'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong

Jock McFlap wrote:http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/2/

it would seem that maybe the whole issue has been muddied somewhat by people who believe every word they are told and question nothing.
interesting article

AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES

• ---

  
  

  Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations

  "Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)²
  

Phil Didge wrote:

Jock McFlap wrote:http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/2/

it would seem that maybe the whole issue has been muddied somewhat by people who believe every word they are told and question nothing.
interesting article

Its is hilarious babble:


 
Temperature data from four international science institutions. All show rapid warming in the past few decades and that the last decade has been the warmest on record.

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,¹and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES

• ---

  
  

  Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations

  
  "Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)²
  

Phil Didge wrote:Scientists need to back up their opinions with research and data that survive the peer-review process.  A Skeptical Science peer-reviewed survey of all (over 12,000) peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' and 'global warming' published between 1991 and 2011 (Cook et al. 2013) found that over 97% of the papers taking a position on the subject agreed with the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.  In a second phase of the project, the scientist authors were emailed and rated over 2,000 of their own papers.  Once again, over 97% of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming agreed that humans are causing it.


http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

Jock McFlap wrote:I know you hate to be seen to be wrong, but could you provide the data that actually shows 97% of climate scientists say any such thing

Jock McFlap wrote:
curious as satellites have shown no warming for 219 months or 18 years

Jock McFlap wrote:
I think that article rather took apart the 97% claim
which appears to be based on one blokes perception of scientific articles

What the science says...

Select a level...	Basic		Intermediate		Advanced
That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 80 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.

Climate Myth...

"Only [a] few abstracts explicitly reject or doubt the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) consensus which is why I have publicly withdrawn this point of my critique. [snip] I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact."

Figure 1: Response to the survey question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009) General public data come from a 2008 Gallup poll.

"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists."

Figure 2: Distribution of the number of researchers convinced by the evidence of anthropogenic climate change and unconvinced by the evidence with a given number of total climate publications (Anderegg 2010).

American Association for the Advancement of Science

American Astronomical Society

American Chemical Society

American Geophysical Union

American Institute of Physics

American Meteorological Society

American Physical Society

Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO

British Antarctic Survey

Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences

Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

Environmental Protection Agency

European Federation of Geologists

European Geosciences Union

European Physical Society

Federation of American Scientists

Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies

Geological Society of America

Geological Society of Australia

Geological Society of London

International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)

International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics

National Center for Atmospheric Research

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Royal Meteorological Society

Royal Society of the UK

Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)

Royal Society of Canada

Chinese Academy of Sciences

Academie des Sciences (France)

Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)

Indian National Science Academy

Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)

Science Council of Japan

Academia Mexicana de Ciencias (Mexico)

Russian Academy of Sciences

Academy of Science of South Africa

Royal Society (United Kingdom)

National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science."

African Academy of Sciences

Cameroon Academy of Sciences

Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences

Kenya National Academy of Sciences

Madagascar's National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences

Nigerian Academy of Sciences

l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal

Uganda National Academy of Sciences

Academy of Science of South Africa

Tanzania Academy of Sciences

Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences

Zambia Academy of Sciences

Sudan Academy of Sciences

Australian Academy of Science

Royal Society of New Zealand

Polish Academy of Sciences

Smelly_bandit wrote:cant argue??

dazzle them with graphs and charts

Lord Edmund Moletrousers wrote:I think that to summarise this discussion, any research and conclusions with which Didge disagrees is "hilarious babble" and that any poster who has the temerity to challenge Didge's opinions is a "Tory retard."

Er, that's it.....

Lord Edmund Moletrousers wrote:I think that to summarise this discussion, any research and conclusions with which Didge disagrees is "hilarious babble" and that any poster who has the temerity to challenge Didge's opinions is a "Tory retard."

Er, that's it.....

Smelly_bandit wrote:

tory retard OR denialist

Smelly_bandit wrote:well done didge

want a medal??

Phil Didge wrote:

Jock McFlap wrote:I know you hate to be seen to be wrong, but could you provide the data that actually shows 97% of climate scientists say any such thing

What an idiot, try the link ha ha

I do not mind being wrong, you never admit being wrong.

Phil Didge wrote:He is not even a scientist who wrote this garbage





I tell you what Dean, you get him to refute any of the papers and write one himself.

Thanks for proving that you are a Tory retard

Jock McFlap wrote:
no I mean the actual data on what the 97% are claiming

Jock McFlap wrote:
you seem to be so enamored by the idea that you cannot cope with the idea being flawed.

the whole 97% is a myth

Phil Didge wrote:

Smelly_bandit wrote:cant argue??

dazzle them with graphs and charts

Or prove that "nonce" of you have ever refuted any scientific papers on the matter.
This is what is wrong with denialists, they are not skeptics as skeptics present science which none of you do.




Public discussion of scientific topics such as global warming is confused by misuse of the term “skeptic.” The Nov 10, 2014, New York Times article “Republicans Vow to Fight EPA and Approve Keystone Pipeline” referred to Sen. James Inhofe as “a prominent skeptic of climate change.” Two days later Scott Horsley of NPR’s Morning Edition called him “one of the leading climate change deniers in Congress.” These are not equivalent statements.


As Fellows of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, we are concerned that the words “skeptic” and “denier” have been conflated by the popular media. Proper skepticism promotes scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims. It is foundational to the scientific method. Denial, on the other hand, is the a priori rejection of ideas without objective consideration.
Real skepticism is summed up by a quote popularized by Carl Sagan, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Inhofe’s belief that global warming is “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people” is an extraordinary claim indeed. He has never been able to provide evidence for this vast alleged conspiracy. That alone should disqualify him from using the title “skeptic.”
As scientific skeptics, we are well aware of political efforts to undermine climate science by those who deny reality but do not engage in scientific research or consider evidence that their deeply held opinions are wrong. The most appropriate word to describe the behavior of those individuals is “denial.” Not all individuals who call themselves climate change skeptics are deniers. But virtually all deniers have falsely branded themselves as skeptics. By perpetrating this misnomer, journalists have granted undeserved credibility to those who reject science and scientific inquiry.
We are skeptics who have devoted much of our careers to practicing and promoting scientific skepticism. We ask that journalists use more care when reporting on those who reject climate science, and hold to the principles of truth in labeling. Please stop using the word “skeptic” to describe deniers.


Mark Boslough, Physicist
David Morrison, Director of the Carl Sagan Center for the Study of Life in the Universe, at the SETI Institute
Bill Nye, CEO the Planetary Society
Ann Druyan, Writer/producer;  CEO, Cosmos Studios
Ken Frazier, Editor, Skeptical Inquirer
Barry Karr, Exec Director, Committee for Skeptical Inquiry
Amardeo Sarma, Committee for Skeptical Inquiry Executive Council, Chairman GWUP (Germany)
Sir Harold Kroto, Nobel Prize in Chemistry
Ronald A. Lindsay, President & CEO Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and Center for Inquiry
Kenneth R. Miller, Professor of Biology, Brown University
Christopher C. French, Dept of Psychology, Goldsmiths University of London
Daniel C. Dennett, Center for Cognitive Studies, Tufts University
Massimo Pigliucci,  Professor of Philosophy at CUNY-City College
Douglas Hofstadter, Director, The Center for Research on Concepts and Cognition, Indiana University
Stephen Barrett, Co-founder of the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF), and the webmaster of Quackwatch
Scott O. Lilienfeld, Professor, Department of Psychology, Emory University
Terence Hines, Dept of Psychology, Pace University
James Randi, President James Randi Educational Foundation
Seth Shostak, Senior Astronomer and Director of the Center for SETI Research
Joe Nickell, Senior Research Fellow, Committee for Skeptical Inquiry
Henri Broch, Physicist, Emeritus, University Nice Sophia Antipolis, France
Eugenie C. Scott, Chair, Advisory Council, National Center for Science Education
Edzard Ernst, Professor of Medicine, Emeritus, University of Exeter, UK
Indre Viskontas, Cognitive Neuroscientist, Host Inquiring Minds Podcast
David J.  Helfand, Professor of Astronomy, Columbia University
Mario Mendez-Acosta, Journalist, Science Writer, Mexico City
Cornelis de Jager, Astrophysicist,  Past President, International Council for Science
Sanal Edamaruku, President, Rationalist International
Loren Pankratz, Psychologist, Portland VA Medical Center, Retired
Sandra Blakeslee, Science Writer
Benjamin Radford, Deputy Editor of the Skeptical Inquirer Magazine
David Thomas, Physicist and Mathematician
Stuart D. Jordan, NASA Astrophysicist, Emeritus
David H. Gorski, Cancer Surgeon, Wayne State University School of Medicine
Anthony R. Pratkanis, Professor of Psychology, UC @Santa Cruz
Jan Willem Nienhuys, Mathematician, Waalre, The Netherlands
Susan Blackmore, Psychologist,  Visiting Professor at the University of Plymouth
Ken Feder, Anthropology,  Central Connecticut State University
Jill Tarter, Bernard M. Oliver Chair, SETI Institute
Richard Saunders, JREF Million Dollar Challenge Committee,  Producer - The Skeptic Zone Podcast
Jay Pasachoff, Field Memorial Professor of Astronomy, Williams College
Lawrence M. Krauss, Director, The ASU Origins Project, Arizona State University
Barbara Forrest, Philosophy, Southeastern Louisiana University
Kimball Atwood, Physician, Newton, MA
James Alcock, Psychologist, Glendon College, York University, Toronto, Canada
Massimo Polidoro, Science writer, author, Executive Director CICAP, Italy
E.C. Krupp, Director, Griffith Observatory
Dick Smith, Film Producer, Publisher, Australia

http://www.csicop.org/news/show/deniers_are_not_skeptics

Jock McFlap wrote:
you havent proved anything, you are not a climate change scientist, you are relying on what others are telling you to prove to the rest of us how clever you are.
however the data you are relying on, 97%, is based on a subjective view of one bloke who read some scientific papers.