Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.

futurecurrents · Nov 8, 2013

Quote from jem:

Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections

Scientists in this section have made comments that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.
Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [10]
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[11]
Nils-Axel MÃ¶rner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999â2003), and author of books supporting the validity of dowsing[12]
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow ANU[13]
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[14]
Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [15]
Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes

Graph showing the ability with which a global climate model is able to reconstruct the historical temperature record, and the degree to which those temperature changes can be decomposed into various forcing factors. It shows the effects of five forcing factors: greenhouse gases, man-made sulfate emissions, solar variability, ozone changes, and volcanic emissions.[16]
Scientists in this section have made comments that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[17]
Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[18][19]
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[20]
Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[21]
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[22]
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[23]
William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[24]
William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University[25]
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[26]
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[27]
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[28]
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[29][30]
Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.[31]
Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[32][33]
Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo[34]
Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[35][36][37]
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[38]
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[39]
Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center[40]
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[41]
Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown

Scientists in this section have made comments that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks[42]
Claude AllÃ¨gre, politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris)[43]
Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University[44]
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC[45][46]
Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory[47]
Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology[48]
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma[49]
Ivar Giaever, professor emeritus at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.[50]
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists[51]
Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences

Scientists in this section have made comments that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for human society and/or the Earth's environment. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change [52]
Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[53]
Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia[54]
More...

So what? 97% of climatologists worldwide agree on AGW. These guys are the mistaken or non-commital 3%.

I just picked one name form above at random. This guy Syun-Ichi Akasofu, for instance, is a unqualified hack who is soundly derided by real climate scientists.

"Considering that Akasofu's paper almost entirely neglects physics and fails to address the causes of the observed warming trends, one might expect very little accuracy in his predictions of future temperature changes. However, although he does not explain its cause, Akasofu does assume that the 0.5Â°C per century warming trend discussed in his paper will continue into the future. So if the anthropogenic + natural warming trend is limited to 0.05Â°C per decade, Akasofu will have stumbled onto a correct prediction (Figure 5)."

for a complete debunking of this guy's bullshit...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/lessons-from-past-climate-predictions-akasofu.html

futurecurrents · Nov 8, 2013

So you are saying NASA,NOAA, Exxon, BP, The Weather Channel, every science org in the world is wrong.

You must be a Republican.

Quote from jem:

to about using debunked bullshit...

that was based on the now debunked cook study...

Here is the up to date info...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/...or-math-errors/

this is the most recent peer reviewed info...

The new paper by the leading climatologist Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal, now in its 21st year of publication, reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was âdangerousâ.

The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%.

Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it.
More...

futurecurrents · Nov 8, 2013

This helps to give a good idea about the overwhelming consensus.

<object id="flashObj" width="486" height="412" classid="clsid27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=9,0,47,0"><param name="movie" value="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" /><param name="flashVars" value="videoId=2384265141001&playerID=106573614001&playerKey=AQ~~,AAAAGKlf6FE~,iSMGT5PckNvcgUb_ru5CAy2Tyv4G5OW3&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=true" /><param name="base" value="http://admin.brightcove.com" /><param name="seamlesstabbing" value="false" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="swLiveConnect" value="true" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><embed src="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" flashVars="videoId=2384265141001&playerID=106573614001&playerKey=AQ~~,AAAAGKlf6FE~,iSMGT5PckNvcgUb_ru5CAy2Tyv4G5OW3&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=true" base="http://admin.brightcove.com" name="flashObj" width="486" height="412" seamlesstabbing="false" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" swLiveConnect="true" allowScriptAccess="always" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object>

gwb-trading · Nov 8, 2013

Quote from futurecurrents:

So what? 97% of climatologists worldwide agree on AGW. These guys are the mistaken or non-commital 3%.

I just picked one name form above at random. This guy Syun-Ichi Akasofu, for instance, is a unqualified hack who is soundly derided by real climate scientists.

"Considering that Akasofu's paper almost entirely neglects physics and fails to address the causes of the observed warming trends, one might expect very little accuracy in his predictions of future temperature changes. However, although he does not explain its cause, Akasofu does assume that the 0.5Â°C per century warming trend discussed in his paper will continue into the future. So if the anthropogenic + natural warming trend is limited to 0.05Â°C per decade, Akasofu will have stumbled onto a correct prediction (Figure 5)."

for a complete debunking of this guy's bullshit...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/lessons-from-past-climate-predictions-akasofu.html
More...

"Debunking" Yeah, right... you completely ignore the actual reality. You know the pesky fact that the papers from these scientists who do not support AGW are perfectly aligned with the measured reality - while all the IPCC models have failed.

futurecurrents · Nov 8, 2013

American Association for the Advancement of Science

"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society."

gwb-trading · Nov 8, 2013

Quote from futurecurrents:

So you are saying NASA,NOAA, Exxon, BP, The Weather Channel, every science org in the world is wrong.

You must be a Republican.

More...

Yeah right... people have posted links in the P&R forum that provided more than 24 peer reviewed climate articles that do not support global warming.

futurecurrents · Nov 8, 2013

Quote from gwb-trading:

Yeah right... people have posted links in the P&R forum that provided more than 24 peer reviewed climate articles that do not support global warming.
More...

No they haven't rejected global warming.

futurecurrents · Nov 8, 2013

Quote from gwb-trading:

"Debunking" Yeah, right... you completely ignore the actual reality. You know the pesky fact that the papers from these scientists who do not support AGW are perfectly aligned with the measured reality - while all the IPCC models have failed.
More...

The IPCC models have not failed and the earth has not slowed down it's warming.

You are fucking wrong. You are an idiot. You are a Republican. Same things. LOL

futurecurrents · Nov 8, 2013

We should also consider official scientific bodies and what they think about climate change. There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.

In the field of climate science, the consensus is unequivocal: human activities are causing climate change.

fhl · Nov 8, 2013

Within a few years "children just aren't going to know what snow is." Snowfall will be "a very rare and exciting event." Dr. David Viner, senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, interviewed by the UK Independent, March 20, 2000.