This is not correct. I posted the the results from a study of climate scientists' with regard to global warming on ET. The study was published, if I remember correctly, in 2014. I am not inclined to look for it now. But I can assure you that your statement above is wrong. If you search my posts you will find it.
Hey, I asked you a question previously... maybe you missed it. You said "an argument could be made" to control our CO2 emissions. What is that argument?
Of course it is correct. I can assure you. Once again in the area of AGW, you are wrong. In fact, it is closer to 100%. 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.
He doesn't care if it's correct or not. It's just another of their endless "conservatives are stupid" narratives. Apparently it helps them feel better about themselves.
And you don't care if he is correct either. You just want to attack a progressive without looking at the facts. Like the typical ignorant raving homophobic dogmatic deluded righty that you are. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
You deserve an answer, but I am struggling to come up with one that is not purely altruistic and makes practical sense. I thought, with out thinking enough unfortunately, that I could make a case based on our influence on the rate of entropy increase on our planet. Now I'm not so sure. In May I'll be spending ten days in Paris with my brilliant economist friend, Joe, who, usefully, was a physical chemistry major as an undergraduate at Duke, and therefore forced to study thermodynamics, as was I. I hope to explore this question with him then, as we sip wine on the banks of the Seine. Until then, if you should ask me when you might expect an answer my response will be "Always".
If you want to have any credibility with me, not important to you, i'm sure, you should at the minimum stop repeating clearly erroneous statements. It seems you are correct with regard to the official statements emanating from various professional organizations. If you'll take the time to go back and re-read my post, however, you'll discover that I mentioned only dbphoenix's statement with regard to "climate scientists", where the claim made is wildly incorrect according to a statistical study of climate scientist opinion published recently in one of their own journals. I posted the summary table from that paper. I can't recall for sure now, but I seem to remember that it was in the Meteorologist's Bulletin. A respected scientific publication. You have read my comment several times that scientific matters can never be settled by opinion polls, and that no scientific question is technically ever "settled", though we may think of those issues that are universally accepted as correct as being settled, for the time being. The Climate issue does not fall into this category! This repeating the official opinions of various organizations has become comical. Will I let the official opinion of the American Medical Association on whether humans are affecting climate influence my thinking? I hope not!
Here it is. I searched and turned up this excerpt taken from a prior post of mine and found rather easily. This is mainly for futurecurrents benefit. I apologize for boring the rest of you by repeating this: [underlining is mine] Last year, a survey published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (Neil Stenhouse, Edward Maibach, Sara Cobb, Ray Ban, Andrea Bleistein, Paul Croft, Eugene Bierly, Keith Seitter, Gary Rasmussen, and Anthony Leiserowitz, 2014: Meteorologists' Views About Global Warming: A Survey of American Meteorological Society Professional Members. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.roil, 1029–1040.) began by reviewing some earlier and similar surveys published five years ago. Here is Stenhouse, et al.'s summary of the 2009 reviews: "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%). Another survey, by Farnsworth and Lichter (2009), found that 83% of meteorologists surveyed were convinced human-induced climate change is occurring, again a smaller majority than among experts in related areas, such as ocean sciences (91%) and geophysics (88%). Below I have appended Table 1 from the Stenhouse paper which summarizes the responses to questions in the 2014 survey. I personally don't see anything in the Stenhouse survey that would justify a remark such as 100%, or nearly 100%, of scientists, or climate scientists, agree that AGW is real. I recommend consulting the original manuscript, available free, for more information.