02-11-2016, 03:01 AM
Intriguing that you'd let a climate change skeptic interpret the figures for you. At least it wasn't written by Loony Lord Monckton, I guess.
At page 1035, the writers of the study noted that:
You can choose not to believe climate scientists as being self-interested bandwagonners if you wish but I reckon I'll stick to the experts thank you very much. And the very study that you rely upon shows that 93% of them are convinced that humans have contributed to global warming.
Remember that even fewer than 7% of climate scientists actually disputed that there is global warming. Much of the study was directed to determining how much humans contributed to it. Just because some climate scientists do not think humans are the primary cause doesn't mean that those scientists regard attempts to limit human contributions as futile. Your friendly sceptic tried to suck everyone in by painting everyone who didn't say humans were the primary cause of GW as climate change skeptics, as well as trying to disregard the actual scientists who are working in the field. Naughty, naughty.
Also remember that the survey was of the members of the American Meteorological Society which is only a subset of the relevant fields comprehended by climate science, and only 26.3% of the professional members of the society responded to the survey.
I'm not seeing any serious challenge to the predominance of the climate change model but maybe you can find something better elsewhere ...
At page 1035, the writers of the study noted that:
Quote: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on climate change, 73% of all people actively publishing on climate change, and 62% of active publishers who mostly do not publish on climate change.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).
You can choose not to believe climate scientists as being self-interested bandwagonners if you wish but I reckon I'll stick to the experts thank you very much. And the very study that you rely upon shows that 93% of them are convinced that humans have contributed to global warming.
Remember that even fewer than 7% of climate scientists actually disputed that there is global warming. Much of the study was directed to determining how much humans contributed to it. Just because some climate scientists do not think humans are the primary cause doesn't mean that those scientists regard attempts to limit human contributions as futile. Your friendly sceptic tried to suck everyone in by painting everyone who didn't say humans were the primary cause of GW as climate change skeptics, as well as trying to disregard the actual scientists who are working in the field. Naughty, naughty.
Also remember that the survey was of the members of the American Meteorological Society which is only a subset of the relevant fields comprehended by climate science, and only 26.3% of the professional members of the society responded to the survey.
I'm not seeing any serious challenge to the predominance of the climate change model but maybe you can find something better elsewhere ...