise was a "significant contributing factor" to his heart disease he would probably say yes. If you asked him if it "caused" his heart disease you would likely get a more nuanced answer.

I suspect if you asked these climatologists if humans were "causing" global warming you would also get varying degrees of equivocation and very few flat out "yes" answers.

Wouldnât it be more accurate, if less triumphal, to say â97% of active climatologists agree that human activity is a significant contributing factor to global warmingâ?

Also, as Roger Pielke (both Sr. and Jr.) would point out land use is also a âhuman activityâ.

"Significant contributing factor" as worded in the survey and the word "causing" in your headline are not the same thing.

sorry, but it is about as damn close as it gets!

I suspect if you asked these climatologists if humans were "causing" global warming you would also get varying degrees of equivocation and very few flat out "yes" answers.

yes. that is why the survey chose its words carefully. Tim musn t do the same in his headline.

Wouldnât it be more accurate, if less triumphal, to say â97% of active climatologists agree that human activity is a significant contributing factor to global warmingâ?

slightly longer, and most people wouldn t notice the difference.

Also, as Roger Pielke (both Sr. and Jr.) would point out land use is also a âhuman activityâ.

we are all aware of this! it is denialists like you, who cherry pick CO2 as the only part of AGW.

Does this mean I don't get an answer?

Juniper:

Answer: OISM is bullsh--. The close tag was your clue.

Best,

D

Sorry, I'm new here. I've figured out what it stands for; I am just curious about D's explanation of the Petition.

the petition does the exact opposite of what this study does. anybody can get o the list. the less knowledge on the subject you have, the more likely you signed the petition..

I'm wondering if someone can make a .wav file that imitates that one Spanish-language football announcer yelling "Goooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and instead saying in a GDS voice: 'Algoooooooooooooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeee!

and putting it on their website for all to link to when we get someone with GDS.

Jus' wondrin'....coughcough...Frank...

Best,

D

If AGW accounts for more then 2% of the historical global warming over the past 50 years then it would be significant. Significant is far from the primary.

Fun to see our pet denialists grasping at straws here ...

They look more and more ridiculous every day ...

Aha, this only proves that all dissenting climate scientists have been deported to secret camps in Siberia, just like it happended to dissenting biologists in the Sovjet Union in the days of Stalin and Lysenko!

By Lars Karlsson (not verified) on 20 Jan 2009 #permalink

If AGW accounts for more then 2% of the historical global warming over the past 50 years then it would be significant. Significant is far from the primary.

funny follow up question:

do you think that humans have caused more than 2% of the warming over the last 50 years?

you might even lose those 2 denialist scientists, if you word the question that way....

Juniper,

in brief, OISM is a pseudo-science "organization" dedicated to being contrarian...climate change is just one of their many topics that they have launched jihad on. They have released a supposed petition of 31,000 scientists who disagree with man-made global warming. It used to be 19,000, and I'm sure they'll have another in the future with another big number (it will be bigger since they just add the names to previous versions).

I personally did a review of 60 names (including 54 phD's) and found no one with any expertise or a relevant publication in climate (change). Some are dead, some I simply cannot find on google/google scholar. There are lots of medical people, veternarians, intelligent design researchers, smoke alarm makers, people who run bridge contests, etc, etc.

http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/05/22/one-more-petition-still-a-c…

The whole idea behind this, "Inhofe's 650" and other such things are to make up big numbers with the purpose on casting doubt on the consensus. None of them have any quality behind it.

This is just bullshit.. why are we still discussing this? It is obvious!

The Wilkins Ice Shelf barely held together and humans have done close to nothing to reduce the effects of climate change.

I didn't want to lend OISM any credit or make fun of it. I just wanted information that I can't find by Google-ing it. Thank you, Chris.

>do you think that humans have caused more than 2% of the warming over the last 50 years?

Or how about: Do you think humans have caused more then 2% of the climate stability over the past 10 years.

:-)

The difference between the actual question this article's headline is more evidence of AWG data manipulation.

Or how about: Do you think humans have caused more then 2% of the climate stability over the past 10 years.

actually, i am ready to PAY to see you ask this question to a panel of climate scientists. you would expose your lack of knowledge.

by the way, the trend over the last 10 years (that is 1999 to 2008, inclusive) is sharp UP.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1999/trend/plot/wti/from:1999

The difference between the actual question this article's headline is more evidence of AWG data manipulation.

you are wrong. again.

It is pretty easy to do a random selection of the Oregon petition and find out how bad it is. I have checked out a small number myself, one 'scientist' i traced was actually a head of an arts department at an American high school or college of some sort.

The other point of course is that the petition hasn't stopped, so it doesn't actually represent a valid current opinion. People that have signed it may no longer agree with it. A poll is more representative of ongoing opinion.

Anybody but me catch the "warming planet" line in Obama's Inaugural Address?

Re #30: More than that, Paul, given the original superannuated state of many of the signers, a fair number of them are by now just plain deceased.

By Steve Bloom (not verified) on 20 Jan 2009 #permalink

On the Oregon list... I was chekcing out the Heartland website yesterday (I honestly think the conference in Marh would be great to attend) and was flabbergasted to see that THEY OFFER A DISCOUNT on registration fees is you SIGN THE OISM PETITION!!!! How dodgy is that:)

The deniers show themselves for who they really are. Since they haven't a scientific leg to stand on, they revert to attacks on non scientists like Al Gore or Obama.

The Oregon Petition was started by a man who runs a group on a farm in Oregon. He and his son, neither of whom are climate scientists, have put forth a theory that industrialization improves biodiversity. The more CO2 we put into the atmosphere, the healthier our environment will be. Are you smarter than a fifth grader? Not if you believe this bunk.

The Petition was a hoax, designed to look like a peer reviewed paper from the National Academy of Science, which fooled some into signing it.
It's complete BS like all the lists of skeptic scientists that they trot out.

Senator Inhofe's list of 413 skeptics included:
20 economists
49 who are retired
44 television weathermen
70 scientists with no expertise in climate study
84 scientists who are either connected with the oil industry or are paid by it.
Scientists who were included against their will, and who agree with the IPCC
3 dead people

The keywords here are "Active Publishers on Climate Change". We all know that the media supports news about human-caused global warming so that's one area to be published in. Then there are scientists who prepare papers for government branches set-up to study global warming. That's another area of "publishing." Are these areas included as part of the survey with "active publishers of climate change" or are they talking solely about the publishing of scientific papers for peer review. Huge political difference.

According to the source article 'publishing' is defined as "peer-reviewed papers". The usual meaning of the word in science.

I think to help stop global warming all supporters should make a true effort to stop the destruction of the earth and shoot them selves. Or at least be sterilized so they don't reproduce and accelerate the destruction of the earth. This is a win win plan for everyone, the earth is saved and the evil CO2 producing humans are removed leaving just the cows (oh well all most perfect now the cows will destroy the earth).

A group of 3,146 earth scientists surveyed around the world overwhelmingly agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising, and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures"

Building cities and highways, irrigating deserts, and converting forests to cropland all are human activities, and I doubt that any sane person would advocate reversing these.

"Doran and Kendall Zimmerman sought the opinion of the most complete list of earth scientists they could find, contacting more than 10,200 experts around the world listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments."

3146 out of more than 10,200 is a response rate of less than 31%. I presume the other 69% found the survey sheet to be a bunch of propagandistic crap, and threw the damn thing away. I often react the same way when I get loaded survey questions from my congressperson.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-01/uoia-ssa011609.php

- A. McIntire

By Alan D. McIntire (not verified) on 20 Jan 2009 #permalink

I agree that humans have changed the climate. We have changed it by increasing the amount of humans on the planet, by cutting trees and turning land into farmland and by building cities which increase temperature in that area.
We did not increase the planet's temperature by burning fossile fuels. It is hard to understand how our governments can tax us into moving out of cities and to allow farmland to reforest itself.
Taxing children is a good idea. Maybe we can in turn tax the government for allowing imigrants into the country.

I presume the other 69% found the survey sheet to be a bunch of propagandistic crap

Alan think surveys are propaganda.
Alan is an objective scientist.
All objective scientists think surveys are propaganda.

Works for me.

I think to help stop global warming all supporters should make a true effort to stop the destruction of the earth and shoot them selves.

No one has said this before. You are clever and bright and have a future on the internet.

We did not increase the planet's temperature by burning fossile fuels.

It's incumbent on you then to describe how it is possible to burn fossil fuels, which release CO2 into the atmosphere, and not increase the planet's temperature, because that would require being able to turn off the laws of physics. We'd really like to know how to do that, and you can then pick up your Nobel next time they vote.

"It is hard to understand how our governments can tax us into moving out of cities and to allow farmland to reforest itself. "

i gotta say i'm baffled.

The difference between the opinion of the general public and the scientists is striking.

Looks like the less someone knows about the science, the more likely they are to think that human activity has no significant effect on global mean temperature. The term "arrogant ignoramuses" comes to mind.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 20 Jan 2009 #permalink

"It is hard to understand how our governments can tax us into moving out of cities and to allow farmland to reforest itself."
I with you z. I find this hard to understand as well.

Eve:

We did not increase the planet's temperature by burning fossile fuels.

Is that like facile fuels?

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 20 Jan 2009 #permalink

I'm kind of shocked it's only 97%... surely a larger group could be surveyed and the number would go up?

I am a "denialist" and in response to the question:

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

My answer would be "Yes."

By BillBodell (not verified) on 20 Jan 2009 #permalink

Denialist logic:

Just because 97% of experts believe it doesn't make it true!...
and besides, 3% of experts don't believe it! That makes it untrue!

>I presume the other 69% found the survey sheet to be a bunch of propagandistic crap, and threw the damn thing away.

Well that would be an unscientific assumption wouldn't it?
Surely you would have to survey those that didn't reply to the original survey, in order to find out why they didn't reply.
Otherwise you are falling into the trap of imagining what is happening based on your own pre-conceived prejudices.

>Anybody but me catch the "warming planet" line in Obama's Inaugural Address?

I missed that.

But I did notice that Dick Chenney in his wheel chair, looked like Dr Strangelove. He was even wearing gloves.

Note that less than 31% of over 10,200 contacted bothered to REPLY to the survey. That makes the results highly suspect. As I said before, evidently 69+% found the survey to be worthless crap

By Alan D. McIntire (not verified) on 21 Jan 2009 #permalink

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

The question should have been.. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures? Remember your Job and Funds depend how you answer.

By wilbert Robichaud (not verified) on 21 Jan 2009 #permalink

As I said before, evidently 69+% found the survey to be worthless crap

Well, we know that 69+% of your posts are worthless crap.

Great example of denialist critical thinking, though. Right up there with "it was colder tonight than yesterday at noon, therefore global warming is false".

As I said before, evidently 69+% found the survey to be worthless crap

Or they were too busy not publishing papers.

Note that less than 31% of over 10,200 contacted bothered to REPLY to the survey. That makes the results highly suspect. As I said before, evidently 69+% found the survey to be worthless crap

Shorter Alan:

This works for the surveys whose results I don't like, but I don't pay attention to such numbers when I like the results of such surveys.

Best,

D

Umm, isn't a 31% response rate to a survey kind of high? I was under the impression that a response rate that high is rather unusual.

It's very high, Doug. But the more important question is: how do you like this weather? I rode in short sleeves and shorts today (presuming you're in Colo).

Best,

D

Tim,
your article is extremely misleading, because you failed to point out that Al Gore is fat.

By Brain Hertz (not verified) on 21 Jan 2009 #permalink

But I did notice that Dick Chenney in his wheel chair, looked like Dr Strangelove. He was even wearing gloves.

The consensus in the office here was that he looked like Mr Burns from The Simpsons...

By Brain Hertz (not verified) on 21 Jan 2009 #permalink

Doug wondered:

isn't a 31% response rate to a survey kind of high?

Depends on whether you belong to the David Kane school of survey research or not.

http://climatesci.org/2009/01/21/an-obvious-double-standard-adopted-by-…

The conclusions of the Pielke paper were:
"1. The largest group of respondents (45-50%) concur with the IPCC perspective as given in the 2007 Report.

2. A significant minority (15-20%), however, conclude that the IPCC understated the seriousness of the threat from human additions of CO2 .

3. A significant minority (15-20%), in contrast, conclude that the IPCC overstated the role of human additions of CO2 relative to other climate forcings.

4. Almost all respondents (at least 97%) conclude that the human addition of CO2 into the atmosphere is an important component of the climate system and has contributed to some extent in recent observed global average warming."

Although this paper had a much smaller response rate, note that the same percentage - 97% - believes that addition of CO2 into the atmosphere has contributed to recent observed warming. Only Miskolszi followers would say that increased levels of CO2 haven't increased temperatures at all. And even though only 3% said that CO2 has not contributed to global warming, 15-20% replied that the IPCC has over-stated the role of CO2.

Increased CO2 levels is of course a first order climate forcing; few scientists would disagree. This paper would have been relevant if they had asked the same questions the Pielke paper did. As it is, the paper tells us nothing new.

And besides,
Judge an argument by the content of the argument.

@ 55
Note that less than 31% of over 10,200 contacted bothered to REPLY to the survey. That makes the results highly suspect. As I said before, evidently 69+% found the survey to be worthless crap

IIRC, the Oregon Petition survey had a response rate of 5%. So presumably you will dismiss those results even more forcefully.

Since "climate science" is in essence defined by the misplaced theory of global warming, how is it surprising that active "climate scientists" belive in the idea? It's like doing a survey of misogynists and finding the majority dislike women. Pretty silly stuff,really.

By george h. (not verified) on 21 Jan 2009 #permalink

Less than 25% respond to phone surveys (and those who do were paid by ACORN), thus McCain won the election.

I'll have to agree with Mr. McIntire that the 69+% didn't respond because they thought the survey was crap. "Haven't we settled this question already? Why do you keep asking this stupid question?" In fact, I would argue that the 3% figure is over represented in this survey since the denialists would be highly motivated to respond.

By Don Smith (not verified) on 22 Jan 2009 #permalink

This issue of response rates is *really* instructive.
I make no comment, pro on the meaning of the survey, just on people's reactions to the response rate.

A number of people offered firm opinions to the effect that 69% non-response meant the survey was crap or equivalent.

They thereby show that:

a) They must know *nothing* about opinion surveys, a topic studied incessantly by social scientists and marketeers, down to details of printed surveys like whether or not color of paper makes a difference (it can) or whether or not the time of day an email survey is sent makes a difference (yes).

b) Cannot be bothered to do even a simple search to learn a little before posting strong opinions.

An obvious searches turn up millions of hits:

Google: survey response rates percentage

such as:

1) SuperSurvey on online surveys, of which Figure 1 is especially useful, as it plots the distribution of response rates versus sample size.

2) Wikipedia discusses recent research that considers the extent to which response rate actually affects the validity.

Bottom line: meta-studies of response rates find large variations, but a 30% response rate is in the middle of the usual distributions, i.e. it is *pretty typical*. See the first reference for details.

By John Mashey (not verified) on 22 Jan 2009 #permalink

Don Smith, corrected:

> I just want to agree with Mr. McIntire that the 69+% didn't respond because they thought the survey was crap.

Dano:

> and instead saying in a GDS voice: 'Algoooooooooooooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeee!

> and putting it on their website for all to link to when we get someone with GDS.

> Jus' wondrin'....coughcough...Frank...

OK, here's my first effort at this. Not exactly very good in my opinion, but that's just me. Here's a .wav file for the same thing.

(The background thunder comes from Wikimedia.)

I think it's pretty clear that scientists need to find the misplaced theory of global warming. The sheer incompetence of it is mind-boggling! This is important stuff! You can't just leave it lying around where it can fall down the back of a sofa or something. At least make backup copies!

The misplaced theory is sitting on top of the tely, right next to the remote control they couldn't find earlier.

I always put my keys in a bowl by the door, else it never fails that I can't find them.

Rather than being a typical complainer with no solutions, I hope the participants here allow me to suggest that:

o climate scientists (or is it "scientists") place their theories by the front door in a bowl.

o Then they should publish the location of this bowl so amateurs can audit its location. This location should be in an open source code developed after, say, 1995.

This has been a Public Service Announcement from the Theory Society.

-------

Frank:

That's an excellent first try (unlike the hockey stick), and I had in my mind more of the 30-second cry famously on the Spanish-language football games. When I get a chance, I'll link to a .wav, but I have a deadline and have to walk down to pick up the kid, so it might not be today...but we're onto something here.

Best,

D

Oh my. 96 percent of astrologers believe that Pieces are dreamers -- There is an important "consensus"....The truth is, AGW is a RELIGION; and the "climate scientists" are its high priests. Their livlihood depends on the perpetuation of the myth. What do you expect them to say?

By george h. (not verified) on 22 Jan 2009 #permalink

AGW is a RELIGION; and the "climate scientists" are its high priests. Their livlihood depends on the perpetuation of the myth. What do you expect them to say?

You know what else is a RELIGION? The faith that HIV causes AIDS and immunologists and virologists are its high priests. If they didn't perpetuate this ridiculous myth, their livelihood would disappear! I think I know what I'd expect them to say!

You got one thing right George: these results are hardly a great surprise.

Of course, this study is of no value whatsoever. It doesn't squash the pertuating myth that a dissenting body of publishing scientists exists, and no crap-filled documentaries or op-ed pieces have ever tried to spread that myth.

#70: bi - IJI:
Way to completely ignore the point of my comment. The point of my comment was that Pielke received the same exact percentage of scientists responding that CO2 was having an effect on the Earth's temperatures. Yet, he went further and asked more specific questions that revealed something different about the nature of the current scientific opinion than implied by this article.

I'm in general agreement with Carl in 83: man has scr*wed up a lot of sh*t on the earth.

This agreement, however, does not diminish the importance of emissions reductions. AFAIAC, if we can get land-use restrictions enacted as well, we'll be well on our way toward a much-needed cleanup.

------

As far as the boilerplate talking points in 80: so what.

Best,

D

george h.:

AGW is a RELIGION; and the "climate scientists" are its high priests. Their livlihood depends on the perpetuation of the myth.

And not just the climate scientists are in on it but also the atmospheric science university lecturers, their universities, the text-book printers and the vast majority of other scientists. This is the biggest conspiracy of all time that's gone on for more than a hundred years. The scientists of more than a hundred years ago knew they could create research grant opportunities for climate scientists a hundred years in the future if they lied about the science even though it made no difference to their own livelihoods. That's right george h., this is the biggest conspiracy of all time.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 22 Jan 2009 #permalink

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
Marcus Aurelius (AD 121-180)

By george h. (not verified) on 22 Jan 2009 #permalink

So you're feeling trapped there george h.

Yet, he went further and asked more specific questions that revealed something different about the nature of the current scientific opinion than implied by this article.

Well, yes, 50%-70% say CO2-driving warming is as bad or worse than the IPCC states.

15%-20% say the IPCC exaggerates the *relative* importance of CO2 forcing, compared to OTHER ANTHROPOGENIC FORCINGS. Not exactly an indictment of the IPCC AR4.

No climate scientist who was polled agreed with the notion that it's all a fraud ...

#89: dhogaza:
"15%-20% say the IPCC exaggerates the relative importance of CO2 forcing, compared to OTHER ANTHROPOGENIC FORCINGS. Not exactly an indictment of the IPCC AR4."
This is not a correct representation of the minority positions taken in the poll.
These are the positions represented by the 15-20% from the paper:
"1. There is no warming; it is a fabrication based on inaccurate/inappropriate measurement. Human activity is not having any significant effect on Climate. The data on which such assumptions are made is so compromised as to be worthless. The physical science basis of AGW theory is founded on a false hypothesis.

2. Any recent warming is most likely natural. Human input of CO2 has very little to do with it. Solar, naturally varying water vapour and similar variables can explain most or all of the climate changes. Projections based on Global Climate Models are unreliable because these are based on too many assumptions and unreliable datasets.

3. There are changes in the atmosphere, including added CO2 from human activities, but significant climate effects are likely to be all within natural limits. The âscaresâ are exaggerations with a political motive. The undue emphasis on CO2 diverts attention away from other, important research on climate variability and change.

4. There is warming and the human addition of CO2 causes some of it, but the science is too uncertain to be confident about current attributions of the precise role of CO2 with respect to other climate forcings. The IPCC WG1 overestimates the role of CO2 relative to other forcings, including a diverse variety of human climate forcings."

So george h. believes that GLOBUL WARMINS A SCAY-UM!!!!!!!! and that 97% of all climatologists are deliberately lying.

And to prove this, he quotes Marcus Aurelius.

George:

It has been known for 150 years that CO2 has essentially no effect on the incoming radiation from the sun, but reduces the amount of energy leaving Earth. It's also been known for over 50 years that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has been increasing and that this comes from human activities. There is no known negative feedback mechanism that reduces the effect of CO2 (indeed, water vapour provides a strong positive feedback mechanism). Where exactly do you disagree with this assessment and what is your evidence?

By Richard Simons (not verified) on 22 Jan 2009 #permalink

George,
you forgot to mention Gallileo. Maybe that story would be pretty convincing in this situation?

By Brain Hertz (not verified) on 22 Jan 2009 #permalink

The physical science basis of AGW theory is founded on a false hypothesis.

Sigh.

Too bad that denialists have no testable hypotheses of their own, so I guess it's all one big guess and we should not change what we're doing because, golly, it might cost us an' stuff, right big guy?

Gee, I wonder where I've heard that tired line before. 774,223 times. And it's no more true now despite the repetition.

Any wonder why denialists get laughed at here? They haven't brought anything good in years. Years.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Best,

D

For the earlier study, it's worth rereading discussion at Fergus' place, in which some of us (including ones sympathetic to the general idea) expressed some constructive concerns, in detail. In particular, you might read the reasons why I would likely have rejected it as it stood [or maybe Accept with major changes], which had nothing to do with the results, but with the awkward form of the questions and the unnecessarily confusing explanations of the results.

I can't say I was impressed by EOS's handling, but on the other hand, editors can be busy, and while I try to give constructive feedback when I'm being an editor or program committee chair, it takes time.

I'll admit I'm not really keen on these nonparametric polls, but at least the second one was less complex.

In any case (carl #90), exactly 0 people selected:

"1. There is no warming; it is a fabrication based on inaccurate/inappropriate measurement. Human activity is not having any significant effect on Climate..."
====
As noted in #74, survey methodology is studied heavily by social scientists and marketing folks, and their skills are relevant.

Good survey construction is nontrivial. I wouldn't do one, even in an area where I was a domain knowledge expert, without actively enlisting several experienced survey experts, hopefully who'd done surveys in that or nearby domains before.

By John Mashey (not verified) on 22 Jan 2009 #permalink

george h.,

Have you heard that Eli Rabett commands a secret cadre of techno-mice.
The space mice recalibrate earth observing satellites. A crack team of sea mice do the same to data buoys. There really is no area of the instrumental data that is free from the attentions of these rodents.

Be afurred, be very afurred.

By ScaredAmoeba (not verified) on 22 Jan 2009 #permalink

I find the confidence with which the denialists expound their ignorance of science to be quite amusing, if not sad. Dano sums it up in his last post. Carl's post is a case in point: he writes,

"Any recent warming is most likely natural. Human input of CO2 has very little to do with it. Solar, naturally varying water vapour and similar variables can explain most or all of the climate changes".

Well, there you have it. A layman's view expressed as if it is a cast-iron fact. Forget the thousands of peer-reviewed studies which more-or-less prove otherwise. Forget the pretty large consensus in the scientific community (of which I am part). Forget the latest IPCC report, and the views expressed by just about every National Academy of Science in every nation on Earth. Forget the conferences and workshops where scientists meet and discuss the issues. Let the laymen prevail! Down with the scientific community!

Sigh. It gets depressing having to deal with this nonsense on a continual basis.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 22 Jan 2009 #permalink

Bi,

Thanks for the clarification. But I still see Pielke's view as an exception. No one denies there are a few prominent sceptics, but therer are many, many more statured scientists on the other side. That's the crux of the matter.

Best,

Jeff

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 22 Jan 2009 #permalink

The meaning in Marcus Aurelius's "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." is clear, but george h evidently misunderstands that meaning completely.

Carl claims:

These are the positions represented by the 15-20% from the paper: "1. There is no warming; it is a fabrication based on inaccurate/inappropriate measurement. Human activity is not having any significant effect on Climate...

From Pielke's summary of the poll.

No scientists were willing to admit to the statement that global warming is a fabrication and that human activity is not having any significant effect on climate [0%].

Carl, if you're going to lie, try lying about something that can't be checked for accuracy quite so easily, eh?

dhogaza, you have to realize that most people DON'T FTFL (web speak for RTFR). Therefore most places you CAN say anything with the expectation that there will be no follow up. TV is a great example. Sid the Science Kid OTOH knows that it is important and does, which makes the Carl's of the world look very silly and unhappy.

(PS Rabett labs is recruiting single cell organisms to deal with these newfangled microelectronic thingies good pay, a challenging and interesting environment, some travel required)

I agree with John Mashey overall with the issues surrounding surveys.

As a grad student, our team quickly abandoned an excellent project because getting our survey through Human Subjects was too painful.

For the reasons described above, I have yet to bring up this survey. Not only because of survey design issues, but it's just another list. The body of empirical evidence is good enough. When we get into surveys, we're talking about opinion.

And denialists & the denial industry feeding misinformation to the credulous know full well that opinions are like --holes - everyone has one and everyone's stinks but yours.

Best,

D

> And denialists & the denial industry feeding misinformation to the credulous know full well that opinions are like --holes - everyone has one and everyone's stinks but yours.

Not really. In the case of climate science, since we're not all climate scientists, we can't be expected to simply digest the "facts" (scientific papers) on our own, so it's useful to get a handle on the informed opinion of scientists opining on, well, their own work.

Of course, if you already have a boatload of factual background knowledge in your particular field, then you don't really need an opinion poll to tell you what the field's about.

it's useful to get a handle on the informed opinion of scientists opining on, well, their own work.

YMMV, but IME Frank, I think it is too easy to FUD this process with 650 scientists, 31,000 scientists, etc.

Far better to say that there are well over a thousand empirical papers finding support for climate change being man made, and at best maybe 3 papers dissenting and zero papers finding that natural cycles is the reason and CO2 has no effect on temps.

My opinion.

Best,

D

re: Pielke(s)

An oddity is the conjunction of:

Colorado beetle infestation

and Prometheus. I searched there for "beetle" but found no mention, so I did post some discussion at the Rocky Mountain News site above. Anyone reading this from Colorado might want to contribute.

By John Mashey (not verified) on 23 Jan 2009 #permalink

Carl in #60 quotes Pielke. Pielke says clearly here that the majority of climatologists agree with the IPCC view, while equal minorities think it's too high or too low. The only addition to knowledge here is confirmation that the IPCC process correctly represents the mean opinion of experts, and isn't biased either way by a cabal of alarmists/denialists.

Doesn't imply the mean view is correct. The institutional biases - delays in data and publication, concerns over professional status - surely bias towards excessive caution. The bias towards extreme views lies in the public communication of science, not in the underlying professional work. Newspapers and TV are interested in contributions saying the IPCC is wrong either way, not that it's right.

John, What do I contribute? To more recent stories?

Best,

D

Dano:

I think knowledgeable Coloradoans could usefully contribute by pointing out in local papers/blogs the relevant contributions (in various directions) of their neighbors. The new paper on tree deaths in Science, for example, has one author (Veblen) from U Colorado, and of course, NCAR is in Boulder.

On the other hand, in my posting [some strange date sorting at that site], I noted Roger Pielke's advocacy, and perhaps more people in CO should be aware of that as well.

By John Mashey (not verified) on 23 Jan 2009 #permalink

The new paper on tree deaths in Science

Also on that paper is Jerry Franklin, of UW, who as a grad student quantified nesting territory sizes of the northern spotted owls, eventually leading to a slew of interesting legal and political events.

Poor dude has spent much of his life documenting the effects of our direct (management decisions to convert to even-aged managed stands etc) and indirect destruction (climate change) of our PNW forests.

#101 Dhogaza:
I did some bad copy/pasting. Instead of reading 1,2,3,4, the options list 1,1,2,3. The scientists were given seven positions to take: these are the four arguments that are classified as the minority position we are discussing. I posted them to show that the minority did not attribute global warming to other human activity as you claimed. It doesn't matter that I included option #1. My argument is not effected.

Plus, part of my argument has been that no scientists think that the globe isn't working. So, you're accusation that I was lying would suggest that I was lying to disprove myself. Why would I do that?

Eli Rabbett #102: Silly and Unhappy? This is why I rarely venture onto these blogs. Debate is impossible, and personal attacks begin immediately. And you are a prominent blogger; I don't see Steve M running around telling people they are silly and unhappy.

James #107: That is true. But the poll does suggest that there is no consensus about the sensitivity of the climate system to increases in CO2 concentration.

> I posted them to show that the minority did not attribute global warming to other human activity as you claimed. It doesn't matter that I included option #1. My argument is not effected.

Yes, it is affected. A "minority opinion" that's held by zero people is, well, not a "minority opinion". It's just a dead theory.

> This is why I rarely venture onto these blogs. Debate is impossible, and personal attacks begin immediately.

I get it. You venture into blog, it's so that you can be attacked and then claim persecution.

I posted them to show that the minority did not attribute global warming to other human activity as you claimed.

Nor did claim this, because question 3, which in practice is what was chosen by the "dissenters", agrees that CO2 is causing warming, only that the IPCC is overestimating it. It was Pielke in his blog who read beyond the "including other human impacts" and suggested it meant CO2 + other human impacts, and that's what I quoted. Not much difference, though.

bi--IJI #112:
Please re-read my posts and Pielke's paper. The minority opinion that the IPCC has exaggerated CO2 sensitivity is held by 15-20% of the climate scientists. The opinion that global warming has not taken place is held by 0% of the scientists. My statement about personal attacks was responding to Rabbett, who called me silly and unhappy and speculated that I had poor intentions. I would call that a personal attack, rather than a substantive argument.

dhogaza:
So what's the argument? 15-20% of climate scientists believe that the IPCC has exaggerated CO2 sensitivity according to the Pielke poll. The poll is consistent with the poll being presented here that CO2 is causing some warming; both polls show this number to be 97%.

Carl:

At this point you're simply repeating, repeating, repeating Pielke Sr.'s 'conclusions'.

PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!!

Bleh.

I think the moment the science was declared settled, the game for climate change catastrophe a la Al Gore was up.
Plainly, the science is definitely not settled.
Plenty of erudite people around the world still continue to point out the uncertainties and contradictions.
The time has probably arrived for an agreement that yes, the planet is warming,yes, we may have a small part to play in that warming, and yes, natural climate oscillation is also involved.

bi--IJI #116:

Everyone has been misrepresenting Pielke's paper. I have been attempting to clarify his conclusions, though they are rather clear on their own. I have presented you with a paper that finds results different from your assumptions. Screaming via comments is not an argument.

Also, "Personal attacks on other commenters [Eli Rabbett] and other attempts to disrupt discussion [you] will be disemvowelled."

bi--IJI #116:

Everyone has been misrepresenting Pielke's paper. I have been attempting to clarify his conclusions, though they are rather clear on their own. I have presented you with a paper that finds results different from your assumptions. Screaming via comments is not an argument.

Also, "Personal attacks on other commenters [Eli Rabbett] and other attempts to disrupt discussion [you] will be disemvowelled."

> Al Gore

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLLL GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORE!!!!!!!!111111

> I have been attempting to clarify his conclusions,

You mean you've been regurgitating them. Even though it's clear that we don't agree with his (or your) analysis and 'conclusions', you just keep regurgitating them.

PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!!

Plainly, the science is definitely not settled

It is not settled that a plane that has a 90% chance of crashing will crash. Therefore we will use the plane.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 24 Jan 2009 #permalink

Carl is even more misinformed than dhogza points out. Not only did 0 scientists choose 1, but only 6 scientists chose the numbers 1-3 that he quoted above--and of those six, half marked their opinion as between 3 and 4.

Mislead much, Carl?

Mislead much, Carl?

15-20% or 97% possibly?

All of you need to read the paper in its entirety and stop accusing others of misleading when you yourself are misrepresenting the conclusions. Boris: I labelled options 1,1,2,3 above. I then corrected myself and said they should read 1,2,3,4. 18 scientists responded by marking in or around option four. Options 1 through 4 represent the minority opinion of 15-20%. I have already posted those options. This is ridiculous that we're still arguing about what the paper says; it's a rather straight forward poll. If you disagree with his methods, make an argument.

Carl,

I don't object to the methods of the survey--though there are some issues. What I object to is denialists using the survey to argue that there is some huge contingent of scientists who disagree with the IPCC.

What Fergus Brown's survey shows is that the IPCC did a damn good job of describing the middle ground of climate science. Therefore, it becomes an extremely useful metric for how we should move forward in terms of policy.

Sorry I missed your correction.

Boris -
I agree with you that the IPCC represents the middle ground of the current climate science community. At the same time, the Pielke poll does show that there is not a consensus on the issue. Is that not correct?

bi-IJI -
"Even though it's clear that we don't agree with his (or your) analysis and 'conclusions'"
Actually, no one has been arguing about the validity of his conclusions, only the nature of them.
But since you seem not to agree with his conclusions, tell me where in his methods he went wrong.

I don't see Steve M running around telling people they are silly and unhappy.

No, Steve just sits behind his blog, broadcasting spurious insinuations of fraud.

That's so much less slanderous than being called silly.

There isn't anything much sillier than the self-righteous silliness of a silly man's silly whining about silly sarcastic comments on blogs.

Happy now, Carl?

By luminous beauty (not verified) on 24 Jan 2009 #permalink

luminous beauty:
Here in the world of civil behavior, one realizes that if you attach bad intentions to everyone who disagrees with you, no progress is made because debate is impossible. Even if you think that a person is being dishonest, it will be much more productive if you defeat him or her in debate rather than refuse to debate and call him or her names.

If however, you would like to actually debate about Steve M's work with Michael Mann's paleoclimate studies, rather than throwing out sarcastic comments, I would respond.

I really couldn't care less that Rabbett called me silly and unhappy; in fact I laughed. I was merely commenting on the surprising lack of professionalism.

I agree with you that the IPCC represents the middle ground of the current climate science community. At the same time, the Pielke poll does show that there is not a consensus on the issue. Is that not correct?

Not correct.

The middle ground is the consensus. The outlier opinions do not qualitatively depart from the consensus in any meaningful way, but only by degree with respect to the uncertainties specified within the consensus. They don't represent any distinct competing theoretical understanding other than that represented by the consensus.

One might think a reasonably objective critic would acknowledge that the likelihood of the mean consensus values being over estimations is at least of the same likelihood of being under estimations. A knowledgeable and honest critic would recognize the long-tailed distributions indicating the slightly higher likelihood of their being under estimations.

By luminous beauty (not verified) on 24 Jan 2009 #permalink

If however, you would like to actually debate about Steve M's work with Michael Mann's paleoclimate studies, rather than throwing out sarcastic comments, I would respond.

Debating McIntyre's many scurrilous and egregious misrepresentations and distortions in his ongoing efforts at defamation would be silly and pointless.

By luminous beauty (not verified) on 24 Jan 2009 #permalink

luminous beauty:
You're making this too complicated. Consensus is defined as an opinion reached by a group as a whole. In this case, "whole" would represent 80-85%. Is 80-85% enough to make a consensus? Certainly a large majority, but not consensus.
And you're right, debate is pointless. Making unfounded statements about others' character and then running from having to defend them is much preferable.

By luminous beauty (not verified) on 24 Jan 2009 #permalink

Carl:

> But since you seem not to agree with his conclusions, tell me where in his methods he went wrong.

You have been told numerous times already, but you simply ignore them. Why should I expect that you'll listen this time round?

> In this case, "whole" would represent 80-85%.

See? See?

PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!! PIELKE SAID THIS!!!!!!!!!!!

Everyone has been misrepresenting Pielke's paper.

Well, no, only one person has been seriously misrepresenting Pielke's paper, using it to claim that there's no consensus among climate scientists that AGW due to CO2 forcing is a very real thing.

Pielke's paper shows a bit of a bell curve with by far the largest segment of respondents saying the IPCC conclusions are right on, with far smaller numbers saying "it's underestimating" or "it's overestimating" (*not* EXAGGERATING, which is a loaded word implying intent, rather than a simple reflection that there's still more to learn, and future knowledge might kick things a bit one way or the other).

Quibbling over details does not overturn the fact that there's an overwhelming consensus among those polled that our dumping of CO2 into the atmosphere is warming the planet.

re: #133 dhogaza

It *looks* like a bell curve, but it isn't because it's *non-parametric* data. Again, I really suggest rereading the discussion at Fergus' website. I'm no survey expert, but even I saw obvious issues with that study [arising from working with/managing social scientists on occasion], and once again:

do *not* do surveys without expert help.

By John Mashey (not verified) on 24 Jan 2009 #permalink

Tim Lambert - Where did my post go? It was civil and non-disruptive - opposite of many posts on here.

Carl:

Comment #131 looks like it was addressed to luminous beauty, but also created by luminous beauty. Any chance you copied and pasted the name accidentally?

About #131
If it actually belongs to Carl...does it mean he managed to mislead someone...himself?

Concerning #131, that was by me. I could have accidentilly typed his name there when I was trying to type it in the text, though I can't imagine having done that.

The post that didn't show up was responding to #133 and #134 that 80-85% does not make a consensus. It is certainly a large majority, but to use the word consensus (regardless of the statistical spread) would be incorrect.

My take was that Carl has a secret crush on LB, and it was his unspoken amour that caused him to sign off thusly.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 26 Jan 2009 #permalink

> The post that didn't show up was responding to #133 and #134 that 80-85% does not make a consensus.

You mean your 'response' to #133 and #134 happens to be an exact same copy of #131?

Well, that may explain why it got 'censored'. Perhaps you should, well, try to actually say something different the next time round.

Carl,

Your 80-85% includes those who think that the IPCC underestimates the seriousness of AGW.

You'd be strengthening your argument by including those as outside the consensus as well.

Your bias is showing.

By luminous beauty (not verified) on 26 Jan 2009 #permalink

OK people. Not that hard. Here's the bottom line, with no red herrings in an incredibly simple format to replace the logic that commenters refuse to use.

Hypothesis: There is a consensus among climatologists that global warming is being caused by humans.

Evidence: 80-85% of climatologists believe that global warming is being caused by humans.

Therefore, the hypothesis is false.

I'm done with this blog.

Guess what?

Carl simply repeats himself... again!

And again.

And again.

And again.

Of course, when another copy of Carl's identical comments somehow decided to disappear down a black hole, it's evidence of a Vast Warmist Inquisition To Silence The Brave Galileo.

Republican communications strategist Frank Luntz, quoted by Joseph Romm:

> There's a simple rule: You say it again, and you say it again, and you say it again, and you say it again, and you say it again, and then again and again and again and again, and about the time that you're absolutely sick of saying it is about the time that your target audience has heard it for the first time.

Never mind whether the science is sound. Just repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat your claim, and it's proven. QED.

While I'm disappointed with the inconsistent decisions of EOS regarding the Brown, Annan and Pielke paper vs the Doran & Zimmerman, I'd like to point out that the former's conclusion, viz:

A significant minority (15-20%), however, conclude that the IPCC understated the seriousness of the threat from human additions of CO2 .

A significant minority (15-20%), in contrast, conclude that the IPCC overstated the role of human additions of CO2 relative to other climate forcings.

Almost all respondents (at least 97%) conclude that the human addition of CO2 into the atmosphere is an important component of the climate system and has contributed to some extent in recent observed global average warming.

is entirely consistent with the IPCC being a fair statement of the scientific consensus and is also entirely consistent with the Doran & Zimmerman result.

EOS should review their decision regarding Brown et al. Also, the whole way results are reviewed and accepted desperately needs revisiting.

None of this changes the fact that the debate should be centered at the IPCC position, rather than casting the IPCC as extreme. IPCC's charge is to find the exact center, which they seem to have done. The so-called "skeptical" position is not represented in science any more than the position of those "skeptical" of evolution, and for the same reason.

It is not arrogance, closed-mindedness or hunger for power that excludes these positions from the debate. It is that the excluded positions are not consistent with the evidence. That is to say, wrong.

John Mashey:

Been sporting in 2ft of fresh powder.

RP Sr actually is quite sensible away from climate and I cited his work on the recent big drought (conclusion: Colo society is less resilient to drought today than in the past).

And the voices here are quite sanguine about what is happening here, as one tends to get that way when you go in the mountains and look up at the hillsides. Had to find alternate snowshoe routes this past weekend as planned routes were closed due to beetle kill.

Best,

D

At long last:

"My administration will not deny facts - we will be guided by them."

Barack Obama, January 26, 2009.

re: #148
Dano: I envy you the powder; I'm at Big White, and we haven't gotten much, actually the least I've seen in years. [This is of course weather, so I expect next year to better.]

Note that my comment on Pielke was more directed to Prometheus, i.e., Jr.

I guess the general thing is that in some of these polls (like the Pew poll that's floating around), a topic like "economics", to most people *really* means "you might lose your job and your house", whereas, for many people, "global warming" means it might get a little warmer.

I.e., we have two generalities, but for one of them, people associate specific and short-term possible downsides, whereas for the other they don't. In addition, the specific downsides vary widely by geography.

Hence, an idea is that people might get more specific like:

"How will it be if you lose every lodgepole pine in CO?"

"How will it be for you in NM, AZ, OK if your grandchildren must move somewhere else, due to lack of water?"

Put another way, "adaptation" sounds fine, because it has little real specific meanings for most people...

By John Mashey (not verified) on 26 Jan 2009 #permalink

bi posts:

Republican communications strategist Frank Luntz, quoted by Joseph Romm:

There's a simple rule: You say it again, and you say it again, and you say it again, and you say it again, and you say it again, and then again and again and again and again, and about the time that you're absolutely sick of saying it is about the time that your target audience has heard it for the first time.

Never mind whether the science is sound. Just repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat your claim, and it's proven. QED.

Joe Goebbels thought of it first. Maybe Mr. Luntz has been reading Herr Dr. G....

Hence, an idea is that people might get more specific like:

"How will it be if you lose every lodgepole pine in CO?"

"How will it be for you in NM, AZ, OK if your grandchildren must move somewhere else, due to lack of water?"

Put another way, "adaptation" sounds fine, because it has little real specific meanings for most people...

We need a couple of more years here until we get vast tracts of barren hillsides, as in SE British Columbia, before people can picture these things. I have, me, a tree guy, a hard time picturing the Rockies minus 90-95% of all lodgepole. When it hits them in their pocketbook - higher water, sewer rates, hotter, economy less resilient because skiing suffers - then it might help, if we don't get too many Republicans blaming it on lib'rulllllls.

Best,

D

re: picturing lodgepoles gone [and spruce, and ...]

Consider hooking up with some graphics artist or Photoshopping some familiar pictures of CO. Alternatively, somebody must have time-lapse photo-series, and then one could do projections, as in animated maps at British Columbia beetle website. There are also satellite images.

Likewise, the ski companies should be thinking about this. [I assume they are, the Sierra ones are, and there's some overlapping ownership.]

Part of the communication problem [apart from the random non-science and purposeful anti-science noise] is that explicit, recognizable effects need to be communicated, and pictures and animations really help, and they have to be specific, like the sea-level planning in the SF Bay Area. When I attended that, I was struck by the number of local government and city planners who were quite serious about taking action for 50 or 100 years away.

In addition, every effort must be made to avoid casting this as an inevitable Democrat-vs-Republican thing, as that only helps the anti-science folks. After all, in some places, Republicans worry about this just as much as Democrats - Gov. Schwarzenegger comes to mind, or the
"green elephant" folks at Republicans for Environmental Protection. [I'm Independent, but I observe that the fairly narrow anti-science interests have successfully manipulated many Republicans in ways that are actually against the latter's self-interest or their descendents'. Think of terrorists in a crowd throwing rocks, hoping that someone shoots back and hits innocent bystanders.]

By John Mashey (not verified) on 27 Jan 2009 #permalink

This raises serious questions. Namely how did the 3% manage to get jobs in this extremely cliquey field?

Ben (#154): "This raises serious questions. Namely how did the 3% manage to get jobs in this extremely cliquey field?"

1) That's only one question. What are the others?

2) What is your evidence that this field is any more or less "cliquey" than any other? How do you measure "cliquiness"?

Ben, paraphrased:

The fact that the field of climate science has 3% of climate 'skeptics' (according to the survey), and isn't like the monolithic Inquisition in the extreme right's wet dreams... well, that certainly raises the question of why it's not like a monolithic Inquisition so that the extreme right can criticize it for being a monolithic Inquisition.

These people's 'logic' never amaze me.

How do you measure "cliquiness"?

Number of pens in pocket protector.

This has been a public service answer by the Society to Expose Tired, Overwrought Hasty Generalizations Promulgated by Proprietors of Character Assassination Blogs.

Best,

D

Here's another scientist who is skeptical for you yahoos to try and discredit. I suggest the label "denier" or "shill for big oil". But you know how to play that game better than I.

Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASAâs vocal man-made global warming fear soothsayer, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that Hansen âembarrassed NASAâ with his alarming climate claims and said Hansen was âwas never muzzled.â Theon joins the rapidly growing ranks of international scientists abandoning the promotion of man-made global warming fears.

"Here's another scientist who is skeptical for you yahoos to try and discredit."

Well I wanted to but then you wrote:
"RETIRED senior NASA atmospheric scientist"

And I just looked at the original post again and read "Active Publishers" and I realized that you had already done that.

I mean really, its like giving someone a sudoku puzzle with the numbers already filled in.

Thank you for your credulous cut-paste from a Marc Morano-fueled press release, george H.

Do the ideological sites that prey on the gullible describe 'rapidly increasing' precisely?

That is: do they tell the gullible rubes that they define "rapidly" as "from two to three - 50% !!!! Whoo-hoo!!! Goooooooaaaaaaaaaallllll!!!! Algooooooooooooooooooooooooooorrrrreeeee!

Best,

D

The list of climate 'skeptics' is obviously "rapidly growing" if each and every new 'skeptic' must be announced with a big blaring headline.

Kirsten Byrnes! ...drum rolls...
David Evans! ...drum rolls...
Harrison Schmitt! ...drum rolls...

Frank, their list obviously needs to be audited, as the increase has a hockey stick shape and the amount of their hot air emissions has been cooling since 1998. Perhaps someone can go take pictures of these "list" occupants.

Best,

D

and said Hansen was âwas never muzzled.â

Hansen never claimed he was muzzled prior to 1994 - which is when Theon retired.

And Theon is in no position to judge whether or not Hansen was muzzled by a bush political appointee more than a decade after he retired.

And if he's going to claim in public that climate scientists are guilty of scientific fraud - he'd better be prepared to back that up with hard cites and data.

And if he's going to claim in public that climate scientists are guilty of scientific fraud - he'd better be prepared to back that up with hard cites and data.

Why? They don't do it now. Has something changed? Jupiter is in the Third House of the sun and Taurus is rising?

IOW: they do not have the same standards and facts that others do.

Best,

D

So, George h, you think it's a bad thing that climate scientists aren't being "muzzled"?

Please, be precise.

Exactly how much, on what basis and by whom should their voices be "muzzled"?

Should a tribunal be established? SHould its hearings be held in secret or in public?

What punishments do you have in mind?

Do you envisage public self-criticism sessions, perhaps, or maybe even show trials for criminal opinion-expressers?

Perhaps the Department of Homeland Security might be usefully employed in this endeavour.

And is, in this case, the presumption of innocence a luxury we can no longer afford?

You can't just have people going around exercising their so-called "right" to free speech, especially if they disagree with you.

Such inefficient straying from the harmonious path of glorious unified thought!

I mean, It's OK for us here in Australia, we have no standards, but not in the USA, surely not! A nation can't lead the free world if it has to content with disagreements and squabbles breaking out all over the place.

Perhaps you could get some advice on how to proceed from someone who's worked through these difficult issues.

Like Kim Jong-il, for instance...

Dano:

> Frank, their list obviously needs to be audited, as the increase has a hockey stick shape

Hockey stick shape? I could've sworn that the trend in the number of climate 'skeptics' is shaped like a spoon. And if there's one thing you can do with spoons, it's the Uri Geller trick.

There is no spoon.

> Perhaps someone can go take pictures of these "list" occupants.

Oh, and volcanoes. If it's not Urban Heat Islands, then it's obviously volcanoes.

There's a volcano under the bed.

Ah.

Maybe the increase is in a spork shape. And even satellites show their hot air emissions have cooled since 1998 (coincidentally with MBH?).

Best,

D

Gaz et al,

Sorry I was flippant but it seemed like the most appropriate comment for such a silly post. Are we voting on facts now? The most votes = a fact?

Can I vote that we are all rich? Imagine how sweet that would be? We could all be rich you guys! Let's have a vote on that fact.

Dano:

> Maybe the increase is in a spork shape.

A spork? Is that some sort of cross between a spoon and ... a hockey stick? Argh!

Oh, I'm glad I came back to catch up on this blog - the fun I've been missing. If I'd been drinking milk, it would have gotten in my nose from the belly laughing.

Not to get all serious on you, but I've been busy updating my own list of climate scientists and wannabes, sorted by citation count. I've got stats for all 619 IPCC AR4 wg1 authors and some 500 others, plus a queue of 700 more that need counting.

I found a stack of public declarations and open letters and I've annotated who signed which - six skeptical and four activist. I haven't even scratched the surface of the 1700 names on the Union of Concerned Scientists 2008 activist statement (I've got the list, just not the time to process the names!)

I've got a page discussing petitions, the second half of:

http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/petitions.html

where I point out that the OISM petition is little more than a list from the general public, so it should best be compared to, e.g. the 2.6 MILLION signatures on the joint Avaaz + 9 groups Bali appeal.

Also see my Green Herring blog for some discussion on what I've been up to with the listings:
http://birdbrainscan.blogspot.com

Thanks again to all for a really fun thread!

__1) re #29__
Running the same WoodForTrees trend "analysis" starting from 2001 generates a sharp downward trend line. Although slightly shorter than a decade, I hope this method helps demonstrate the uselessness of linear trends derived from unsmoothed anomalous data.
__2) re #92__
Actually, water vapour can be a positive feedback (as gas) or a negative, reflective feedback (as clouds). This is one reason why I consider a large positive feedback resulting from water vapour somewhat dubious.

__SKEPTICAL AND PROUD!__

Clouds are condensed water, not vapour.

And water absorbs IR as well. It pretty much balances the albedo effect.

By luminous beauty (not verified) on 07 Feb 2009 #permalink

1) re #29 Running the same WoodForTrees trend "analysis" starting from 2001 generates a sharp downward trend line. Although slightly shorter than a decade, I hope this method helps demonstrate the uselessness of linear trends derived from unsmoothed anomalous data.

you obviously don t know what you are talking about.
i don t know what you mean with "unsmoothed anomalous data", but we are aware of noisy jumps in global temperature data. that is why we think that trends should be calculated over LONGER periods of time.
try 30 years, instead of 8, for once...

btw, can you give any scientific reason for your choice of a 8 year period???

Alex T:

Actually, water vapour can be a positive feedback (as gas) or a negative, reflective feedback (as clouds).

The only evidence with any credibility is that clouds probably generate a substantial global positive feedback but with a low probability that the feedback is small and negative. There is no credible evidence at all that clouds generate a negative feedback as large in magnitude as the positive feedback from the sum of water vapor and lapse rate feedback.

This is one reason why I consider a large positive feedback resulting from water vapour somewhat dubious.

The really dubious thing is when people assume without evidence that cloud feedback is large and negative. i.e. when asked if we should keep increasing the CO2 level in the atmosphere they just say, no problem, we'll just assume without evidence that cloud feedback is large and negative.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 08 Feb 2009 #permalink

I cannot believe how anyone trained in science and logic can take this subject heading seriously. It is laughable. The conclusion "97% of active climatologists agree that human activity is causing global warming" does not relate to the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?â

Anyone with training in ecology will agree to the question. The question does not include "warming" Neither does it quantify "significant" or "changing" Changing by how much?? over what period?? Photosynthetic marine organisms can also fall into the category along with thousands of other species on Earth. We need cold, hard DATA and lots lots more of it. We simply do not have enough yet. WE DO NOT KNOW!!!!! Climatology is still a very young and extremely complex science.

As a trained scientist I see the politicisation of this question as being our prime global tragedy. A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Mike Carter MSc Earth Science

By Michael Carter (not verified) on 10 Apr 2009 #permalink

Mike Carter, with no disrespect, your view is at odds with the vast majority of the scientific community that goes well beyond climate science.

I agree, speaking as a senior scientist, that we have to be cautious in making policy recommendations on the basis of what we do know. But your argument is as illogical as it is unscientific. The fact that you have an MSc in Earth Science means nix. Your advice appears to be wait until all of the data are in - and by then it will be much too late. I have a PhD in population ecology and I've been doing research for almost 20 years, but I defer to the recommendations of the latest IPCC report in which thousands of experts in the field contributed. The document was multiply peer-reviewed and no extreme views were allowed to dominate the published version.

We know that humans are by now a global force that is disrupting processes generated over vast spatial and temporal scales. We also know that, in simplifying complex adaptive systems, we are pushing them towards a threshold beyond whcih they will be unable to sustain themselves in a manner which is important for our own survival. I am sorry to rain on your parade, but urgent actions are needed NOW if we to avoid the potentially serious consequences of anthropogenic changes. Actually, these words were spoken 20 years ago by some of the most senior scientists on Earth, yet the well-funded forces of denial have ensured that procastrination has continued until now.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 10 Apr 2009 #permalink

Firstly, I would dispute your claim that my views are "at odds with the vast majority of the scientific community" There is a major portion of research scientists out there doing the job they are trained to do; apply the scientific method. True to their training they will not exclaim any profound conclusions until evidence is far beyong reasonable doubt.

The IPCC report consclusion was that anthropogenic impact is probably having a significant influence on world climate. No doubt. But more than the industrial revolution, or major asteroid strikes or volcanic eruptions?

I am a sedimentary geologist. I study rocks that display significant climatic changes dating back tens of millions of years. Our Earth survives through regulatory feed-back systems. Small oscillations are normal. When climate stops changing, start worrying. Ecology functions on continual challenges and changes. Nothing is exempt.

Already the âguilty partiesâ are being taxed billions of dollars each year. Within a few years it will be trillions. So, if the climate suddenly starts to cool within the next 15 years (as it is quite likely to do) will the money be refunded? Or will that change also be the fault of nasty multinationals and industrialists? People will be exclaiming "We saved the world!"

12 months ago an American âexpertâ came to my country to advice us what percentage of our national greenhouse gas emission was coming form ruminating farm animals. He had the figure down to an exact figure. Clever man. Our Government tried to impose a tax on the bases of the this report. Had he figures of (for example) natural emission of methane from our submarine oil fields? Or how much fart-methane was being generated over New York City? Now, that would not make headlines would it? Much of our farm land was once extensive marshland. How does current methane emissions compare with historical? Politicians and alarmists do not want to know. Most are incapable of thinking in a logical, statistical manner. Apparently quantification is not necessary.

Politicians from my country are now strutting around the world stages gloating on how they are âenvironmental heros" â on the backs of ordinary people providing for the needs of ordinary people.

I might not be a 'Senior scientist' but I will never allow political or socialistic views to comprimise my training. They burnt Galileo didn't they??

By Michael Carter (not verified) on 13 Apr 2009 #permalink

Michael Carter .... yet another geologist who thinks human lives happen on geological time scales?

Michael,

You have lost me there. First you write, "So, if the climate suddenly starts to cool within the next 15 years (as it is quite likely to do)..."

Says who? You? And a few other contrarians? Given what we do know, there is no indication at all that this is 'likely'to happen at all.

Then you write "Our Earth survives through regulatory feed-back systems. Small oscillations are normal".

Sure they are, but the current change, at least within the time frame we are talking about, is not small at all. Climate control is a very largely deterministic system and therefore fluctuations in global temperature regimes would need some kind of major forcing to push them at the rate they are being forced now. Regional changes which are even more dramatic are masking the apparently 'modest' global changes.

Then you sink yourself with your last statement, "I will never allow political or socialistic views to comprimise my training".

It seems as if you have already. It is clear to me that you are writing from the political right. Your rant against taxes makes this patently clear. So much for your objective views. And, given that many governments in the rich world are beholdent to powerful commerical elites, and not the environmental movement, I'd say your take on the political motivations of governments is less than basic. I suggest you read Pepe Escobar's quite outstanding 'Globalistan: How the World is Dissolving into Liquid War' if you want to see which political forces are really running the show.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 13 Apr 2009 #permalink

Actually I am a humanatarian worker operating in conflict zones. I have just come out after 12 months in Darfur. Next stop; no-man's land between Ethiopia and Eritrea. I would like to show you what political forces control the worlds where I work. I am only interested in one thing; truth.

By Michael Carter (not verified) on 14 Apr 2009 #permalink

Michael Carter:

"The IPCC report consclusion was that anthropogenic
impact is probably having a significant influence
on world climate. No doubt. But more than the
industrial revolution, or major asteroid strikes
or volcanic eruptions?"

Sorry, you've lost me. Do you mean to say that if, say, the climatic impact of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions was not as great as that of some asteroid strike in the distant past then this would be an argument in favour of .. what, doing nothing? Not worrying?

I'm also nonplussed by your reference to the industrial revolution. Do you mean to suggest the impact of greenhouse gas emissions in the 18th and 19th centuries might have been greater than more recent industrial activity? Really?

Michael,

What you are doing puts most of us to shame. I commend you for your humanitarian work.

As I said yesterday, I believe that their are political underpinnings behind the vast divsions in wealth distribution in the world. Economist Patrcik Bond writes quite at length about African poverty as a consequences of western foreign policy in his book 'Looting Africa'. One of Africa's leading economists, Samir Amin, said at the World Social Forum in Peurto Alegre (Brazil) in 2003 that the wealthy nations are not concerned about 'integrating' African nations into a coherent capitalist system; they aim primarily at 'looting their resources'.

As I said yesterday, Brazilian journalist Pepe Escobar writes at quite some length about what he sees as the driving forces behind gloabl conflicts and poverty in his 2006 book. Mark Curtis, a British historian and human rights campaigner in Africa, also addresses the issuer of African poverty in his books 'Web of Deceit'and '' Unpeople'. Well worth a read.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 14 Apr 2009 #permalink

The IPCC report consclusion was that anthropogenic impact is probably having a significant influence on world climate. No doubt. But more than the industrial revolution, or major asteroid strikes or volcanic eruptions?

why do you ask questions that can be answered so easily?

yes, today we change the environment more, than during the industrial revolution. and we release more CO2 as well.

yes, we have a more significant impact than volcanoes.

why would you mention a major asteroid strike?

Or how much fart-methane was being generated over New York City?

cows belch. are you trying to tell us that NY farts are a significant amount of methane?

12 months ago an American âexpertâ came to my country to advice us what percentage of our national greenhouse gas emission was coming form ruminating farm animals. He had the figure down to an exact figure. Clever man. Our Government tried to impose a tax on the bases of the this report.

12 months after the "advice" you had a tax already? please send that guy everywhere!

Michael, your writing is confused and of little substance. please continue to "study rocks that display significant climatic changes dating back tens of millions of years" while being a "humanatarian worker operating in conflict zones".

we love your work!

Sod

I work as a water engineer. My employers fully appreciate that my training as a sedimentary and engineering geologist is applicable for the job. I find water and build facilities to tap it. I carry my geologistâs hammer everywhere Understanding the surface expression is crucial in exploratory hyrdogeology. Also I continue to pursue my interest in the rocks.

I can appreciate that someone not trained in natural history may not be aware of the climatic impact of asteroid strikes, volcanic eruptions or the industrial revolution. If really interested in these matters, rather than the politics of envy, such persons should do some reading. Good books can be found in university bookshops. To give one example; volcanic ash from some of the biggest eruptions in my country (New Zealand) can be found in Greenland ice cores. Should you wish to know how distant that is, look at a globe. Such eruptions pour copious quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The world healed. The point I make is that the world has compensatory systems and that while the impact of our dominant species is not insignificant it is unlikely to cause the rampant spiral into continuous heating of the planet as predicted by doomsdayâsts. The rock record suggests otherwise.

Many are obsessed with carbon dioxide as it the only factor thta has been quantified. In truth we have not even fully established the effects of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Many scientists are working on this question e.g. the recent failed US satellite launch which was designed to study exactly that.

Aerosols (dust particles) most likely have a far more profound effect on global temperatures than carbon dioxide. Hence my reference to the industrial revolution when most western cities were emitting coal fire smoke into the atmosphere. The atmosphere over most western countries is clearer than any time over the last 150 years. The only modern exception to this relates to India and China.

I do not profess to have concrete answers. I only relay that there are too many unanswered questions. To suggest that national carbon deficits or credits can be calculated is a joke. Apparently my own country has moved from deficit to credit in one year. Year right!

The only reason I have contributed to this discussion is through frustration at witnessing politicians and left wing sociologists using the subject as a whipping stick to hammer their pet hatreds. They selectively mine cautious scientific conclusions within a discipline they know nothing about to promote their agenda. A good example is subject heading of this blog. I refer back to my first letter

As a scientist I acknowledge my conclusions that compensatory systems are likely to stabilise (and even reverse) any change in mean temperature may be wrong. Please note I use the word âlikelyâ I am after all only interested in the truth. But,. then, I am yet to see conclusive evidence that our mean temperatures have actually risen over the last 50 years.

Receding ice in Greenland is exposing Viking farming sites where enough grass grew to support grazing animals. This within the last 1000 years. Is there anyone out there willing to argue that these activities did not take place during a warming cycle? Atmospheric temperature changes in Polar Regions are largely controlled by changes in marine currents. These do not necessarily reflect mean global temperatures. Marine currents are fickle. A few hundred years ago such currents caused a catastrophic drop in temperatures in the polar regions, resulting in the death of around 30% of the Inuit people.

Would someone please give me quauntitive arguments, in place of political rhetoric or personal attack?

.

By Michael Carter (not verified) on 15 Apr 2009 #permalink

sorry Michael, but the point you make simply don t fit the resume you claim.

we know about the impact of volcanoes on temperature. we have several on the [record](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Mauna_Loa_atmospheri…).

and scientists know about these [factors!](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_Change_Attribution.png)

and massive eruptions (or the meteor) simply can t be influenced. CO2 can be.

and come on, greenland green! can t you really do better?

I was under the understanding that this was a science blog. I am clearly in the wrong place.

Sod; care to take up a US$ 1,000,000 wager that my claimed resume is incorrect? Should you find that too difficult I will settle for $US 1,000

By Michael Carter (not verified) on 15 Apr 2009 #permalink

Micheal, your arguments are derailed when you say, "But,. then, I am yet to see conclusive evidence that our mean temperatures have actually risen over the last 50 years".

I think that the evidence is overwhelming. You just have not been obtaining information from the right places. I gave a lecture at a one day workshop on global change in Copenhagen in 2002, and immediately prior to my seminar was one by a climate scientist. He showed a world map that was broken into 100 x 100 km squares, and over the course of the last 120 years using time-lapse he described temperature changes using blue squares (meaning a change to colder conditions) white squares (no change) and red squares (warmer conditions). Beginning in the 1880s, one could discern quite a few red squares developing over the next 60 years, then a period in which there conditions coolled a little (change to some blue squares). However, beginning in about 1980, the situation changed dramatically. Over vast exapnaes of the planet surface, red squares began to pop up everywhere, and the pixels made it look as if one were witnessing some kind of horror movie. The effect was dramatic. One could not have been more impressed - and shocked - by the images that flashed in front of us over the course of two minutes.

Your argument may have been valid in 1987, but it no longer holds now. All of the 10 warmest years over the past 120 have occurred since 1990. What more evidence do you need? Some regions in the higher latitudues have seen mean annual temperature rises well over 5 C since the 1950s.

The real question is to elucidate what is causing this temperature shift, and not whether it is happening. This is where the sceptics, a gererally far right band of libertarians who see regulations as a denial of liberty (and a threat to profit maximization of commerical elites) are using every trick at their disposal to muddy the waters. Given their unlimited supply of funding, it is hardly surprising that they are having a significant effect on public perception of the problem and on government policy.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 15 Apr 2009 #permalink

i don t doubt your resume. (well perhaps a little: "study rocks that display significant climatic changes dating back tens of millions of years...in conflict zones". hammer or not.)

again, simply try to make points, that show some background in geology. the ones you made, don t do that.

I was under the understanding that this was a science blog. I am clearly in the wrong place.

well, it is all in your replies. just counter the points being made. are scientists aware of the effect of volcanoes on temperature, or are they not?

Jeff

The pixel demonstration infers temperature records are available for each 100 x 100 km region over the globe, covering the last 120 years. I rest my case. Data generation must have occurred on a gross scale. Not even the most advanced Met services in the most advanced countries have data of 1/1000 of that resolution. 100 years ago they had a fraction of that. You have just beautifully demonstrated my concerns. I rest my case.

Sod; you need to have a brush-up on the field charateristics of marine sedimentary rocks - or hold your peace.

MC

By Michael Carter (not verified) on 15 Apr 2009 #permalink

As a scientist I acknowledge my conclusions that compensatory systems are likely to stabilise (and even reverse) any change in mean temperature may be wrong.

What compensatory systems? Please be specific.

By luminous beauty (not verified) on 16 Apr 2009 #permalink

Michael,

Got quantification?

The analysis method was documented in Hansen and Lebedeff (1987), showing that the correlation of temperature change was reasonably strong for stations separated by up to 1200 km, especially at middle and high latitudes. They obtained quantitative estimates of the error in annual and 5-year mean temperature change by sampling at station locations a spatially complete data set of a long run of a global climate model, which was shown to have realistic spatial and temporal variability.

By luminous beauty (not verified) on 16 Apr 2009 #permalink

L B

Please show me the location of temperature monitoring stations (going back 120 years) in Africa, Russia, China, Pacific Ocean, Antarctica, Atlantic Ocean, Asia ............. And - where is the data from these stations?

Without compensatory systems any one of the hundreds of climate change osscilations occuring over the last 20,000 years would have spiralled Earth into temperature extremes such that we would not be here conducting this conversation. This is simple logic.

MC

By Michael Carter (not verified) on 16 Apr 2009 #permalink

Michael Carter - So what do you think the compensatory systems are? I'll list the ones I know of after you say what you think they are.

Please show me the location of temperature monitoring stations (going back 120 years) in Africa, Russia, China, Pacific Ocean, Antarctica, Atlantic Ocean, Asia ............. And - where is the data from these stations?

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/

Without compensatory systems any one of the hundreds of climate change osscilations occuring over the last 20,000 years would have spiralled Earth into temperature extremes such that we would not be here conducting this conversation. This is simple logic.

Perhaps. I think you should look up the meaning of 'specificity'.

Hint: Thermodynamic equilibrium.

By luminous beauty (not verified) on 16 Apr 2009 #permalink

Please show me the location of temperature monitoring stations (going back 120 years) in Africa, Russia, China, Pacific Ocean, Antarctica, Atlantic Ocean, Asia ............. And - where is the data from these stations?

you might want to reread what Jeff wrote above. he did NOT claim, that there was data from the middle of the atlantic in 1880.

Michael, your original claim was:

Not even the most advanced Met services in the most advanced countries have data of 1/1000 of that resolution. 100 years ago they had a fraction of that.

well, it is obvious that most developted nations have enough data to fill a 100km grid. your cliam was simply stupid.

within minutes, i could replicate what you said could not be done, with a slightly bigger grid. (more like a factor 10 than 1000 though..)

you can use the data from the GISS site to make the map that Jeff described above: take the first decade that has data for each square as base temperature. the map will turn red.

again, please make your posts represent your resume. they should sound slightly educated.

Carter:
"Such eruptions pour copious quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. "
How much is "copious?" You did after all say at the end of that rant "Would someone please give me quantitive arguments..." So how much CO2 does such eruptions release, and how does that compare to current anthropogenic emissions? Quantitate it.

"Receding ice in Greenland is exposing Viking farming sites where enough grass grew to support grazing animals. "
Carter, you just disqualified yourself from serious consideration. That statement is a staple of the denialists - and it simply is not true. One site, one farm (not plural) was covered by sand (not ice). It was a functioning farm, and it was cold enough when it was covered that the sand froze into permafrost rapidly enough to preserve organic remains - including sheep poop. It was uncovered when the sand partially thawed and was eroded away (not by receding ice) and the thawing and erosion of the covering sand is, if anything, evidence that it is now warmer than when it was covered.

Carter, when you make claims that are that easy to fact check, and that false, and you make it in the context of claiming expertise, it simply disqualifies you from serious consideration.

BTW, many of the Greenland farms to day are on the same sites as old viking farms. Modern grass farmers are suddenly finding over the last decade that they are able to make 2, sometimes 3, hay cuts from a field in a season. This was unheard of in the viking records. Simply put, Greenland is warmer now than when the vikings were there - and the vikings colonized at a particularly warm period in Greenland history.

Sod
Please direct me to the sources (within in most developed countries) of concrete temperature data within a 100 km grid. The data must cover a realistic time frame, such that reasonable assumptions may be made on a real temperature change trend i.e. a minimum of 50 years. Consider also I am making it easy for you by excluding the undeveloped world and oceans : constituting 80% of worldâs surface. You are dreaming.

I do not understand why almost every response I get includes personal attack. I fear that it is a symptom of a lobby based on religion rather than science. Or is it an American trait ?

Lee: Vikings colonized at a particularly warm period in Greenland history.Wow! Natural temperatures changes do occur. What a bitch.

You know guys I have the strong indication that there are very few natural science degrees here. However, I will not stoop to the level of cross examination I have been subjected to. Please do not grovel to me about social science degrees, They do not rank.

By Michael Carter (not verified) on 16 Apr 2009 #permalink

"You know guys I have the strong indication that there are very few natural science degrees here".

Given your short scientific history, what is this supposed to mean? Besides, I do have degrees in science - I have a PhD in population and evolutionary ecology, and in the past 16 years I have 88 publications in the peer-reviewed literature. Given your statement, how many publications have you accrued thus far? What is your background in climate science?

And you know what Michael? You are wrong on just about everything you write here. Sod and Lee are clearly much better informed on the subject of climate science than you appear to be. The Greenland-warmth myth has been debunked a million times yet is a mainstay of the denialists.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 16 Apr 2009 #permalink

Dear Michael Carter,

I'm afraid that most of your assertions on climate are incorrect and the topics are well covered in the literature.

This does not detract from your day job, which is admirable. I recommend reading several of the IPCC reports and some of the text-book material on natural and human-induced climate if you have the time.

You have also bitten the bullet on some of your philosophical points. Truth is a metaphysical, not a scientific concept. You are discounting policy on the basis of a flawed scientific understanding. Fine - object to the policy if you like, but don't mangle the science to make your argument.

By the way, I wasn't polled, but must must be part of the 97%

regards

Professor Roger Jones
B Sc Hons in Earth Science
Ph D in Palaeoclimatology
Co-ordinating Lead Author in IPCC AR4
Oh, and I got an A in 3rd year Sedimentology

By Roger Jones (not verified) on 16 Apr 2009 #permalink

Well, that's telling him Professor Jones, and mighty courteously done to boot.

And I see he raised the well-known canard of volcanic emissions up page. Well, see what the BGS has to say on the matter.* The summary page (p. iii) should suffice.

*This will initiate the download dialog of the BGS's Volcanic Contributions to the Global Carbon Cycle, Sustainable and Renewable Energy Occasional Publication No. 10, by Vicky Hards.

Yes yes, all those evil arts students like myself, with my BSc (Hons) in chemistry, MSc in materials, and working in an insulation manufacturing company (Where I deal with contamination, material properties and improvements thereof) must be ganging up on you.

Thanks for that guys. Maybe now we can revert to a meaningful discussion.

The Truth; an interesting concept. I put my finger into boiling water and it scolds; a metaphysical truth? The worlds climate will either warm or cool over the next century; hypothetical?

So what is the driving force behind this great global controversy? On one hand we have what appears to be a reaction against âRight wing denialistsâ and on the other a reaction against what is seen to be a premature knee-jerk reaction by policy makers and â left wing forces with political agendasâ Hence the passion. I do question that the majority of those involved in the debate a truly interested in establishing the truth. In most cases contributors are making a stand based on reaction. I admit much of my own motivation is driven by a deep concern over the official politicising of the subject. Who can blame me for being sceptical when I learn of such events as my own country has officially gone from a carbon deficit to a credit in one year? How does one accurately calculate carbon status? E.g. only recently have scientists started to become aware of extent of the carbon sink in agricultural soils. We know shit! This weeks Economist has an article on how some researchers have detected farms growing biofuels are producing nitrous oxides (a greenhouse gas) Yet communities are being taxed based on guesstamits. Farmers are being subsidised to produce biofuels. This is ecology at work; pull one string and it affects another hundred. The war arena from which I have just returned is apparently the âFirst climate change warâ This decree from experts who have not even been there. Many have not even worked outside of their own country.

Both parties are guilty of extracting data from the extreme ends of the bell-curve. This is not helpful and can only result in the endless claims and counter claims seen above e.g. it has been established beyond all reasonable doubt that mean temperature in Greenland is higher than during Viking occupation. I simply cannot believe such claims are based on good science. Where is the data from The Viking era? Unfortunately such dogmatic statements are going to result in scepticism from those who believe in, and try to work within the scientific method. Such a statement worded âCurrent knowledge indicates the mean temperature in Greenland is probably higher than during he Viking occupationâ I would expect that anyone truly interested in the issue would want to investigate further, myself included. A dogmatic statement will usually result in scepticism and be ignored. Should the responses I have received have included such words as âshouldâ âprobablyâ âindicatesâ âlikelyâ â I could take them seriously.
Interestingly, I decided to do more investigation on mean sea level temperatures around my own country. I went to our NIWA. (National Institute of Water and Atmosphere) They had two web pages that attracted me. One related to mean marine temperatures over time, and the other to paleoatmospheric studies within Antarctica ice cores. The results page for marine temperatures is blank and the ice core analysis page says only âmore accurate analysis techniques are being developedâ Little alarm bells are ringing. I will ring them to ask why. Is the data not matching the paradigm? Now that would be embarrassing wouldnât it?

Conversely, there is an extremely detailed page on a model predicting rates and effects of global warming out to 2090. I wish I had such a crystal ball. Nowhere does this model take into account the potential influence of regulatory feed-back systems which are an essential ingredient throughout our entire ecology. Apparently a 2 degree rise in our mean temperature by 2090 is slam dunk.
I personally need to do more research e.g. I did use the words âreceding glaciersâ in relation to the Viking settlements. I should be more careful. In spite of potential for scepticism I will pass on that I am also a sheep farmer. I know the necessary conditions to support sheep in an environment like Greenland. Depending on the number of sheep, substantial grassland is required during summer months. I have also spent time on an Iceland farm which runs 600 sheep. My wife was there for 12 months. I am going to make contact and ask about the "increased hay cuts". I will also do specific research regarding the Viking settlements. I am especially interested to know the current grassland status during summer months.
Finally (should anyone still be reading this contribution) I would point out that I have denied nothing in my contributions. I have only expressed a concern over the robustness of concrete conclusions driving what is potentially the most significant paradigm in world history. A paradigm that still has the potential to be significantly inaccurate. Truth does exist. Our opinions will not change the ultimate truth. I have admitted that âI may be wrongâ I do not see such in the responses. Until such an attitude is expressed I cannot take these seriously.
Once, at a conference, a highly regarded scientist was asked âIn your opion â¦â¦â¦.â The enquirer was cut short by the scientist; âI do not have an opinionâ
If one does not understand the significance of such a statement they do not understand the scientific method. I too must continually remind myself of the message in that profound statement. I will also research numbers and distribution of British met stations. Nevertheless, whatever the outcome the result will be insignicant as Britain is such a tiny spec on the globe, just as US data is of minimul contribution, given its relative size. Nothing I have read or researched has changed my belief that the current 'climate change' paradigm is based on poor science i.e. extracting data to fit the theory; the ultimate crime.
Cheers

MC

By Michael Carter (not verified) on 17 Apr 2009 #permalink

I have decided to terminate my contributions to this blog.

Before I go I will make a prediction: within the next 50 years Earth's climate will be seen to be stable. The influence of 'green house gases' will be considered to be negelagble There is 30% chance the climate will cool. I expect to live for another 20 years, However, if I am correct in my prediction I will witness the early signs.

I may be wrong

MC

By Michael Carter (not verified) on 17 Apr 2009 #permalink

"I'm guessing that Lindzen and Spencer are the two that said "no"."

Let's see, 97+2=100. Yep, it works for me. //sarc=off//

No, but 75+2=77. That works better. And 75/77 = 97%.

Sarcasm is a horrible thing, always coming back and biting you on the arse.

Glad you stopped by. :)

"75+2=77. That works better. And 75/77 = 97%."

Yeah, I know, but it's funnier the other way. And it's going to get a whole lot "funnier" with all that egg that will be over all those faces when they have to fess up that they were wrong. Reality has a very large bite, you see.

"nothing to see here", "...or here"

I also can't wait to find out who those "climate scientists" really were.

For yonason, "reality" is "blog science". It gives more prefered results to fact-checked science.

Yonason, can you get blog science to make this warming go away?

Yeah, I know, but it's funnier the other way.

Sure. If you say so. You have a gift that keeps on giving.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 16 Dec 2009 #permalink

jakerman | December 16, 2009 7:48 AM

LOL! Good one. A proof from species. Wow. That's really solid. Nothing ELSE could account for those anecdotal observations. Puh-LEEEEEZ! LOLOLOL!

There has to be warming first, before you talk about what it is doing to species. Then, you have to establish the warming WOULD do that to the species in question. Then you have to eliminate anything else that could cause it. None of which they have done. I don't know where they got their "advanced" degrees, but I have my suspicions.

Go and look at the links I gave in my last post, where they compare the output of the pirates at CRU, and the real raw data. They turned a cooling into a warming. THEY LIED!

Wake up and smell the coffee.

yonason:

They turned a cooling into a warming.

What cooling?

Wake up and smell the coffee.

Wake up and look at the thermometers.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 19 Dec 2009 #permalink

Chris O'Neill | December 20, 2009 5:20 AM

"Wake up and look at the thermometers."

I have. Now you can, too.

Russians say that CRU lied about the data.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/12/16/2744/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/16/russian-iea-claims-cru-tampered-w…
Most American temp stations are in "heat islands" and are badly set up, to boot.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsrepor…

And, finally, 450 peer reviewed "skeptic" papers.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/15/reference-450-skeptical-peer-revi…

If the planet is warming, it's entirely natural, with any contribution from man now, or in the future, insignificant when compared to natural changes. Really.

@yonason:
WUWT as the source is...erm...not really convincing.

I do have a challenge to you:
Select about 10 papers in the list of 450 'skeptical' papers from mainstream journals (that means: not papers in E&E). Read them, and then tell us why *you* think those papers are 'skeptical' of AGW. Don't be too disturbed if you find them to be a whole lot let 'skeptical' than you think.

Just so you know, there is at least one paper that has two possible interpretations:
1. Based on known CO2 sensitivity, there are more forcings required to explain the temperature rise of some interglacials
2. CO2 sensitivity is much higher than we think.
Very 'skeptical' of AGW, indeed...

Wow, yonason give non-fact-checked web science that he apparently believe over turns rigorous science.

Then overturns more science with cleaver terms such as:

>LOL! Good one. A proof from species. Wow. That's really solid. Nothing ELSE could account for those anecdotal observations. Puh-LEEEEEZ! LOLOLOL!

You've turned me yonason!

;)

Just kidding, no I'll stick with the peer reivew ahead of your blog cherry picks. And when Watts' 450 so called "skeptical" papers contain many that I know to be non-contrarian, I know he hasn't put a credible list together.

Just like [Watts failed](http://www.skepticalscience.com/Is-the-US-Surface-Temperature-Record-Re…) to demonstrate the UHI made a significant difference to temperature anomalies.

Oh And BTW, [it is warming](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/plot/hadcrut3gl/mean:360/plot/h…) you are just cherry picking from dodgy sites.

jakerman | December 20, 2009 6:56 AM

Non-fact-checked web science? What, you mean like "Sceptical Science." That's really funny, jak.

Even a sixth grader can debunk them.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/picking-out-the-uhi-in-global-tem…

CRU has perverted peer review and faked their results, and yet you believe them over reports from sites that are consistently reliable? Sorry, jak, you fail the credibility test.

Gotta go. I'll be back later when the my last post addressing Marco's mysterious musings is approved (too many references, apparently).

Oh, and you don't like the report from WUWT? How's the Russian newspaper?

"Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory"
http://en.rian.ru/papers/20091216/157260660.html

And then, there's always the horse's mouth, the IEA itself.
http://www.iea.ru/article/kioto_order/15.12.2009.pdf

yonason,

I didn't see how the NOAA study comparing Watts' so called good and bad sites was debunked. Can you explain how you think your linked youtube presentation debunked the NOAA report? Or do you normally reply with random videos, and asset a debunking?

If you were reluctant to read the findings on which skeptical science reported, [try these hightlights](http://climateprogress.org/2009/07/29/the-video-that-anthony-watts-does…) in a video format. A video that Watts tried to shut down.

Yonason, try to keep up, your sources continue to let you down. IEA (Russian anit science rightwing lobby tank) have [not got the evidence](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th…) they lead you to believe. But that's to be expected from denialist, always promising so much, always failing to deliver.

Yoni, I suggest you find some better sources.

yonason:

Russians say that CRU lied about the data.

Why don't you at least post your bullshit to the correct thread on deltoid, i.e. Russian analysis confirms 20th century CRU temperatures or at least read that thread first so you will find out that you are posting bullshit?

Most American temp stations are in "heat islands" and are badly set up, to boot.

Sorry, Watts is grotesquely incompetent as a data analyst.

And, finally, 450 peer reviewed "skeptic" papers.

In this case, "peer" means as biassed and incompetent as the authors in non-scientific journals, e.g. Energy & Environment.

Really.

Yeah, that makes me believe you.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 20 Dec 2009 #permalink

Chris O'Neill | December 20, 2009 7:52 AM

"Sorry, Watts is grotesquely incompetent as a data analyst."

Not Tomino?! It is to laugh.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2008/10/21/taminos-folly-temperatures-…

(Just checking to see if my post has been dug out of spam yet, the one that show a random sampling of "skeptic" papers really are, contrary to what Marco asserted). It's not, so I'm outa here.

I'm pretty much done though. I see I'm not going to get anywhere here, so much more would be a waste of all our time.

Ciao!

The '450 papers' assertion is as dim-bulb as the OISM 'petition'. Anyone trotting that one out can be safely and immediately ignored.

Best,

D

yonason,

JeffId lies like a pig in his own shit. He performs a fraudulent bait and switch by redefining 'noise' as the measurement error between different data sets, when it is plain tamino is referring to the uncertainty due to variability in each data set.

All Id[iot] is calculating is how little the different series disagree, which has absolutely nothing to do with the statistical significance of 'noisy', i.e. 'highly variable' short time series.

Now, being incompetent to discern such a blatant fraud, and falling unskeptically for such a facile misrepresentation of fact, how dumb does that make you?

By luminous beauty (not verified) on 20 Dec 2009 #permalink

yonason quoting:

"Sorry, Watts is grotesquely incompetent as a data analyst."

And your Jeff Id is even worse. That ignorant idiot thinks the only type of noise is measurement error! Even as an electronics engineer I have news for him but no doubt he wants to remain ignorant. Even the first response to his post said:

Noise in climate science is weather â not measurement error.

Weather includes seasonal variations and events like El Ninos and La Ninas.

ARMA is an attempt to model weather noise.

I suggest you read through luciaâs blog if you want to find out more about modelling weather noise.

With Jeff Id as your authority, no wonder you're so ignorant.

I'm pretty much done though.

Get lost troll. You're an arrogant ignoramus.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 20 Dec 2009 #permalink

What might happen if the scientists who claim global climate change is a result of human activity are wrong, and we take unnecessary steps to correct the problem?

In that case nnnnn the survivors will envy the dead.

This survey is used by alarmists to deceive the reader.
It's used in articles and in blogs constantly

The figure of 97% is referring to 75 out of 77 climate scientists, which is a tiny tiny tiny portion of the planets earth scientists, basically insignificant.

The 3146 scientists surveyed is also a tiny tiny portion of the plants earth scientists, not a significant number to prove a consensus.

The survey consisted of 90% US, 6% Canadian and 4% the rest of the world, hardly a world class survey.

Yet you see this figure thrown about all the time, in headlines such as â97% of the worldâs scientistsâ¦â
Bloggers use it in comments to skeptics, such as âwell then why do 97% of all scientists agreeâ¦â

Even a grade school child could see this survey does not represent 97% of the worldâs climate scientists.
When this is used in articles and blogs it makes me suspect of anything else that is written.

By Tom Black (not verified) on 03 Apr 2010 #permalink

Shorter Tom Black:

If Doran and Zimmermann sent their questionnaire to 10,257 earth scientists, and only 3,146 responded, then clearly the remaining 10,257 - 3,146 are actually secret skeptics being silenced by the Vast Evil Warmist Inquisition! Therefore, from now on I'll ignore everything written by warmists!

Tom, it's true that the survey doesn't prove anything. But it does provide us with a great deal of useful information; I think that we cannot dismiss it out of hand. Rather, I think that it provides us with one gauge of the way climatologists think. An even better gauge, though, is the National Academy of Sciences, consisting of the elite of American science, and its publications flatly declare AGW to constitute a significant threat.

By Erasmussimo (not verified) on 03 Apr 2010 #permalink

That's 77 active climate scientists. That means they are actually conducting science. By comparison, the Oregon Petition has been collecting signatures for a decade, and has only managed to collect 40 signatures of climatologists. Given the prevalence of dead and "emeritus" scientists on that list, I'd wager that a lot of them aren't doing much science.

Surveys have found that about 80% of generic scientists and earth scientists believe in AGW. Doran and Zimmermann (above) found this as did a Pew/AAAS survey. That's also what you get when you parse Jim Prall's lists of "activist" and "skeptic" scientists.

Doran and Zimmerman is noteworthy because they found that the more active a scientist is in the field, the more likely they are to believe AGW.

http://laymans-guide.com/scientific-consensus

[Tom Black](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/97_of_active_climatologists_ag…) has obviously not studied statistical practice, or he'd understand the power of 'sampling'. Only a person ignorant of statistical basics would make such a comment: either that, or a raging conspiracy theorist whose head is wrapped in foil...

And Tim, can we lose the dweeb with the finger stuck on the exclamation button?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 18 Apr 2010 #permalink

I feel that shit is bogas....cause i hate when motherfuckers just act stupid and they contiue to use awe this damn gas and oil n all de extra bullish!!!!!

Can someone tell me why 99% of scientist agree on global warming but seem to be split down the middle on whether "Bacon" is bad for me or not.....I need to lose some weight.