Teenager Thunberg angrily tells U.N. climate summit 'you have stolen my dreams'

[RideJocky]

Given the number of times the 97% lie errrr fact has been regurgitated here, surely there’s a list of >10,000 climate “scientists” and how they responded. 
 

anyone know where to find it?

[grollies]

6 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

"From these graphs posted here and by BB the only conclusion that can be drawn is that there is no consensus on AGW or ACC or whatever they call it now."

 

Hold fire on that 'the only conclusion bit' there are several other conclusions that can be drawn:

 

You somehow think that 'Friendsofscience.org' is a reputable source, you missed the fact that out of 10257 claimed possible respondents, 10180 ignored or otherwise failed to respond (I suspect they know something about 'friendsofscience.org' that you don't).  

 

99.25% of the people that friendsofscience.org claim as possible respondents did not respond, that is an incredible knock back rate.

 

The pie charts (not graphs) do not as you claim  "show(s) that only a few papers have expressed certainty that AGW is caused by human activity.", they simply demonstrate that nobody, other than those on the rabid fringes of the internet, take 'friendsofscience.org' seriously. 

 

 

 

 

 

Tim Ball - was a professor in the Department of Geography at the University of Winnipeg from 1971 until his retirement in 1996 (and has just won his libel case that Michael E Mann started in 2007).

 

Sallie Baliunas - is a retired astrophysicist. She formerly worked at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

 

Tim Patterson - is a professor of geology in the Department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

 

Chris de Freitas - was a New Zealand climate scientist. He was an associate professor in the School of Environment at the University of Aukland

 

Madhav Khandekar - retired Environment Canada scientist

 

Norm Kalmanovitch  - geophysicist

 

Some fairly well-know scientists above who support the Friends of Science. Hardly people on the rabid fringes of the internet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, grollies said:

Tim Ball - was a professor in the Department of Geography at the University of Winnipeg from 1971 until his retirement in 1996 (and has just won his libel case that Michael E Mann started in 2007).

 

Sallie Baliunas - is a retired astrophysicist. She formerly worked at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

 

Tim Patterson - is a professor of geology in the Department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

 

Chris de Freitas - was a New Zealand climate scientist. He was an associate professor in the School of Environment at the University of Aukland

 

Madhav Khandekar - retired Environment Canada scientist

 

Norm Kalmanovitch  - geophysicist

 

Some fairly well-know scientists above who support the Friends of Science. Hardly people on the rabid fringes of the internet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Who's paying the bills?

[grollies]

24 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You somehow think that 'Friendsofscience.org' is a reputable source, you missed the fact that out of 10257 claimed possible respondents, 10180 ignored or otherwise failed to respond (I suspect they know something about 'friendsofscience.org' that you don't).  

No, no, no. The 10257 Earth Scientists sent the survey, 3146 individuals replied. Out of the respondants 79 were judged Climate Scientists (self-determined) 77 agreed (2.4%), so yes, we can agree an incredible knock-back rate but the figures you quoted are responding to the Doran Zimmerman 'survey' not a Friends of Science survey.

 

You totally mis-understood the point.

 

 

[grollies]

9 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Who's paying the bills?

Ah, that old chestnut. Big Oil?

 

Willie Soon was accused of taking money from Big Oil. Fact is, the oil companies donated to his department in Harvard and some of this money funded Soon's work. But anonymously, reasearch scientists are not told wher the money comes from. Unlike NASA, NOAA, IPCC, and the thousands of Climate Alarmists funded by government (i.e. taxes from you and me).

 

One of the biggest sources of cash funding for Canadian Alarmists opposed to oil sands development and pipeline construction comes from the Rockerfeller Foundation. Funny that. The US can buy Canadian crude at around $14/barrel due to there being no other market for the oils sands crude other than rail networks to the States.

[grollies]

30 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

Given the number of times the 97% lie errrr fact has been regurgitated here, surely there’s a list of >10,000 climate “scientists” and how they responded. 
 

anyone know where to find it?

You can't. Respondants names to the survey are private.

 

The only reliable survey is from a 2014 American Meterological Society survey which found 52% of respondants (admittedly, a low response rate received) answered 'yes' to the question is GW happening and 'mostly human' as to the cause. Not consensus and certainly not the 97% as claimed by Jones (0.54%), Doran and Zimmerman (2.4%), Oreskes (1.2%) , Anderegg (66%) - percentage figures in brackets are the actual % of respondants explicitly agreeing with the IPCC Declaration (on AGW/ACC).

 

AMS Source: journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1

 

(see table on above link - can't upload the picture of the table for now).

 

 

[grollies]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

It seems you don't understand what significant means to scientists. Such a result would be drowned in statistical noise so couldn't be significant. Not surprised that certain parties endorsed such a scientifically illiterate post.

Significant? As in the 0.04% of CO2 that makes up the Earth's atmosphere being soley attributed to global rises in the Earth's temperature? Water vapour is far more prevalent in the atmosphere and has far more effect.

[grollies]

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Australia’s ABC News has brought news of much needed help for some around here:

https://youtu.be/KIP2vukNOPc

 

That is pretty funny.

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, grollies said:

I have already posted a reply on this. The 'survey' has been throughly de-bunked as falsified.

You posted a reply with no links to your sources. And you claimed this:

"Indeed, around 1,000 of those surveyed did not have a PhD and some not even a Master’s Degree."

Care to share with us the source of the particular piece of tripe?

[bristolboy]

21 minutes ago, grollies said:

Significant? As in the 0.04% of CO2 that makes up the Earth's atmosphere being soley attributed to global rises in the Earth's temperature? Water vapour is far more prevalent in the atmosphere and has far more effect.

As climatologists repeatedly point out, essentially water vapour is part of a feedback effect whereas CO2 is a forcing effect.  When it starts to rain dry ice, you'll have a point. Until then, not so much.

And clearly you don't understand the scientific meaning of "significant"

[grollies]

25 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

You posted a reply with no links to your sources. And you claimed this:

"Indeed, around 1,000 of those surveyed did not have a PhD and some not even a Master’s Degree."

Care to share with us the source of the particular piece of tripe?

Ah yes, sorry. This 'tripe' as you put it came from a book published by:

 

Craig Idso PhD - founder, former president and current chairman of the board of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change

 

Fred Singer PhD - physicist and emeritus professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia

 

Robert Carter PhD (deceased) - palaeontologist, stratigrapher and marine geologist. He was professor and head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University in Australia from 1981 to 1998 and emeritus fellow of the Institute of Public Affairs in London.

 

"Why Scientists Disagree - 2nd Edition" 2016

ISBN-10: 1934791598

ISBN-13: 978-1934791592

 

You consider their thoughts and publications tripe? This is part of the problem. Proponants of AGW/ACC will not engage in debate and simply resort to insults on individuals instead of informing the debate.

 

I look at both sides of the argument and make my own conclusions based on the evidence I read.

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, grollies said:

Ah yes, sorry. This 'tripe' as you put it came from a book published by:

 

Craig Idso PhD - founder, former president and current chairman of the board of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change

 

Fred Singer PhD - physicist and emeritus professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia

 

Robert Carter PhD (deceased) - palaeontologist, stratigrapher and marine geologist. He was professor and head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University in Australia from 1981 to 1998 and emeritus fellow of the Institute of Public Affairs in London.

 

"Why Scientists Disagree - 2nd Edition" 2016

ISBN-10: 1934791598

ISBN-13: 978-1934791592

 

You consider their thoughts and publications tripe? This is part of the problem. Proponants of AGW/ACC will not engage in debate and simply resort to insults on individuals instead of informing the debate.

 

I look at both sides of the argument and make my own conclusions based on the evidence I read.

Well. apart from the dubious status of the authors, all we have is your allegation that's what the book says. No proof of that. It may surprise you to learn that the say-so of an anonymous poster has 0 evidentiary value. Whereas I linked to the actual journal article in which Doran says that over 90 percent of the respondents had PhD's and 7 percent had Master's degrees.

[rabas]

2 hours ago, bristolboy said:

3 hours ago, grollies said:

Significant? As in the 0.04% of CO2 that makes up the Earth's atmosphere being soley attributed to global rises in the Earth's temperature? Water vapour is far more prevalent in the atmosphere and has far more effect.

As climatologists repeatedly point out, essentially water vapour is part of a feedback effect whereas CO2 is a forcing effect.  When it starts to rain dry ice, you'll have a point. Until then, not so much.

 

You post this often with no explanation or discussion, I don't think it means what you intend it to mean. It does not mean feedback can be ignored. Quite the contrary. Feedbacks are the scary monsters in the room and H₂O is just one. Since you won't discuss this let me try to make it simple for every one.  Highly recommended reading:

 

https://www.azimuthproject.org/azimuth/show/Climate+forcing+and+feedback

 

Forcing denotes an external influence on a characteristic of the climate system. Example: Increased emission from the sun leads to an increase of the temperature.

 

Feedback denotes the reaction of the (climate) system to the forcing which, in return, leads to a change in the forcings. Example: a change in the Earth’s temperature may cause effects that lead to more radiation being absorbed or emitted. This then creates further changes in the Earth’s temperature. This ‘loop’ where a change in temperature creates a further change is called a climate feedback, or simply feedback.

Note forcing is radiation, not necessarily CO₂, CO₂ is just considered simple and easy to calculate.

Note water vapour is the second largest feedback after Planck (radiative) feedback, and there are many.

Note the very large error ranges on all these feedback mechanisms. These are very hard to calculate accurately.

 

The real meaning of your statement is that the magnitude of global warming remains poorly understood.

 

[grollies]

29 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Well. apart from the dubious status of the authors

See, you are at it again with the insults. You cannot dispute the credentials of the authors. They are (or were) eminent scientists of repute.

 

29 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

all we have is your allegation that's what the book says. No proof of that.

If you are unable (or unwilling?) to seek out the book online this may help:

 

https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/Books/Why Scientists Disagree Second Edition with covers.pdf

 

29 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

It may surprise you to learn that the say-so of an anonymous poster has 0 evidentiary value.

Therefore, as an anonymous poster also, it follows that you too have 0 evidentiary credibility? This is an anonymous forum so your statement is a rather absurd. We are all entitled to our opinions.

 

29 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Whereas I linked to the actual journal article in which Doran says that over 90 percent of the respondents had PhD's and 7 percent had Master's degrees.

I have read the article. It is written by a student. The 'survey' was only sent to scientists working for universities and government research agencies, only 5 percent of respondents self-identified as climate scientists - hardly representative of the scientific community as a whole.

 

The questions asked were:

Q1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

 

Q2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

 

"Most skeptics of man-made global warming would answer those two questions the same way as alarmists would. At issue is not whether the climate warmed since the Little Ice Age or whether there is a human impact on climate, but whether the warming is unusual in rate or magnitude; whether that part of it attributable to human causes is likely to be beneficial or harmful on net and by how much; and whether the benefits of reducing human carbon dioxide emissions – i.e., reducing the use of fossil fuels – would outweigh the costs, so as to justify public policies aimed at reducing those emissions."

 

-Idso, Singer & Carter "Why Scientists Disagree - 2nd Edition" 2016

 

[bristolboy]

4 hours ago, grollies said:

You can't. Respondants names to the survey are private.

 

The only reliable survey is from a 2014 American Meterological Society survey which found 52% of respondants (admittedly, a low response rate received) answered 'yes' to the question is GW happening and 'mostly human' as to the cause. Not consensus and certainly not the 97% as claimed by Jones (0.54%), Doran and Zimmerman (2.4%), Oreskes (1.2%) , Anderegg (66%) - percentage figures in brackets are the actual % of respondants explicitly agreeing with the IPCC Declaration (on AGW/ACC).

 

AMS Source: journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1

 

(see table on above link - can't upload the picture of the table for now).

 

 

I'm so glad you brought up this study. Undoubtedly you got the extremely misleading characterization of it from some dubious denialist link.

Here's what a co-author of the study had to say about that:

http://blog.ametsoc.org/columnists/going-to-the-source-for-accurate-information/

That's the Heartland Institute he's referring to. The organization that so many of those "farely well known scientists" you referered to are associated with.

 

I can say that with confidence because actual authors of the study wrote this:

"Our findings regarding the degree of consensus about human-caused climate change among the most expert meteorologists are similar to those of Doran and Zimmerman (2009): 93% of actively publishing climate scientists indicated they are convinced that humans have contributed to global warming. Our findings also revealed that majorities of experts view human activity as the primary cause of recent climate change: 78% of climate experts actively publishing on climate change, 73% of all people actively publishing on climate change, and 62% of active publishers who mostly do not publish on climate change."

 

I don't have time right now to do justice to all the misinformation you've posted. But what is significant is that you clearly didn't even read this report but instead trusted to the distortions of denialists.

 

Not only that, but In 2016 a follow up study was done.

"A total of 4,092 AMS members participated, with participants coming from the United States and internationally. The participation rate in the survey was 53.3%"

https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/AMS_Member_Survey_Report_2016.pdf

So much for your assertion that..."The only reliable survey is from a 2014 American Meterological Society survey..."

I suspect you're not going to be pleased with the results of the 2016 survey. 

I 

 

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, rabas said:

 

You post this often with no explanation or discussion, I don't think it means what you intend it to mean. It does not mean feedback can be ignored. Quite the contrary. Feedbacks are the scary monsters in the room and H₂O is just one. Since you won't discuss this let me try to make it simple for every one.  Highly recommended reading:

 

https://www.azimuthproject.org/azimuth/show/Climate+forcing+and+feedback

 

Forcing denotes an external influence on a characteristic of the climate system. Example: Increased emission from the sun leads to an increase of the temperature.

 

Feedback denotes the reaction of the (climate) system to the forcing which, in return, leads to a change in the forcings. Example: a change in the Earth’s temperature may cause effects that lead to more radiation being absorbed or emitted. This then creates further changes in the Earth’s temperature. This ‘loop’ where a change in temperature creates a further change is called a climate feedback, or simply feedback.

Note forcing is radiation, not necessarily CO₂, CO₂ is just considered simple and easy to calculate.

Note water vapour is the second largest feedback after Planck (radiative) feedback, and there are many.

Note the very large error ranges on all these feedback mechanisms. These are very hard to calculate accurately.

 

The real meaning of your statement is that the magnitude of global warming remains poorly understood.

 

You got it wrong. Radiation isn't forcing. Increasing radiation is forcing. "Increasing" is they key word here. Not emission. Not radiation. Or do you hold that declining solar emissions or declining solar radiation is also a forcing effect?

But the fact is that CO levels in the atmosphere have been increasing since the start of the industrial revolution. 

Whereas for water vapor levels there's a certain feedback effect called "precipitation". So water vapour levels in the atmosphere can only rise to the levels of saturation. And then much of that vapour is purged. And the cycle starts over again. 

When it starts to precipitate dry ice, you'll have a better point.

Here's the graph from the 2014 report you referred to:

 

[metisdead]

An off topic post about secondhand smoke has been removed. 

[grollies]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

I'm so glad you brought up this study. Undoubtedly you got the extremely misleading characterization of it from some dubious denialist link.

Here's what a co-author of the study had to say about that:

http://blog.ametsoc.org/columnists/going-to-the-source-for-accurate-information/

That's the Heartland Institute he's referring to. The organization that so many of those "farely well known scientists" you referered to are associated with.

 

I can say that with confidence because actual authors of the study wrote this:

"Our findings regarding the degree of consensus about human-caused climate change among the most expert meteorologists are similar to those of Doran and Zimmerman (2009): 93% of actively publishing climate scientists indicated they are convinced that humans have contributed to global warming. Our findings also revealed that majorities of experts view human activity as the primary cause of recent climate change: 78% of climate experts actively publishing on climate change, 73% of all people actively publishing on climate change, and 62% of active publishers who mostly do not publish on climate change."

 

I don't have time right now to do justice to all the misinformation you've posted. But what is significant is that you clearly didn't even read this report but instead trusted to the distortions of denialists.

 

Not only that, but In 2016 a follow up study was done.

"A total of 4,092 AMS members participated, with participants coming from the United States and internationally. The participation rate in the survey was 53.3%"

https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/AMS_Member_Survey_Report_2016.pdf

So much for your assertion that..."The only reliable survey is from a 2014 American Meterological Society survey..."

I suspect you're not going to be pleased with the results of the 2016 survey. 

I 

 

Thank you for the link to the latest AMS survey. I hadn’t seen it before so thanks for bringing me up-to-date.

 

Our argument here is on ‘consensus’ and the statements from politicians that ‘the science is settled” with the assertion that 97% of scientists agree that AGW/ACC is damaging the planet.

 

This is far from true and the AMS 2016 survey summarises thus:

 

“Nearly all AMS members (96%) think climate change –as defined by AMS–is happening, with almost 9 out of 10 (89%) stating that they are either ‘extremely’ or ‘very’ sure it is happening. Only 1% think climate change is not happening, and 3% say they don’t know.” *

 

Well, sure, agreed, no one disputes the climate is changing and has always changed (in line with 89% of the survey respondents). From the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), through the Little Ice Age (LIA) to the Great Dust Bowl (GDB) warming in the 1930’s and 1950’s warm period the climate has always changed. Personally, my problem is with people like Michael E. Mann who managed to erase the MWP and LIA and alter the data to reduce the effects of the GDB and produce his hockey-stick data.

 

“A large majority of AMS members indicated that human activity is causing at least a portion of the changes in the climate over the past 50 years. Specifically: 29% think the change is largely or entirely due to human activity (i.e., 81 to 100%); 38% think most of the change is caused by human activity (i.e., 61 to 80%); 14% think the change is caused more or less equally by human activity and natural events; and 7% think the change is caused mostly by natural events. Conversely, 5% think the change is caused largely or entirely by natural events, 6% say they don’t know, and 1% think climate change isn’t happening.” *

 

Hmm, so only 29% think definitively that the ‘science is settled’ and that 81-100% of AGW/ACC is largely due to human activity. 38% think that it is possible that 61 – 80% of AGW/ACC is caused mostly by human activity. 14% think it’s 50-50 and the rest (19%) are either sure AGW/ACC is not caused by human activity or don’t know.

 

Leaving aside the possibilities of remedy that the survey goes on to address, the first two paragraphs of the summary fall a log way short of the 97% consensus figures touted by politicians in order for them to increase taxes on the general population worldwide. By using the 97% figure to drive policy on unreliable renewable energy and frightening kids into believing that the world is about to end is scandalous and ignorant.

 

One thing is for sure; the science is not settled. Your survey link demonstrates that admirably.

 

*Summary of Findings, Page 2 “A 2016 National Survey of American Meteorological Society Member Views on Climate Change: Initial Findings”

 

https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/04/AMS_Member_Survey_Report_2016.pdf

[grollies]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

You got it wrong. Radiation isn't forcing. Increasing radiation is forcing. "Increasing" is they key word here. Not emission. Not radiation. Or do you hold that declining solar emissions or declining solar radiation is also a forcing effect?

But the fact is that CO levels in the atmosphere have been increasing since the start of the industrial revolution. 

Whereas for water vapor levels there's a certain feedback effect called "precipitation". So water vapour levels in the atmosphere can only rise to the levels of saturation. And then much of that vapour is purged. And the cycle starts over again. 

When it starts to precipitate dry ice, you'll have a better point.

Here's the graph from the 2014 report you referred to:

 

Is that the right 'graph' mate? I was trying to post that table (and you critisised me for calling a pie chart a graph LOL) from the AMS survey from 2014. You're getting your posts mixed up.

[rabas]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

You got it wrong. Radiation isn't forcing. Increasing radiation is forcing. "Increasing" is they key word here. Not emission. Not radiation. Or do you hold that declining solar emissions or declining solar radiation is also a forcing effect?

But the fact is that CO levels in the atmosphere have been increasing since the start of the industrial revolution. 

Whereas for water vapor levels there's a certain feedback effect called "precipitation". So water vapour levels in the atmosphere can only rise to the levels of saturation. And then much of that vapour is purged. And the cycle starts over again. 

When it starts to precipitate dry ice, you'll have a better point.

Here's the graph from the 2014 report you referred to:

 

"You got it wrong. Radiation isn't forcing. Increasing radiation is forcing"

 

No, I didn't get anything wrong. You bring word play to a science discussion to dodge my point.

- Those 'increased' photons are radiation, are they not?  Of course they are.

- Another way is differential radiative energy.

 

But you entirely disregarded my point about various feedback magnitudes and their large errors.  So it must be right!

 

"Here's the graph from the 2014 report you referred to:"

Not my diagram, didn't mention surveys, cut and paste error?

[RideJocky]

8 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Who's paying the bills?

Who’s paying the bills for virtually everyone making a living publishing peer reviewed papers on global warming? 
 

Why is the fact that AGW has developed into an industry that feeds on hysteria not a concern? 

[Crazy Alex]

10 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Who's paying the bills?

Whose bills? The climate activists who gain from government and other entities paying them to study the issue?

[Forethat]

1 hour ago, Crazy Alex said:

Whose bills? The climate activists who gain from government and other entities paying them to study the issue?

Hear hear!

Global warming alarmism is exactly that - global - and there's hardly a company out there without a "climate manager" or similar. Imagine the number of people who'd be out of a job if someone pulled the plug on the climate scam. The carbon credit scheme is worth an absolute stinking fortune but the question is how much else is invested. Astronomical numbers.

 

I bet 97% of all supporters of the idea that witchcraft was real agreed that the swim test was an accurate method of identifying a witch in the 18th century.

[canuckamuck]

This graph is very interesting. It does seem to confirm two things.

1. The more your career revolves around producing global warming papers, the more likely you are to be agreeing with the opinion that humans are changing the climate.

Take away the pressure to publish desired results and the opinions quickly drop to 37% Mostly human caused warming.

2. Quite a few publishing scientists are unconvinced either way. In fact 17% of publishing scientists, publishing primarily climate change articles, feel that GW is somewhere between mostly natural and totally natural.

 

Consensus kablooey

[Chomper Higgot]

30 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

This graph is very interesting. It does seem to confirm two things.

1. The more your career revolves around producing global warming papers, the more likely you are to be agreeing with the opinion that humans are changing the climate.

Take away the pressure to publish desired results and the opinions quickly drop to 37% Mostly human caused warming.

2. Quite a few publishing scientists are unconvinced either way. In fact 17% of publishing scientists, publishing primarily climate change articles, feel that GW is somewhere between mostly natural and totally natural.

 

Consensus kablooey

More unattributed ripped content.

 

Please provide a link to where you found this table.

[grollies]

11 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

More unattributed ripped content.

 

Please provide a link to where you found this table.

It's from the AMS Survey 2014 that I was trying to post a while back and @bristolboy kindly uploaded. The survey was repeated in 2016, again posted by BB.

 

Source: https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1

 

AMS 2016 Survey results here: https://gmuchss.az1.qualtrics.com/CP/File.php?F=F_cRR9lW0HjZaiVV3

 

[canuckamuck]

24 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

More unattributed ripped content.

 

Please provide a link to where you found this table.

The data has been the topic of discussion for the last several posts. Interesting to see you don't want to accept the figures.

You have a disagreement with the American Meteorological Society now?

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, canuckamuck said:

The data has been the topic of discussion for the last several posts. Interesting to see you don't want to accept the figures.

You have a disagreement with the American Meteorological Society now?

I like to see the source.

 

Here’s why, from the ‘Discussion’ section of the report from

where you got the table you posted:

 

“Our findings regarding the degree of consensus about human-caused climate change among the most expert meteorologists are similar to those of Doran and Zimmerman (2009): 93% of actively publishing climate scientists indicated they are convinced that humans have contributed to global warming. Our findings also revealed that majorities of experts view human activity as the primary cause of recent climate change: 78% of climate experts actively publishing on climate change, 73% of all people actively publishing on climate change, and 62% of active publishers who mostly do not publish on climate change. These results, together with those of other similar studies, suggest high levels of expert consensus about human-caused climate change (Farnsworth and Lichter 2012; Bray 2010).”

 

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1

[rabas]

34 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I like to see the source.

 

Here’s why, from the ‘Discussion’ section of the report from

where you got the table you posted:

 

“Our findings regarding the degree of consensus about human-caused climate change among the most expert meteorologists are similar to those of Doran and Zimmerman (2009): 93% of actively publishing climate scientists indicated they are convinced that humans have contributed to global warming. Our findings also revealed that majorities of experts view human activity as the primary cause of recent climate change: 78% of climate experts actively publishing on climate change, 73% of all people actively publishing on climate change, and 62% of active publishers who mostly do not publish on climate change. These results, together with those of other similar studies, suggest high levels of expert consensus about human-caused climate change (Farnsworth and Lichter 2012; Bray 2010).”

 

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1

 

I believe what you quoted is a summary of the old Doran and Zimmerman results from a paragraph within the AMS publication, and not a summary of the actual AMS study results. I don't know if this is what you intended.

 

[grollies]

7 minutes ago, rabas said:

 

I believe what you quoted is a summary of the old Doran and Zimmerman results from a paragraph within the AMS publication, and not a summary of the actual AMS study results. I don't know if this is what you intended.

 

No, this is a quote fom the document, the first paragraph of the discussion section.

 

However, at the start of the document, this is what they said about Doran-Zimmerman:

 

"Research conducted to date with meteorologists and other atmospheric scientists has shown that they are not unanimous in their views of climate change. In a survey of Earth scientists, Doran and Zimmerman (2009) found that, while a majority of meteorologists surveyed are convinced humans have contributed to global warming (GW; 64%), this was a substantially smaller majority than that found among all Earth scientists (82%)."

 

Links previously posted on this page, above (do we have to post links each time? - ah, I suppose so: https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1)

 

I don't have much faith in these surveys, it's like walking into a KFC and taking a survey of how many people eat chicken.