You used a sock puppet. You pretended to be 'res judicata' trying to support yourself as jem and were caught red-handed. Only then did you let - et know - as you put it , in the form of a totally pathetic excuse. You don't even have the basic honesty or good grace to admit it. The only response you have is to falsely accuse me for something you did. The paranoia that makes you believe every poster you don't like is me, is boring and quite frankly your own problem. Just like any other subject to do with science, the refusal to accept any facts, a few completely inane comments, crap loads of subjective cut 'n' paste and a basic deceit is all you've got.
AGW IS fact. The debate is around to what extent the vast amounts of greenhouse gases emitted by human activity, a proportion of which are not absorbed by natural process but left in the atmosphere, will cause harmful effect. For the same reasons you say people are backing away from agw, they deny agw. That much isn't science. It has however attracted some attention and lucrative sponsoring. Eliminating or reducing man made CO2 so it does not, or at least limits adverse affects on climate change, seems a very reasonable place for research money too.
Not true. There are other sources. Here's one... W. R. L. Anderegg, "Expert Credibility in Climate Change," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America Abstract.... "an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97-98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC [anthropogenic climate change] outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change "recent surveys" simply don't trump well over a thousand researchers with citation data showing 97% climate scientists supporting agw.
Oreskes 2004 and Peiser 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 masterâs 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.
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.
The only survey that showed 97% of 'climatologists' supported AGW is the Doran/Zimmerman survey. In order to do this they had to take the 3000+ results they received - and then hand-select a group of 77 they considered to be self-declared 'climatologists' and find that 75 of these supported AGW to give a 97% ratio. Let's be very clear there are no other broad surveys which show 97% of scientists support AGW. All the surveys in 2013 show under 50% support AGW.
So as I stated - Doran had to narrow his group down to 77 self-declared 'climatologists' to get a 97% result.
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. 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).