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.
List of scientific organizations who believe in AGW…
*paste in a great big list of organizations*
Although these organizations may take AGW as their official stance, how about post a list of the scientific organizations which are actually doing something.
The reason so many scientific organizations take the AGW stance is:
a. They have no financial investment in it;
b. They can change their mind tomorrow;
c. It’s politically expedient.
Supporting an AGW stance is the current du-jour of pop culture.
REPLY: Then complain to the paper that made it, and the AP writer that botched it, not us. -A
That would be your job, not mine. I don’t run a “best science blog” that is at risk of being further discredited by articles like this. Did you even read the “paper” referenced? It is laughable and would get an F in a introductory science course in college.
Do you want to pay me to point out every time you promote terrible science?
I can’t find one of your AGW skeptic readers who pointed out that the first paper is complete trash. If you were smart you would remove this article because it makes your movement look incompetent and scientifically illiterate.