From Roger Pielke Senior’s Climate Science Blog. There is an Associated Press [AP] news article today by Dina Cappiello, Seth Borenstein and Kevin Freking titled “Poll: US belief in global warming is cooling”.
In this article the reporters perpetuate the myth that
“Though there are exceptions, the vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is occurring and that the primary cause is a buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels, such as oil and coal.”
This is not true and is a case of the media seeking to make up news.
We have already documented that a significant minority of climate scientists do not consider greenhouse gases as the primary cause for global warming, and, more generally, cause climate change; e.g. see
Brown, F., J. Annan, and R.A. Pielke Sr., 2008: Is there agreement amongst climate scientists on the IPCC AR4 WG1?
and
National Research Council, 2005: Radiative forcing of climate change: Expanding the concept and addressing uncertainties. Committee on Radiative Forcing Effects on Climate Change, Climate Research Committee, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Division on Earth and Life Studies, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 208 pp.
In the coming month, we will be presenting another article that documents that the AP authors are erroneous in their claim “that the vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is occurring and that the primary cause is a buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels, such as oil and coal.”
If the reporters want to be balanced in their presentations, rather than lobbyists and advocates, they would persue the validity of their claim. So far, however, they have failed in this journalistic role.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Common misconception. There is many, many times the amount of money supporting AGW theory than against it.
Having said that, I do not believe in a “conspiracy”, either. It’s more of a “class action behavior”.
And many who are not climatologists have had a huge impact on the science and on the debate. Science, strictly speaking, can certainly be done by non-scientists. And not everything a scientist says or does is necessarily scientific, either.
And all those orgs. have to answer Lindzen’s LW reflection observations and Spencer’s feedback observations in order to be right. Otherwise, they are wrong, no matter how many of them or how “unanimous” they are. And peer-reviewed literature is far more evenly split.
Not to mention that it’s been trending cool for some time now . . .
come to think of it, the article is about a “supposed” consensus. I just gave you 20 scientific organizations that back AGW. I can certainly cut and paste more if you need me to. I’m not sure what percentage you need for a consensus but it would seem that a large majority believe AGW is a real problem.
O/T….what’s so bad with renewable energy. I for one am tired of the US being beholden to the middle east b/c we need there oil. Regardless if you believe in AGW, isn’t getting off oil a win/win for the US?
“It seems to me if I were a scientist in this field and I wanted to make a name for myself I’d be trying to prove AGW wrong”
And you’d be doing it on your own dime.
Evan, I agree that non-scientists (climatoligists) have a lot to add to the debate. However, to use an analogy, if I go to cardiologist I’m going to take his word over the acupunturist. I think eastern medicine has a lot to add but I’m still going with the cardiologist. If acupunture can be proven, it can/should be able to be published in the peer-reviewed literature. Same goes for climatology. If you got something to say, get it published. That’s how the process works.
I just gave you 20 scientific organizations that back AGW.
That is the Fallacy of the Whole. For example, Reagan won 49 states. But he won only c. 60-odd% of the vote. Obama won by a near-electoral landslide, but had 52% of the vote.
A lot of scientists in those orgs. are not in agreement with the leadership. (And a lot of those orgs., as you might point out, have little to do with climate science, per se.) And, as I said, peer-reviewed papers on the nuts and bolts of feedback (paleoclimate, etc.) are very much split down the middle.
Furthermore, scientific consensus is quite fickle. It often changes with the facts and observations.
Tom in Texas (19:11:16) :
“It seems to me if I were a scientist in this field and I wanted to make a name for myself I’d be trying to prove AGW wrong”
And you’d be doing it on your own dime.
I don’t know T “n” Texas, it seems Exxon would pay a hefty dime to prove the consensus wrong. O/T… how bout all them wind turbines in West Texas? Are they hiring?
However, to use an analogy, if I go to cardiologist I’m going to take his word over the acupunturist.
But that’s not a good analogy for this case. When a climatologist tells me the Medieval Warm Period did not exist, I can go to a historian, an archaeologist, and a geologist who will prove otherwise quite conclusively.
It turns out, one has a lot of acupuncturists in cardiologists’ clothing.
Besides, Hansen is not a climatologist, either. (And Gore isn’t a scientist of any kind.) Both could theoretically be right — or wrong. The data will tell.
If acupunture can be proven, it can/should be able to be published in the peer-reviewed literature. Same goes for climatology. If you got something to say, get it published. That’s how the process works.
In that realm, opinion is split. No consensus, there. (Dr. Pielke, for one, has many peer-reviewed papers on the issue published.)
Furthermore, scientific consensus is quite fickle. It often changes with the facts and observations.
Exactly, AGW has been put forth for how many years now? It would seem that if the facts and observations had proven otherwise, the consensus would have changed but it’s only gotten stronger with the evidence.
Jody, keep in mind that folks have lost their jobs for coming out against AGW. None that I know have lost their jobs by supporting AGW. That’s called incentive and it will lead to consensus every time … however, it will not lead to the truth.
It’s becoming clear to me that polling of scientists and populations is causing climate change especially if they are majorly vast. It’s not clear whether this is a mind-over-matter effect, or if it the by product of the immense amount of hot air involved. Let’s have a vote on gravity so we can all float off to the moon.
Evan, as you point out… the fallacy of the whole example still has a sizeable percentage. So back to my point, can you name 20 scientific organizations that say AGW is not real?
it’s only gotten stronger with the evidence.
No, much, much weaker. That’s the point.
And a lot of scientists have become skeptics. But almost none have gone the other way.
Nearly everyone believes there has been some warming. But the IPCC version is not “working out”.
How much? Caused by what? And will the world heat 5x as much this century as last (which is what the IPCC says). That is what the debate is about.
Shurley Knot says “(AGW is the) truth as we currently know it”. Science is not a process of developing consensus between scientists, but rather a process of formulating new theories based on old theories or to replace old theories. A scientist can theorize that excessive recent growth in a single 400 year old recently deceased tree is proof of AGW, but it is only a theory and a poorly supported one at that. The number of scientists who agree does not matter particularly when most of them in the list:
• Botanical Society of America
• Crop Science Society of America
• Ecological Society of America
• etc
have absolutely no clue how the analysis was done or the extent of the raw data that was ignored (non hockey stick trees). Those other trees are the truth, and they were ignored by using sloppy statistical methods.
I thought this article was about the “consensus”? Dr. Pielke says that’s “erroneous” but I disagree. I give you 20 scientific organizations that say yes AGW is a real problem. If you agree with DR. Pielke, give me examples of scientists (or the the organizations that represent them) that share his opinion.
Evan, as you point out… the fallacy of the whole example still has a sizeable percentage. So back to my point, can you name 20 scientific organizations that say AGW is not real?
What is necessary is that one single scientist is able to disprove the very recent observations of Spencer and Lindzen. If the CO2 trapping equation is wrong, it’s wrong. If feedback is negative, it ain’t positive. So far, observation shows that both theories are correct.
Furthermore, Dr. Pielke says that a sizable minority oppose AGW theory. As opposed to an “overwhelming” majority supporting AGW. He is correct.
Nearly every scientific org. on the planet thought we were nearly out of resources in the late 1970s. It took only one man to prove otherwise.
Besides, as you may have noticed from the recent data, it’s getting cooler.
Some scientists may have been fired over opposition to AGW, I don’t know b/c I haven’t seen the evidence. BUT, if they had, wouldn’t some org. like Exxon, Rupert Murdoch, Saudi Arabia, etc. pay for their research? This is why the conspiracy doesn’t hold up. There are too many vested interests with too much money that want AGW to be wrong.
“I don’t know T “n” Texas, it seems Exxon would pay a hefty dime to prove the consensus wrong.”
Thanks Jody. I’ll send them an email right away.
That fellow out in Oregon, for one, who got fired by the state.
I can’t tell why, but an “overwhelming” percent (far over 99%) of money spent on research and promotion of climate issues is spent on the AGW side. (Non-AGW research clocks in at around a measly $20 million.)
But the data and the theories have gone against CO2-AGW theory, at least the notion that the 21st century will warm 5x the rate of the 20th (assuming they even got the 20th-century measurements correct, which I doubt).
Is CO2 a GHG? Yes. Did man increase atmospheric CO2? Yes. has it gotten warmer, partly as a result of man? Yes.
Is there even a vague emergency? No. It will probably warm this century. By around one degree C.
Jody: “O/T… how bout all them wind turbines in West Texas? Are they hiring?”
They’re being replaced by the expansion of the South Texas Nuclear Project.
Nearly every scientific org. on the planet thought we were nearly out of resources in the late 1970s. It took only one man to prove otherwise.
Correct you are and now we are fighting over the scraps, literally. What do you think the world demand is going to be in 10, 20, 30 years from now? Who and where will we be fighting then if we don’t ween ourselves off oil?
I’m not saying renewable energy is a cure-all but it’s certainly better than our current situation of kowtowing to the middle east, russia, and venezuala. New energy sources are the wave of the future and America better be on board. Nuclear certainly has a place as does coal but we better get the renewable side right or we are gonna be left behind, make no mistake. It’s simple demand side economicis.
We ended up with 3-4″ of snow today and 15 minutes before the snow started the forecast was for NO accumulation. Now, we’re not talking about long or even short length forecasting. The weather guys couldn’t figure it out 15 minutes before it started.
Now, Jody, if you can honestly believe that somehow climate alarmists are so very, very smart that they can predict what’s happening in a complex, chaotic system then you obviously need a little education.
Have you ever wondered why we don’t have cures for almost all diseases? Are scientists in medical research stupid? Is medical research much more complex? (BTW. the answer to both questions is NO).
How about the current solar cycle that was unpredicted by the vast majority (there’s that term again) of solar scientists. Do you think your list of academies would have disagreed with their predictions for solar cycle 24?
How about the discovery of water on the Moon? I guess all planetary scientists are idiots for not knowing about this years ago.
Once you REALLY understand the complexities of science you will know that people making nonsense claims about climate are shooting from the hip. Climate science is in it’s infancy. It’s a little analogous to medical science 40-50 years ago. You’re probably too young but there were claims about future cures as well as claims that just about everything caused cancer. Almost EVERY SINGLE CLAIM turned out to be wrong. Yet, at the time, there was little skepticism from others. Of course, this led to many changes in medical research and the adoption of standards like double-blind studies. Have you ever head of a double blind climate study? It turned out that researcher bias is almost universal.
Now, please, this is really easy. Take a little time to educate yourself. You know what is said about those who ignore history …
PS. There is no such thing as an expert in climate. It’s way beyond any individuals capabilities. But that’s another conversation.
Jody,
You’re really all over the map here, talking about wind turbines and republicans and consensus, etc. If we could back up for a minute, I’d like to cut to the heart of the matter.
The AGW hypothesis [actually: the CO2=AGW hypothesis] is the central claim made by the folks who believe that the one CO2 molecule emitted by human activity for every 34 CO2 molecules emitted naturally by the planet will lead to runaway global warming and climate catastrophe. That is the basis of the AGW conjecture. And it comes not from data, nor from observations, but from human-programmed GCMs.
Remember that the CO2=AGW hypothesis is a relatively new conjecture. It presumes to replace the theory of natural climate variability. But unlike natural climate variability, the AGW hypothesis is unable to make accurate predictions. All of the two dozen or so climate GCMs failed to predict the previous very severe Northern Hemisphere winter — every one of them failed. Yet computer climate models are what the entire AGW assumptions are predicated on; and none of the models predicted the planet’s cooling for most of the past decade, either. The models are simply inadequate.
In order for a new hypothesis to replace an existing theory, the new hypothesis must explain reality better than the current theory.
AGW has consistently failed to falsify the theory of natural climate variability, therefore AGW is simply a failed conjecture. As beneficial CO2 continues to rise, the planet’s temperature has steadily fallen: click.
That is the reason that AGW proponents run and hide out from any neutral, moderated debate regarding their failed conjecture. And their stonewalling extends to the climate peer review process, which is tightly controlled by a relatively small clique of people gaming the system for their own benefit.
The central question is whether CO2 is causing any measurable global warming, and whether a rise in CO2 from 4 parts in ten thousand to 5 parts in ten thousand will cause runaway global warming and climate catastrophe. All other arguments are skirting the issue. Those other arguments are raised because the facts show that global warming caused by rising CO2 is non-existent.
Appealing to authority is a false argument. It is simply falling back and pointing to other people, and saying, “But they say AGW is true!”
What matters is data; not computer models, not what people say when their jobs are on the line, and not whether someone finds a dead polar bear. Only the data matters. And the data shows that the globe is cooling as CO2 rises.
The planet itself is falsifying the AGW conjecture, and that fact tortures the alarmist contingent, because they have collectively hung their hats on CO2 as the main culprit. Demonizing “carbon” [by which they mean harmless CO2; a gas] is their gravy train.
Human nature being what it is, even the fact that planet Earth is proving them wrong can not make them admit that a rise in a tiny, beneficial atmospheric trace gas is not causing any measurable global warming [if you think it is, please show us the empirical temperature data resulting from human activity]. The AGW folks’ minds are made up and closed tight, and for the most part, there’s no changing them. But we’re doing our best to try.
Again, the article posted was on the “erroneous” claim that a ” vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is occurring and that the primary cause is a buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels, such as oil and coal.”
I’ve stated and cut ‘n’ pasted a number of scientific organizations that support AGW. I’ve asked several times for “evidence” that this is false but so far I’ve been given Dr. Pielke says…I’m saying the consensus is AGW is real so this post is a bunch of foofoo. Prove me wrong by giving me the orgs that say so on a consensus basis… that’s all.
So please Richard, take a little time to educate yourself if it’s not past your bedtime.
Jody
The organizations back AGW for precisely the reasons others have pointed out. It is required to ease the grant money process.
The members of these organizations were not asked their opinion any more than AARP asked your opinion before they decided what was best for everyone.
At the moment there is a considerable upswell to change the positions of the ACS and APS that I am aware of.
Jody (19:39:44):
You ask for evidence, but disregard it when it is provided. Here is some more anyway:
click1
click2
click3
click4
click5
Further, you ask:
“…can you name 20 scientific organizations that say AGW is not real?”
Like most proponents of the AGW conjecture, you misunderstand the scientific method. Skeptics have nothing to prove. It is up to the believers in AGW to show that their new hypothesis explains reality better than the long accepted theory of natural climate oscillation; so far they have failed. You are employing an argumentum ad ignoratum: the fallacy of assuming something [AGW] is true, simply because it has not been proven false. You are asking skeptics to prove a negative.
To quote Albert Einstein after 100 scientists had signed an open letter claiming that his theory of relativity was wrong: ”To defeat relativity one did not need the word of 100 scientists, just one fact.” AGW believers are long on claims but short on data.
The proponents of the CO2=AGW conjecture lack empirical facts. They base their claims on computer climate models, which are notoriously inaccurate, rather than on real world data, because they have no replicable, falsifiable real world data. Computer models are all they have, so of course they cite their modes… and the planet laughs at their hubris, by cooling as the harmless trace gas CO2 rises.