Why don't send over your list of scientists who are 'accepted' "climate scientists". Is the only requirement to get on the list is to be a paid promoter of Global Warming? I will note once again that Professor Mann's degrees are in physics. He obviously has no educational background in "climate science"; therefore everything that comes out of his mouth should be discounted. I will not that the list of 125 scientists includes some of the most respected and well-known scientists on the face of the earth - including many who spent their entire careers researching the climate.
And yet, still, there is overwhelming consensus among the experts. A few percent that disagree is really, well, three percent?
Feel free to ignore this also. It's what the deniers are best at. Ignorance. Now comes another entry in this developing literature. William R.L. Anderegg, a doctoral candidate at Stanford University, and his fellow authors compiled a database of 1,372 climate researchers. They then focused on scientists who had published at least 20 papers on climate, as a way to concentrate on those most active in the field. That produced a list of 908 researchers whose work was subjected to close scrutiny. The authors then classified those researchers as convinced or unconvinced by the evidence for human-induced climate change, based on such factors as whether they have signed public statements endorsing or dissenting from the big United Nations reports raising alarm about the issue. Then the authors analyzed how often each scientist had been published in the climate-science literature, as well as how often each had been cited in other papers. (The latter is a standard measure of scientific credibility and influence.) The results are pretty conclusive. The new research supports the idea that the vast majority of the worldâs active climate scientists accept the evidence for global warming as well as the case that human activities are the principal cause of it. For example, of the top 50 climate researchers identified by the study (as ranked by the number of papers they had published), only 2 percent fell into the camp of climate dissenters. Of the top 200 researchers, only 2.5 percent fell into the dissenter camp. That is consistent with past work, including opinion polls, suggesting that 97 to 98 percent of working climate scientists accept the evidence for human-induced climate change.
Even in the recent article you posted, there is nowhere near a 97% concensus on global warming. Your article outlined how a University of Illinois at Chicago associate professor went out and surveyed 3,146 scientists, nearly all of them working for universities or foundations funded with global warming research dollars. As outlined in the results, only 82% thought that human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Here is the quote: Two questions were key: have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second. This is a long way off from 97%.
You know in the 1970s university researchers would rarely dissent from the "global cooling" paradigm because they would not get jobs or research dollars.
"I was thinking of writing a lengthy post about climate change denial being completely unscientific nonsense, but then geochemist and National Science Board member James Lawrence Powell wrote a post that is basically a slam-dunk of debunking. His premise was simple: If global warming isnât real and thereâs an actual scientific debate about it, that should be reflected in the scientific journals. He looked up how many peer-reviewed scientific papers were published in professional journals about global warming, and compared the ones supporting the idea that weâre heating up compared to those that donât. What did he find? This: Oh my. Powell looked at 13,950 articles. Out of all those reams of scientific results, how many disputed the reality of climate change? Twenty-four. Yup. Two dozen. Out of nearly 14,000. Now I know some people will just say that this is due to mainstream scientists suppressing controversy and all that, but let me be succinct: Thatâs bull. Science thrives on dissenting ideas, it grows and learns from them. If there is actual evidence to support an idea, it gets published. I can point out copious examples in my own field of astronomy where papers get published about all manners of against-the-mainstream thinking, some of which come to conclusions that, in my opinion, are clearly wrong. So let this be clear: There is no scientific controversy over this. Climate change denial is purely, 100 percent made-up political and corporate-sponsored crap. When the loudest voices are fossil-fuel funded think tanks, when they donât publish in journals but instead write error-laden op-eds in partisan venues, when they have to manipulate the data to support their point, then what theyâre doing isnât science. Itâs nonsense. And worse, itâs dangerous nonsense. Because theyâre fiddling with the data while the world burns." http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astr...why_don_t_they_publish_scientific_papers.html
Of course, this has been exposed as total nonsense ever since the pie chart floated all over Facebook many months ago. One of the sad realities is that papers are not peered reviewed for being scientifically correct or for critical validation. Papers are peered reviewed to ensure that they will do nothing to jeopardize academic funding and to ensure they align with the 'group-think'.
As long as there is bullshit science out there FC will find it without critical thinking and declare it gospel. I'm sure he has his own personal copy of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" on his Man Made Global Warming altar. There is no hope that he will realize the truth until long after temperatures have plummeted and risen a few times. Should he live that long. Obama and Al Gore must be proud that there are so many sheeple in the world.
"Thatâs bull. Science thrives on dissenting ideas, it grows and learns from them. If there is actual evidence to support an idea, it gets published. I can point out copious examples in my own field of astronomy where papers get published about all manners of against-the-mainstream thinking, some of which come to conclusions that, in my opinion, are clearly wrong. So let this be clear: There is no scientific controversy over this. Climate change denial is purely, 100 percent made-up political and corporate-sponsored crap. When the loudest voices are fossil-fuel funded think tanks, when they donât publish in journals but instead write error-laden op-eds in partisan venues, when they have to manipulate the data to support their point, then what theyâre doing isnât science. Itâs nonsense. And worse, itâs dangerous nonsense. Because theyâre fiddling with the data while the world burns."