There are virtually no publishing climate scientists that dispute AGW. No science org at all. Only two peer reviewed papers out of 10,000 disputes it. The consensus is overwhelming among those who best understand the science. Essentially unanimous. Anybody saying otherwise is simply lying.
wow... how can you split from reality so far. We have a produced a list of over a thousand in the past.. below is a link to hundreds of skeptical papers. Many if not most of the recent papers find that the sun and the tides have a very strong influence on warming. You f/c are just now lying your ass off.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136 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 asurvey 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.
More like over 99%. James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[120] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[121] Gee, what percentage is that jerm? You lying piece of shit lawyer. Just like the scum that got OJ off and that fought the science showing tobacco is harmful. No morals. No conscience. Real great Christian YOU are.
we already covered this less than 1% of the papers supported agw also. I have given you the link to his database... you can see the title for yourself. It is a ridiculous state your are citing... plus he left out the hundreds of papers we cited earlier.
On a geologic time scale, 134 years is equivalent to the blink of an eye, or less. To say that the temperature is the highest on record is of course misleading and false, and is dependent on only one specific kind of very short record that ignores all the proxy records available which cover a much greater period of time. It is an absurdity to draw wide ranging, specific conclusions from a brief record with such large variance. The only reasonable conclusion that one can draw from such limited observation is that we have barely scratched the surface in our attempts to understand natural climate change. Perhaps in another few centuries or millennia we will begin to understand.
Yes we went through this a hundred times. AGW is now an accepted fact in the climate science community. It does not to have to be reasserted with every paper. Just as biology papers do not reassert evolution. Why can't you get that through your thick demented skull? You're trying to play slimey lawyerly bullshit talk. I call it a fucking lie. Your essential argument as presented is a fucking lie. By repeating it you are a liar . Denial of AGW is a big deal in the climate community. If a paper was written from that standpoint it would be quite obvious. It would scream denial. Only ONE author out of 9000 authors denied AGW.
To say that the temperature is the highest on record is of course misleading and false Once again, (I've lost count as to how many times now) YOU ARE WRONG. We can say with very high confidence that it is the highest on record. We can say this because the "the record" is the instrumental record. Granted it is not a long time period and not, by itself, very informative from a paleo climate perspective. But to say that it is false is well..... false. You just love trying to point out how little they know about climate science. You have surely convinced us about how little YOU know. Good job.
You are lying again... link us to papers which prove man made co2 causes warming? AGW is not an accepted fact in the papers and evolution from non life to life is not an accepted issue. There is not even a plausible pathway from life to non life at the moment. That is what a great many scientists are working on right now. For instance these scientists just released a paper hoping to show that part of the pathway from non life to life may have been through the oceans... http://www.embo.org/news/research-n...cean-reveals-secrets-about-the-origin-of-life
AGW is an accepted fact in the climate science community. That's a fact. As true as that jerm is a troll.