Posted on 05/16/2013 6:37:08 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
An overwhelming 97 percent of climatologists endorse the idea of human-caused global warming.
As if the backing of NASA, 18 independent American scientific societies, and an intergovernmental panel established under the United Nations weren't enough to quell the protests popping up in comment sections across the Internet, a new study published in the journal Environmental Research Letters confirms — once again — that climatologists almost unanimously believe that climate change is directly related to human-made carbon emissions.
Researchers pored over nearly 12,000 peer-reviewed scientific papers from 1991 to 2011. These papers, according to Michael Todd at Pacific Standard, represented the work of 29,083 authors and 1,980 journals. The conclusion could hardly be stronger: 97 percent of scientists agree that anthropogenic, or human-caused, global warming exists.
...
"That suggests both a consensus, and an overwhelming one," adds Todd.
"The public perception of a scientific consensus on [anthropogenic global warming] is a necessary element in public support for climate policy," conclude the study's authors. And yet, according to Pew Internet Research (PDF), 57 percent of Americans are unaware that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
http://www.climatism.net/mad-mad-mad-world/
Chapter 8 answers the 97% Scientist question.
Book Title: “The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism”
Author: Steve Goreham
Author, Speaker, Environmental Researcher.
Check it our it’s worth the read.
yup- they are des[perately tryign to take hte heat off their beloved leader- bringign up this old proven fallacy again hoping to get otehr news networks to run thsi story isnteado f the actual improtant ones
I’m starting tio believe that yahoo news is the main clearing house for all pro-AGW articles on the web.
An overwhelming 100 percent of the people I polled think hussein is an illegal President and should be impeached, then thrown in prison for life. Guess statistics depend on the demographics of who you ask and how you ask eh?
As if the backing of NASA, 18 independent American scientific societies, and an intergovernmental panel established under the United Nations weren't enough to quell the protests popping up in comment sections across the Internet...
Were these the same groups responsible for cherry-picking data, altering data, colluding on results before research, etc. etc.??? You know, that whole email scandal that erupted and basically removed any shred of credibility from the AGW crowd?
...a new study published in the journal Environmental Research Letters confirms — once again — that climatologists almost unanimously believe that climate change is directly related to human-made carbon emissions...
This in spite of a complete lack of correlation between C02 and average temperature. We've had hot and cold periods before (ie. ice ages and the gaps between). Oh, then there's that little problem of the last 12 years of data (when unaltered) that show no warming, in fact a slight cooling. Hmm, C02 levels haven't dropped... Oh, and then there's the problem of human C02 emissions being less than 3% of C02 put in the atmosphere yearly. Oops, even if we cut our emissions 100%, stopped putting any C02 in the atmosphere, we'd be a blip...
Researchers pored over nearly 12,000 peer-reviewed scientific papers from 1991 to 2011. These papers, according to Michael Todd at Pacific Standard, represented the work of 29,083 authors and 1,980 journals. The conclusion could hardly be stronger: 97 percent of scientists agree that anthropogenic, or human-caused, global warming exists.
Ah yes, "evidence" taken from other people's "evidence" that has been shown to be at the height of the very un-scientific manipulation of the data to "back" the results intended. Gee, if I poll a thousand sci-fi authors I can claim "evidence" that extraterrestrial life exists.
"That suggests both a consensus, and an overwhelming one," adds Todd.
Like the consensus that used to exist that the world was flat and the center of the universe?
"The public perception of a scientific consensus on [anthropogenic global warming] is a necessary element in public support for climate policy,"
Ah, a rare moment of truth leaked through... They know they merely need to generate the "perception" of a scientific consensus. Never mind fact. They can't push through their controlling policies and power grabs unless and until there is a "perception" they are needed. Don't let facts get in the way.
So are UFOs but I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. /s
Over 97% of scientist used to have a ‘consensus’ that the world was flat, and the solar system revolved around the earth
Is this article realor satire? Its hard to tell anymore these days.
the climate has changeed since the earth formed, it never stops, nothing we can do about it
It's actually much worse than that. They got back a lot more than 77. They just threw out all the ones they didn't like.
Here's the actual story on the "survey": http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/
We’ve known about climate change for many years.
We used to call them seasons.
Well the converse is worse, because 100,000 years ago North America was an arctic region covered in ice. Last glacial period
Would the so called climatologist prefer global cooling? Would be hard to grow crops on top of a glacier.....
Exactly. Does anyone understand what the scientific method is?
True, but that was old (several years ago). This new "survey" is even worse. It was done by a cartoonist (John Cook) who is a climate activist in Australia. He's not scientific in the least, nor is he unbiased.
There is no proof either. There is theory and there is evidence. The theories that are most likely to be true are the ones that cohere with most/all of the evidence. But there is no way for a theory to be "proven" true unless it is completely abstract (e.g. mathematical theories).
Haven’t read the book, but that’s undoubtedly the old “97%” claim. That was a survey in which a small minority of activist scientists answered but the vast majority prefered to not answer.
Sorry, science isn't based on "endorsements," it's based upon proof. Of which science has none.
5.56mm
The most recent ice age ended about 12k years ago.
That's not a problem. The natural release and uptake of CO2 is more or less in balance, mostly due to vegetation growing and dying each season in the northern hemisphere. The manmade CO2 is a small fraction of that natural cycle as you point out, but man's is all in one direction. We don't put out CO2 in the fall and suck it back in the spring. Therefore all (100%) of the observed rise is manmade. It would be twice as high as we observe, but nature is absorbing a lot of the manmade CO2 (mostly in the oceans).
Contrary to a lot of commenters on this thread, the 97% result is real and believable. But it is an endorsement of the virtual certainty that manmade CO2 is raising global temperature. That is a very uninteresting debate point which is frankly foolish to debate. The more relevant point is whether a 0.13 C per decade rise means anything. The answer is probably not. Another question is whether the 0.13 / decade rise is all from CO2. The answer is definitely not, because up to the 90's solar activity was very high. So some part of the observed rise is natural. That natural component is likely confirmed by the fact that warming of 0.13C per decade has ended and is at best 0.05C per decade which is negligible. That lull in warming is in spite of the fact that solar activity didn't drop drastically until 2008 and there is a large lag in effects. We have yet to see any serious amount of cooling from the drop in solar.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.