Majority Of Scientists Don't Believe AGW

They only use amalgam on stupid people like yourself these days. Are you claiming it is the mercury that makes you so ignorant?

 

Where's your proof, Corky?

That article was peer-reviewed. Know what that means dumbshit? Check out the sample-size = >1200 climate scientists.

Oh no. You're wrong (again).

 

I don't know where you find your lies but this paragraph is not in the paper mentioned, idiot.

I don't know if you make this shit up or just can't follow a simple link.

You are a fool, and your lies about this paper and your lies about your AGW belief are stupendously stupid.

The abstract tells you they used professionals working for diverse organizations:

This paper examines the framings and identity work associated with professionals’ discursive construction of climate change science, their legitimation of themselves as experts on ‘the truth’, and their attitudes towards regulatory measures. Drawing from survey responses of 1077 professional engineers and geoscientists, we reconstruct their framings of the issue and knowledge claims to position themselves within their organizational and their professional institutions. In understanding the struggle over what constitutes and legitimizes expertise, we make apparent the heterogeneity of claims, legitimation strategies, and use of emotionality and metaphor. By linking notions of the science or science fiction of climate change to the assessment of the adequacy of global and local policies and of potential organizational responses, we contribute to the understanding of ‘defensive institutional work’ by professionals within petroleum companies, related industries, government regulators, and their professional association.

 

Asshole, I go to the original study because the distorted, deceptive shit in Forbes about AGW is just that, shit. So take your dopey moron denier shit and stuff it.

"Second, framings are socio-historical constructions – embedded in specific worldviews, social positions, and interests that are bounded in space and time. Thus, the specific socio-economic location of our group of experts – the constellation of professional designations and industries, and the relevance of the petroleum industry for Alberta – may influence the findings, especially the frequency of frames. In addition, while these experts’ framings may have represented those of October 2007 in Alberta, Canada, the science and policy positions may have since shifted there as elsewhere."


http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full

 

You fucking fool. A search shows you are just full of shit.

And, the Abstract shows that what ever you are saying isn't relevant to this paper. You damn idiot. Why don't you go blow your brother or something. May you need to rest your two brain cells.

 

Oh no. You're still stupid. They are NOT climate scientists. Try to get a clue.

How many fucking times and ways do I we have to do this dumbshit? Do you read anything other the comics and watch Fox News? I have never see so many dumb fucks in one place before as this forum.

Oreskes and Peiser
Scientists need to back up their opinions with research and data that survive the peer-review process. A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004). 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way (focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis).

Benny Peiser, a climate contrarian, repeated Oreskes' survey and claimed to have found 34 peer reviewed studies rejecting the consensus. However, an inspection of each of the 34 studies reveals most of them don't reject the consensus at all. The remaining articles in Peiser's list are editorials or letters, not peer-reviewed studies. Peiser has since retracted his criticism of Oreskes survey:

"Only [a] few abstracts explicitly reject or doubt the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) consensus which is why I have publicly withdrawn this point of my critique. [snip] I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact."

Doran 2009
Subsequent research has confirmed this result. A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what are most interesting are responses compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes. As the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures.


Figure 1: Response to the survey question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009) General public data come from a 2008 Gallup poll.

Most striking is the divide between expert climate scientists (97.4%) and the general public (58%). The paper concludes:

"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists."

Anderegg 2010
This overwhelming consensus among climate experts is confirmed by an independent study that surveys all climate scientists who have publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting the consensus. They find between 97% to 98% of climate experts support the consensus (Anderegg 2010). Moreover, they examine the number of publications by each scientist as a measure of expertise in climate science. They find the average number of publications by unconvinced scientists (eg - skeptics) is around half the number by scientists convinced by the evidence. Not only is there a vast difference in the number of convinced versus unconvinced scientists, there is also a considerable gap in expertise between the two groups.


Figure 2: Distribution of the number of researchers convinced by the evidence of anthropogenic climate change and unconvinced by the evidence with a given number of total climate publications (Anderegg 2010).

Vision Prize
The Vision Prize is an online poll of scientists about climate risk. It is an impartial and independent research platform for incentivized polling of experts on important scientific issues that are relevant to policymakers. In addition to assessing the views of scientists, Vision Prize asked its expert participants to predict the views of their scientific colleagues. The participant affiliations and fields are illustrated in Figure 3.



Figure 3: Vision Prize participant affiliations and fields

As this figure shows, the majority (~85%) of participants are academics, and approximately half of all participants are Earth Scientists. Thus the average climate science expertise of the participants is quite good.

Approximately 90% of participants responded that human activity has had a primary influence over global temperatures over the past 250 years, with the other 10% answering that it has been a secondary cause, and none answering either that humans have had no influence or that temperatures have not increased. Note also that the participants expected less than 80% to peg humans as the primary cause, and a few percent to say humans have no influence - the consensus was significantly better than the participants anticipated (Figure 4).

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

 

You're a dumbshit to continue to use that AGW bullshit site. It's obvious from current studies that AGW is dead.

It doesn't exist dumbass. Get that through your stupid brain, idiot.

 

So let's use a a single source - Web of Science - that represents less than 5% of scientific papers published. --- and then draw wide conclusions from a limited search.

 

But this is just one multiple studies. They all say the same thing. The consensus among climate scientists is overwhelming. You nitwits can stick your head in the sand and run to bullshit sources to support your moron right wing denier position but those are the facts.

 

LOL. Now I think you're messing with me. No-one could be that stupid. Not even a dumbass right-wing redneck from Texas.