re: 97% of scientists believe in man made climate change

we have increased c02 SOME but there is zero empirical evidence that causes cooling and heating

LINK

From a selected pool of 20 scientist...

quote:

---

Overpopulation is the cause of most all our problems



Agreed and the true solution to global warming and environmental damage in general is the world needs less people.

---

Lolz

A tale that even Obama admires and envies.

quote:

---

thought universities these days served no other purpose than to further a leftist agenda...and here you are claiming you took environmental science courses and no one mentioned climate change.

---

I am over 30, climate change was not a term until around 10 years ago. Before that it was global warming. Before that it was global cooling. They finally realized they kept getting it wrong so they coined "climate change".

quote:

---

Come to Southern California during a drought and see if you are still of the same opinion.

---

California officially drought free for first time in 7 years

The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'
What is the origin of the false belief—constantly repeated—that almost all scientists agree about global warming?
By
JOSEPH BAST And
ROY SPENCER
May 26, 2014 7:13 p.m. ET
From the Wall Street Journal


Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the "crippling consequences" of climate change. "Ninety-seven percent of the world's scientists," he added, "tell us this is urgent."

Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous." Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities."
Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.

One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.

Ms. Oreskes's definition of consensus covered "man-made" but left out "dangerous"—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy,Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren't substantiated in the papers.

Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in "Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union" by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master's thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed "97 percent of climate scientists agree" that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.

The survey's questions don't reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer "yes" to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.

The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.

In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on climate change. His findingswere published in Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. Mr. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200 most prolific writers on climate change believe "anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for 'most' of the 'unequivocal' warming." There was no mention of how dangerous this climate change might be; and, of course, 200 researchers out of the thousands who have contributed to the climate science debate is not evidence of consensus.

In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.

Mr. Cook's work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found "only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse" the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils-Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.
Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch—most recently published in Environmental Science & Policy in 2010—have found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change.
Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.

Finally, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—which claims to speak for more than 2,500 scientists—is probably the most frequently cited source for the consensus. Its latest report claims that "human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems." Yet relatively few have either written on or reviewed research having to do with the key question: How much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the 20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse-gas emissions? The IPCC lists only 41 authors and editors of the relevant chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report addressing "anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing."

Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."

We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.

Mr. Bast is president of the Heartland Institute. Dr. Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA's Aqua satellite.

quote:

---

Overpopulation is the cause of most all our problems

---

Nonsense.

Why are you sure that the world is overpopulated?

Why can't the world stand double the current population?

I am old enough to remember all of the "sky is falling" predictions about food shortages, clean water shortages, air pollution, etc. that would result in catastrophic failure for our species. Same predictions for the last 50 years at least.

Meanwhile, the real trend is this:
We have been increasing our fossil fuel use rapidly and the results have been:

cleaner water
more food production
fewer people in poverty
cleaner air
lower infant mortality rate
fewer climate related deaths
increasing life expectancy
technological advances that dramatically improve the quality of life...

Humans are part of nature, not aside from it.
We use phrases like "Man versus Nature", but never "Bear vs. Nature". Why is that?

We've been conditioned to think of ourselves as parasites who are corrupting a pristine world that would be awesome if we would "lessen our impact" or better yet, cease to exist. bullshite.

We shouldn't concern ourselves with human impact, but rather we should be concerned with human advancement and thriving in conjunction with the rest of nature.

The green movement is a anti-human movement. F**k them. Don't get sucked in. Don't let your kids get sucked in.

Thanks.
Here’s one for you.
If I piss in the ocean it’s a scientific fact that I have raised both the sea level and sea temperature, and it was 100% man made.

Now give me a few million and I’ll continue this very important research

quote:

---

One of the main papers behind the 97 percent claim is authored by John Cook, who runs the popular website SkepticalScience.com, a virtual encyclopedia of arguments trying to defend predictions of catastrophic climate change from all challenges.

Here is Cook’s summary of his paper: “Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers he surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.”

---

Except Cook was dishonest.

quote:

---

when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.

Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.

---

Many of the scientists who wrote the original papers said Cook misinterpreted their findings.

quote:

---

“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”
—Dr. Richard Tol

“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”
—Dr. Craig Idso

“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”
—Dr. Nir Shaviv

“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .”
—Dr. Nicola Scafetta

---

Cook didn't even read the papers. His study was based on the abstracts.

quote:

---

The authors used methodology similar to Oreskes but based their analysis on abstracts rather than full content.

---

Cook essentially searched for evidence to support his preconceived premise.

quote:

---

The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public

---

Anyone saying that 97% of scientists agree that AGW is a real threat is a liar or an ignorant parrot.

LINK

LINK

quote:

---

Humans are part of nature, not aside from it.

---

Yes but modern humanity isn’t. Clearing forests, paving over it, poisoning the water, pollution, garbage, taxing our resources, etc is not part of nature. We are parasites, we consume and destroy. Constant need for growth, a cancer upon the earth.

Well, there is truth in the statement. There is some portion of climate change that is linked to man-made reasons. There are studies to support this.

Here's the catch: How big of an effect is it in the big picture? Likely minimal at best. It's simply not the driving force they want to believe it is.

Furthermore, places like China and India alone are like 90% of the cause for any man-made climate change.