Another attempt at Cooking settling consensus on climate change

HistoryOfSettledScience-big1[1]

From the “Cooking up another 97% consensus” department and Purdue University:

WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. – A Purdue University-led survey of nearly 700 scientists from non-climate disciplines shows that more than 90 percent believe that average global temperatures are higher than pre-1800s levels and that human activity has significantly contributed to the rise.

The study is the first to show that consensus on human-caused climate change extends beyond climate scientists to the broader scientific community, said Linda Prokopy, a professor of natural resource social science.

“Our survey indicates that an overwhelming majority of scientists across disciplines believe in anthropogenic climate change, are highly certain of these beliefs and find climate science to be credible,” Prokopy said. “Our results also suggest that scientists who are climate change skeptics are well in the minority.”

Previous studies have shown that about 97 percent of actively publishing climate scientists believe in human-caused climate change, and a review of scientific literature on the existence of climate change indicated that about 97 percent of studies affirm climate change is happening.

However, no direct surveys had assessed whether the general agreement on the impact of human activities on the Earth’s climate extended to scientists in other disciplines.

Prokopy and fellow researchers conducted a 2014 survey of scientists from more than 10 non-climate disciplines at Big Ten universities to determine the relative prevalence of belief in, and skepticism of, climate change in the scientific community.

Of 698 respondents, about 94 percent said they believe average global temperatures have “generally risen” compared with pre-1800 levels, and 92 percent said they believe “human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.”

This figure shows the proportion of Big Ten university scientists, sorted by academic discipline, who said they believe average global temperatures have risen from pre-1800s levels (left) and that human activity has significantly contributed to the rise (right). The vertical line represents the average. CREDIT (Environmental Research Letters image/J. Stuart Carlton)

This figure shows the proportion of Big Ten university scientists, sorted by academic discipline, who said they believe average global temperatures have risen from pre-1800s levels (left) and that human activity has significantly contributed to the rise (right). The vertical line represents the average.
CREDIT (Environmental Research Letters image/J. Stuart Carlton)

Nearly 79 percent said they “strongly agree” and about 15 percent “moderately agree” that climate science is credible. About 64 percent said climate science is a mature science compared with their own field, and about 63 percent rated climate science as “about equally trustworthy” compared to their discipline.

Disagreement about climate change is rarely a simple dispute about facts, Prokopy said. People’s interpretation of information can also be influenced by their cultural and political values, worldview, and personal identity. Prokopy’s research team found that division over climate change was linked to disagreement over science – such as the potential effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth’s climate – but also differing cultural and political values, which the survey gauged in a section of questions on respondents’ general worldviews.

While cultural values did not appear to influence scientists as much as previous studies have shown they influence the general public on a variety of issues, including climate change, the survey indicated that “when it comes to climate change, scientists are people, too,” said lead author Stuart Carlton, a former postdoctoral research assistant in Prokopy’s lab.

“While our study shows that a large majority of scientists believe in human-caused climate change, it also shows that their beliefs are influenced by the same types of things that influence the beliefs of regular people: cultural values, political ideologies and personal identity,” he said.

Prokopy said she was “quite surprised to find cultural values influencing scientists as much as they are. This shows how strong these values are and how hard they are to change.”

Respondents’ certainty in their beliefs on climate change appeared to be linked to the source of their climate information. Certainty was correlated to how much of respondents’ climate information came from scientific literature or mainstream media, Prokopy said. The more respondents relied on scientific studies for information on climate change, the greater their certainty that human activity is causing the Earth’s temperatures to rise.

“Climate literature is very compelling and convincing,” she said. “Scientists are not fabricating their data.”

Nearly 60 percent of those who believe in climate change said they were “extremely sure” and about 31 percent said they were “very sure” average global temperatures have risen. Respondents who said they believe global temperatures have fallen or remained constant were “significantly less certain” in their beliefs, Prokopy said.

Carlton said the tendency of some media to portray climate change as more controversial among scientists than it actually is could decrease people’s certainty in whether climate change is occurring and its potential causes.

“The media probably do this for good reasons: They want to give each side of a story to try to be balanced,” said Carlton, now the healthy coastal ecosystems and social science specialist at Texas Sea Grant. “However, our study shows that there is very little disagreement among climate scientists or other scientists about the existence of climate change or the quality of climate science as a discipline. There are important questions about what we should do about climate change, but those are policy controversies, not science controversies.”

The survey results did not reveal many strikingly different responses by discipline, Prokopy said, though among the fields of study represented, natural resource scientists showed the highest amount of skepticism that global temperatures have risen.

Respondents across disciplines nearly unanimously agreed that climate science is credible, but views on its maturity and trustworthiness compared with their own discipline varied. Physicists and chemists, for example, rated climate science as a highly credible discipline but gave it lower marks in trustworthiness and overall maturity compared with their own fields. Prokopy said this was “not surprising given that physics and chemistry are some of the oldest, most established scientific disciplines.”

While previous studies showed that many prominent climate science skeptics were physicists, Carlton said this survey did not show similar evidence.

“The proportion of physicists and chemists who believed in climate change was right around average.”

###

The paper was published Thursday (Sept. 24) in Environmental Research Letters and is available at http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/10/9/094025.


AW: Comment:

It seems curious to me that if man-made climate change is so certain, why do some people feel the need to prove that a majority of their peers believe in it and that anyone who doesn’t is simply wrong?

I would wonder what a similar survey of scientists might have shown around 1912 when Alfred Wegener proposed the theory of continental drift. Would 90 to 97% of them say that the Earth’s crust was static? Probably so. It took another 40-50 years and new discovery in science before Wegener’s ideas became accepted as the facts as we know them today, that the Earth’s crust does in fact move in plates. But back then, scientists were so certain of their consensus, that they dismissed Wegener’s ideas:

Except for a few converts, and those like Cloos who couldn’t accept the concept but was clearly fascinated by it, the international geological community’s reaction to Wegener’s theory was militantly hostile. American geologist Frank Taylor had published a similar theory in 1910, but most of his colleagues had simply ignored it. Wegener’s more cogent and comprehensive work, however, was impossible to ignore and ignited a firestorm of rage and rancor. Moreover, most of the blistering attacks were aimed at Wegener himself, an outsider who seemed to be attacking the very foundations of geology.

Because of this abuse,Wegener could not get a professorship at any German university. Fortunately, the University of Graz in Austria was more tolerant of controversy, and in 1924 it appointed him professor of meteorology and geophysics.

In 1926 Wegener was invited to an international symposium in New York called to discuss his theory. Though he found some supporters, many speakers were sarcastic to the point of insult. Wegener said little. He just sat smoking his pipe and listening. His attitude seems to have mirrored that of Galileo who, forced to recant Copernicus’ theory that the Earth moves around the sun, is said to have murmured, “Nevertheless, it moves!”

Source: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Wegener/wegener_5.php

Sound familiar? The point here is that a perceived consensus doesn’t necessarily indicate factual certainty for any idea, and consensus in science can be overturned easily with new information.

 

Note: this article was updated shortly after publication to include a a URL for the source of the Wegener story

 

Advertisements

299 thoughts on “Another attempt at Cooking settling consensus on climate change

  1. I just wonder how they select the respondents for the survey. I simply can’t believe that there actually is this much consensus out there.

    • Please note the discipline that is missing from the survey, engineering. Even as far back as my college days, my engineering professors were outright dismissive of the global warming scare. A lot of the consensus appears to be due to professional courtesy, but most importantly is the deliberate obfuscation of the question. Please note the statements: “temperature has risen and man is responsible”. This is a very broad strokes question that most respondents here would agree to. Of course, many would argue that it is due primarily to deforestation and land use changes, or simply state that the dangers of the expected warming have been greatly exagerrated.
      The most important part of the survey is the question.

      • Exactly, the world has warmed since the little ice age = no-brainer. humans have caused a significant part = depends on the definition…if the thermometers say 0.3C and adjustments add another 0.5C, then clearly the majority is man-made. Or if one takes the adjustments as being true and necessary, then look at the Surface Station project and see that most of the stations have been severely impacted by man made artifacts in the vicinity – so once again man-made global warming. The answer to both questions is clearly yes, so the poll is a meaningless exercise. There is no conclusion which can be drawn from those two questions!

      • My first thought was “why are they asking the opinions of people who are not experts in the field?” These people got their information from other sources. They did not work it out for themselves. Such a survey tells us nothing of use. The respondents are merely parroting what they see in the press, which is overwhelmingly left on the political spectrum. The agenda isn’t science, it is control, which is a political beast. A beast we should be very concerned about.

      • I’d use a two question survey:
        1) have average global temperatures risen/remained/fallen since the peak of the last ice age?
        2) is the change (if any) primarily caused by human emissions of GHGs?

      • My first thought was “why are they asking the opinions of people who are not experts in the field?” These people got their information from other sources. They did not work it out for themselves.

        I’m curious about how many contributors to and posters on WUWT are “experts in the field” of climate science. A yes/no break-down of the proportions would be sufficient.
        Oh, and I mean real experts, not armchair ones…

        • Hard to say what an expert is. I have a couple of climate related degrees and a research background but dont get paid for “climate science”. I feel like I’m an expert in 5% of the field. But I’m not sure very many people are expert at much more than that.
          Often I feel that I am more able to assess the situation because I’m at arms length. I don’t have a position to defend or grant to secure or think tank to feed. But I do have the technical background and experience to decide for myself
          I do know that I’m an expert at quantitative forecasting and verification. I’m also quite sure that very few academic climate scientists have a clue how to properly forecast
          So in summary, I think climate science is too big for anyone to become truly an expert. Also many so-called “experts” cannot see the forest because of the trees

      • Mary,
        “Climate science” is not science. It is anti-scientific, politically and career-driven advocacy via GIGO computer gaming. Its method is the mirror image of the scientific method. In CS, if the data don’t match the models, you change the data rather than the models.
        There used to be a science called “climatology” and, God willing, there will be again. In a few furtive corners of the academy, it’s still practiced in the dark, damp spaces, keeping hope alive, waiting for sanity to return and the witch hunts to end.
        Experts do indeed exist in the areas of genuine earth and atmospheric sciences, but the computer gamers who have hijacked the science are expert at nothing but feathering their own careerist, financial and ideological nests.

      • micro6500 says:
        I was a paid expert for almost 15 years in Simulation and Modeling , and currently 17 years in data analysis. +5 years surface station data analysis.
        And you’re a northeast Ohio boy, just like me! You da man. ☺
        Bernard J,
        Define a “real expert.”
        Thanx…

    • Nearly half of respondents do “some+” research involving climate change!!! Climate money is infecting all academia:(
      Q25 Which of the following statements comes closest to describing your research?
      1. The majority of my research concerns climate change or the impacts of climate change 5.50%
      2. Some of my research concerns climate change or the impacts of climate change 42.45%
      3. None of my research concerns climate change or the impacts of climate change 52.04%

      • Don G,
        That says it all.
        That means ≈half of the respondents have a vested interest in promoting climate alarmism. They are being paid to sound a false alarm. And surely they must know it, too; they’re not stupid. So from the get-go they’re not very honest. Pushing a poll in the direction that helps secure their income stream is a no-brainer for the ethics challenged.
        And who is going to pay someone who correctly points out that nothing currently happening is either unusual or unprecedented, and that prior to the industrial revolution global T changed much more than it has over the past century? Anyone who tells the unvarnished truth will just have to forget about those easy money grants.
        So the situation is this: taxpayers’ money is being given to those who sound the false alarm. The goal is passage of a carbon tax, therefore taxpayers are being forced to fund a hoax that will result in much more of their money growing an already out of control bureaucracy. It will be heaven for EPA bureaucrats; but hell for the rest of us.

      • Good for you, Don G. Too many people have commented on the study without reading the paper and have jumped to conclusions.
        Read the paper – it is not a complex research design or analysis – and you will find that it is much worse than you thought: (plus what they ask and what they don’t ask as well as how is revealing of the indoctrination of academe and timely with UN sustainability circus about to go in NYC – expect the pope to jump out of the climate closet Friday)
        background of taking 2 higher education courses in physics, chemistry, biology = same as taking 0 = captured you in that box – why not ask exactly how many courses faculty had taken in all the disciplines?? I’ll leave you to think on that bias.
        major selection bias, as Owen realized below, for electing respondents that cannot be parceled from results
        very high percentage of respondents think there needs to be more governmental control (and laws) ruling our lives, 80% self-declared liberals … there’s way more fodder in the paper
        this is a very poorly conducted study with a prior agenda – where have I seen that before?

      • Beyond that, this survey is being sold as the “opinions” of non-climate scientists.
        Yet half of those who responded work on climate science.
        The very basis on which this survey is based has been invalidated.
        (And that’s without going into the problems of self-selection bias and surveys in which 2/3rds of the people asked don’t respond.)

      • This study reminds me of the famous saying: “It’s not what Congress [or the professoriat] doesn’t know that bothers me–it’s what they know that just ain’t so!”

    • “Prokopy and fellow researchers conducted a 2014 survey of scientists from more than 10 non-climate disciplines at Big Ten universities…”
      So these were all university scientists who depend on government funding. Why doesn’t someone commission a random survey of scientists that includes the private sector?

    • 90 percent believe that average global temperatures are higher than pre-1800s levels
      ========================
      the cause cannot be human burning fossil fuels, because this was minuscule until the 1950’s. What caused temps to rise during the first 150 years and why is this not the same thing that caused temps to rise during the past 65 years?

      • What caused temps to rise during the first 150 years and why is this not the same thing that caused temps to rise during the past 65 years?
        Quite.

    • The “key” statement about the survey is, to wit:

      Prokopy and fellow researchers conducted a 2014 survey of scientists from more than 10 non-climate disciplines at Big Ten universities …….

      So believe it, there is that much consensus among the employees at Big Ten universities simply because their reputation and job security is more important to them than disagreeing with extremely lucrative revenue sources of Grants, Gifts and Endowments.

    • “….researchers conducted a 2014 survey of scientists from more than 10 non-climate disciplines at Big Ten universities ….”
      I believe this sums up the cherry tree from which they picked their findings.. You will note they did not go outside of academia which is plagued with ‘you will toe the line or you wont work here’ thinking and pressures.. How in the hell did they think they were going to answer?
      I need a great big cherry tree to go here!

  2. Consensus is a political measuring device, not a scientific one. So why are people so obsessed with applying it to science?

    • Good point, Jim. I tell people that I never learned that consensus was part of the Scientific Method in school.

      • IMO, climatology is or was a science, however young. However, “climate science”, ie politically motivated, GIGO computer gaming, is not a science.

      • Climatology is going in the same direction as Lysenkoism. Before the big money appeared, it was a backwater area of science. But the UN, and Michael Mann and his gang changed all that. Now it’s 97% politics.

    • They apply consensus to science because they want to use it for political purposes. To convince world leaders to agree on the need for higher taxes, skyrocketing energy prices, and redistribution of wealth, they need a consensus (or at least the allusion of one.)

    • Jim,
      I think you kinda answered your own question . . and simply inserting the (perfectly appropriate/true) term ‘some’ in the question …
      “Consensus is a political measuring device, not a scientific one. So why are {some} people so obsessed with applying it to science?” …
      … makes the answer obvious, I feel; Political reasons.
      The whole notion that we have been watching a science driven “movement” is to me somewhat silly at this point, as one who has looked into the so called science which supposedly fueled the movement. No, I say, it was and is a political “strong arm” maneuver, not a science driven anything (other than the science of human manipulation, which is quite real and well developed at this point, I am quite certain).
      The “maneuver” began before “global warming” was even selected as that “vehicle” through which it would be conducted, it seems clear to me (and the bottom center cartoon at the top of this very page is evoking some of the evidence I have seen that this is true).
      The intent was to facilitate a march toward “global government” under the control of some hyper-wealthy “elites” most notably, who for rather obvious reasons, I feel, wanted to essentially parley their wealth into dominating/permanent political power. Please consider these words (which came to light from the manuscript collection of a former diplomat and Bilderberg regular George C. McGhee after he died recently), written in 1970 by the founder (in 1968) of the Club of Rome “think tank”, an Italian industrialist named Aurelio Peccei;
      ““The work program exposition of the Club of Rome project relies heavily on the global (or G) matrix approach.”
      ““It should be pointed out (…) that such a consensus is meant to provide “the initial conditions” for the operational evolution of the Club of Rome Project”.
      This “think tank” was, at least ostensibly, concerned about overpopulation to a great extent, but what is described in these writings is a process that matches what happened/happens in the IPCC process for arriving at it’s “executive summaries”. .
      “It should only be viewed as an exemplary value-base whose universality, validity, and credibility depends on the judgments of the DELPHI technique participants. Nevertheless, it will represent an attempt for a substantive and professionally coordinated delineation of the “Predicament of Mankind”. The more groups engage in similar intellectual efforts, the more meaningful the dialogue on the worldwide problematique will become.”
      Basically all sorts of experts in various fields are invited to participate, in working groups as the IPCC calls them, to give the impression that the conclusions (which are predetermined) have been arrived at spontaneously by all those people. In reality, it’s just a few people in key positions who turn some degree of consensus on vague statements like “humans probably have some effect on climate”, “CO2 effects temperatures”, and so on, into a manufactured consensus that “Human CO2 emissions are changing the world’s climate”, in summaries written by hand picked “executives”,
      One working group, concerned with “attribution”, consisted predominately of computer modelers . . and the rest is history, so to speak.
      It’s about consensus, because it’s about political power, as you implied it seems to me . . it was never about real climate science, just the illusion that it was.

  3. Peter Abelard (1079-1142)
    “Authority is inferior to reason because it deals with opinions about
    the truth rather then with truth itself, while reason concerns the
    thing itself and can settle the question”
    Adelard of Bath (1080-1152)
    “authority alone cannot create belief in the thought of a philosopher
    nor even lead one towards such belief, and this is why logicians agree
    that citing authority does not even necessarily add probability to a
    given argument”

  4. Wow. As an engineer, I certainly fit the profile. I accept that the earth may be warming, maybe, but skeptical that it has anything to do with human activity.
    What is wrong with me?
    I suppose if I was an astronomer then I would be better equipped to deal with terrestrial matters?

    • It looks to me to be another loaded survey in that Ocean/Marine Sciences, Geological and Earth Sciences, and Astronomy academics are no doubt principally funded by NOAA or NASA, which I’m sure require their sheepish wether to swear a loath of loyalty and wouldn’t knowingly hire/fund an open minded, objective, pure-science type individual.

    • Nothing. The polls are loaded. While I agree “climate changes” and that humans have some (very small) impact on climate change, I can’t buy into the political, catastrophic global warming forecasted by the political crowd. And as an engineer, I know the importance of definitions; I am a skeptic, not a denier and I’m tired of this attempt to demonize.

  5. If one of the questions on the survey was ” Are you a socialist or a Capitalist ” , 97% would have said ” Socialist ” !!! Picking and choosing who you ask kind of negates the reality of the survey !!!

    • I did a science degree, then engineering, then applied science in graduate school. Engineering really requires an intellectual reservation to accommodate the unknown. I am so aware of my high level of ignorance on things for which I am responsible. Maybe it is the reality of responsibility combined with ignorance on really important matters which has made me skeptical of myself first, and most other things. Stuff I create MUST work with high reliability. Theoretical astronomers and climate wonks never have to assume any responsibility for their work. I get sued when I screw up.

      • I am an engineer and I am constantly amazed at the utter idnorance of an engineer’s formal scientific education by those who put ‘climate scientists’ on an intellectual pedestal.
        My way of explaining the difference between engineering and science is that engineers are ‘peer reviewed’ by Mother Nature and if she does not like your work she just smashes it and kills everyone in the vicinity.
        That tends to tighten the intellectual sphincter somewhat.
        It is little surprise that the responses of those from ‘engineering’ regarding the causes of AGW are the least convinced although I suggest there has been some pre-filtering of those questioned.

        • One more statement about their method of surveying – many did not respond; I know I wouldn’t because an engineer in my position would put their careers at risk if identified as a skeptic. It’s the same reason I don’t use my real name on this site. When I retire, I’ll proudly use my own name.

      • D.J. Hawkins…
        And I have been the proud recipient of one of those as well. 🙂 So nice.
        M. Seward… I do have my creative outlets where I release boundaries, sphincterily speaking.
        Djozar, My field of interest and expertise makes me immune to politics. Even possible my public skepticism has helped me. The tyranny over free thought and expression in this day an age makes one depressed.

      • M. Seward: Very true about the “utter idnorance” as these particular “scientists” try to slip in something freudulant …

    • +1 more Engineer – water and pollution – and I have trouble believing CO2 is a pollutant. After all, plants use it to make the oxygen we breath. Seems rather necessary.

      • In wastewater treatment the goal is to take large molecules and break them down into small molecules.
        One of those small molecules that may be produced is CO2.
        So now treating pollution is causing pollution?

      • Plants put oxygen into the air from the water they take in, not from CO2. The latter is however needed for them to make the sugars we and other animals eat.

      • @ Lady Gaiagaia: this depiction of the Calvin cycle disagrees with you.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis#/media/File:Simple_photosynthesis_overview.svg
        H2O, CO2 and light energy are inputs; O2 and sugars are outputs.
        “Photosynthesis occurs in two stages. In the first stage, light-dependent reactions or light reactions capture the energy of light and use it to make the energy-storage molecules ATP and NADPH. During the second stage, the light-independent reactions use these products to capture and reduce carbon dioxide.
        n CO2 + 2n H2O + photons → (CH2O)n + n O2 + n H2O
        carbon dioxide + water + light energy → carbohydrate + oxygen + water
        This equation emphasizes that water is both a reactant (in the light-dependent reaction) and a product (in the light-independent reaction), but canceling n water molecules from each side gives the net equation:
        n CO2 + n H2O + photons → (CH2O)n + n O2
        carbon dioxide + water + light energy → carbohydrate + oxygen
        ……from Wikipedia article on photosynthesis.

  6. Very odd that in the body of the study they talk about 1) A larger sample size, 2) 2000 faculty members contacted by email, but there’s nothing about cooperation rate or the ‘n’ usable responses for any of the items. Seems like the classic dodge in obtaining and reporting on a biased sample. If a commercial survey firm did this they would be out of business in about 10 minutes

  7. “The media probably do this for good reasons: They want to give each side of a story to try to be balanced.”
    That has to be the biggest load of hogwash from a person completely out of touch with the media…..

    • The authors’ are forced to claim that the media presents a balance view. If they hadn’t, the survey could be interpreted as evidence that most people’s (and scientists’) opinions on climate change are a regurgitation of alarmist views presented in the media.
      “People’s interpretation of information can also be influenced by their cultural and political values, worldview, and personal identity.”
      and
      ““when it comes to climate change, scientists are people, too,”.
      We are all fallible and our opinions are often shaped by the society around us.

  8. Has there ever been a scientific poll done similar to a presidential poll? A random sample of scientists are chosen to respond to a set of questions. When a survey is sent out to everyone and anyone can reply if they desire the results are not meaningful, unless a very high percentage of those chosen reply. I have never seen the results if there has been one.

  9. Haven’t looked at the survey instrument, but it might well employ push polling or other deceptive tactics. For example, I might ask:
    “Do you believe temperatures now are higher than during the Little Ice Age?”
    and of course I’d get a very large proportion of “yes” answers. Then I might follow up with:
    “Do you believe human activity contributed to any of the temperature difference?”
    and I’d expect another high proportion of “yes” answers.
    From there it’s a matter of technique, an careful crafting of the language in the press release.

    • If you’ve been here long, you already know my position of global warming.
      I would have answered yes to both of your questions.

    • Well put Patrick. You could replace the question with “do you believe cows affect climate” and of course cows farting does release methane and the rise in the number of cows matches the increase in the number of humans, also the amount globally would correlate with CO2 levels at least in recent decades and with modelled temperatures so cow farts run the climate, 90% of scientists agree!

  10. IIR, those are the two questions in the Doran/Zimmerman study; with the same two faults.
    What thinking person (scientist or non scientist) would NOT agree that “average global temperatures are higher than pre-1800s levels” , e.g. the Little Ice Age?!? (Just who are the 10% that DON’T believe this?)
    And they are surveying scientists. What does a scientist mean when he/she says “human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.” Two key words here, “significant” and “contributing factor”. To me the first says any human impact is at least measurable above a level that could occur by chance (deforestation, UHI – check), and the second says man’s impact is included among other possible causes (oh, let’s say, natural variation).
    And the worst is that neither of those two questions address whether that increase, regardless of cause is catastrophic – which of course all politicians and pundits will gleefully and without foundation add when referencing this study (Obama, Pope Francis et al)

    • George, I agree with you completely! The problem is that the politically-minded then equate the fact that we humans have caused at least a little warming, to “global warming is catastrophic and we must blindly follow the liberal ideologues’ plans for mitigating it.”

  11. All it shows is that the purge of academia by the climate alarmists has almost completely succeeded. The only people who can actually question the-word-according-to-Al-Gore (all hail the Great Prophet!!) are those who have retired from academia or those who are funding their own research.

  12. Why don’t the ever ask meaningful questions with accompanying data?
    Most of the questions are asked in such a way even skeptical individuals would give an answer making it look like everyone is drinking the kool aid.

  13. Another worthless survey using meaningless terms like “significant”. In addition, about half of the respondents stated their research was related to climate. These are people who should have been eliminated immediately.

  14. There is a great disconnect in patterns of weather (“cycles”, if you like; I don’t) and climate change. How many folks in the survey can intelligently discuss the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation? Do they know about the PDO, what it is, and what it isn’t?
    In any case, the question isn’t about change in weather and climate, local, regional, or global. The question is whether or not there is a human caused catastrophe currently in progress (or real soon now)? If there is, what should be the response? How many think wind turbines and solar panels and electric autos will be the solution – if there is a problem? Those folks in the disciplines listed ought to be able (using pencil & paper, slide rule, Bowmar Brain) to show the path of folly now in progress.

  15. Why is it they NEVER perform a survey asking these two questions, which by far are the most important with respect to public policy and access to abundant and affordable energy.
    1) It is widely accepted that warming has occurred since the LIA, a time during which crop losses due to cold weather were immense. Therefore, with respect to this warming, would you agree that it has been more beneficial than detrimental so far?
    2) It is also widely accepted that CO2 can conribute to the net warming of the atmosphere. Would you agree that warming due to man’s emissions of CO2 are nearly certain to be catastrophic leading to massive crop failures and worldwide famine, and a meter or more of sea level rise before the year 2100?
    If the answer is predominantly YES to Q1 one and NO to Q2, then cancel the Progressive war on CO2 and cheap energy.

    • Alcheson, they never ask intelligent questions because the whole point of their survey is to be able to show a slant in favour of their own preconceived ideas. All the questions in the survey are loaded so that in summing up the answers the fudge factor is so large that you can get agreement from both sides. Like in this survey I find myself in a position where I must agree with it all. So the outcome of the survey is meaningless.

      • Which may explain why 2/3rds of the respondents didn’t even bother to reply.
        And why half of those who did respond worked in fields related to climate change, despite the fact that the authors claimed they were surveying those outside the climate change field.

  16. Brilliant! We have just been given a list of scientific fields that the experts at Purdue define as “non-climate disciplines”!
    Ocean/Marine sciences
    Geological and Earth sciences
    Engineering
    Atmospheric science, Meteorology
    Astronomy
    Biological Science
    Physics
    Agricultural Science
    Chemistry
    Natural Resources
    I can’t wait to point out to certain scientists weighing in on climate that they are only part of the “broader scientific community”, and do not qualify as “climate scientists”!

    • Aphan,
      Exactly the point. Most of the listed disciplines are key elements in the study of climate. How did the Purdue authors define climate scientists? Climate modelers only? LOL.

      • As near as I can tell, a climate scientist is someone that other climate scientists acknowledge as being part of the clan.

      • Well, let’s see if we can guess based on who they left out:
        Cartoonists turned Climate Communicators (John Cook…and GO JOSH!)
        Social Scientists (Like the authors)
        Experimental psychologists (Lewandowsky)
        Science Activists
        Historians of Science (Neeeiiigh omi Oreskes)
        Climate modelers
        But no M.E. Mann (some math, but mostly Physics), James Hansen (atmospheric sciences), Gavin Schmidt might be a “climate scientist” as both his degrees are in Mathematics…No Dana Nuttycelli (physics) no Greg Laden (anthropology although he claims to be a climate communicator) who else am I missing?

    • My guess would be that anyone listed on your petition would have been stricken from these guys list, automatically.

  17. Attribution, she’s a bitch;
    Don’t know why just scratch that itch.
    Puff the Magic Climate,
    Lived by the CO2;
    Nature turned and bit him, someplace rich.
    ==================

  18. This is of course a classic case of asking a loaded question. We know that the temperature around 18th century was well below previous norms as it was at the peak of the little ice age and of course the presence of 6 billion humans has had some effect on the final temperature.
    However this does NOT mean
    1) That this is in fact harmful – frankly the weather here is nicer than in 1750.
    2) That current temperatures are unusually high, in this part of England there used to be vineyards.
    3) That we should spend billions of pounds and trash our economy.
    Personally I am more concerned about the possibility of a cooling phase given how much of our capacity to keep warm using fossil fuels we have destroyed in the name of combatting climate change.

  19. I see they only polled individuals at big 10 universities. The real statistic might be that 90% of people who have never had to create wealth to earn a living and are dependent on government largess are reluctant to disagree with the government that supports them.

  20. “However, our study shows that there is very little disagreement among climate scientists or other scientists about the existence of climate change or the quality of climate science as a discipline.”
    Suddenly the association to man made is omitted.

  21. Of 698 respondents, about 94 percent said they believe average global temperatures have “generally risen” compared with pre-1800 levels, and 92 percent said they believe “human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.”
    What was the total sample?? someone earlier mentioned 2000, so roughly 2/3rd couldn’t be bothered answering, and I suspect those who did are in the “world order social change” club promoted by the IPCC.
    Not many would disagree that it is warmer today than at the end of the little ice age (thank god), and it seems to me “significant” is really a matter of opinion, not provable science fact.
    JVC

    • I missed that. They have a very strong self-selection bias then. There is no way to correct that because only people who care strongly about such a thing will respond, and there is no way to subtract out that bias.

  22. …Nearly 79 percent said they “strongly agree” and about 15 percent “moderately agree” that climate science is credible. About 64 percent said climate science is a mature science compared with their own field, and about 63 percent rated climate science as “about equally trustworthy” compared to their discipline…
    Where they also asked if they were familiar with things like climategate? Maybe these folks are just ignorant.

    • I’ve talked to a lot of scientists. Most of them will readily admit that they know nothing about climate science itself.
      They judge whether a “science” is mature by how much they hear about it from their friends and colleagues.
      IE, it’s mature because everyone is talking about it.

      • Worse, most scientists don’t have time to go check other fields themselves and so assume that other scientists are as careful with their fields as the scientist is in his/hers. This leads him/her to assume that the press releases are representative of scientific truth. It is hard enough to keep current on ones own field’s advances and crackpots.

  23. I would love to see the results of a similar survey done among scientists who are working in exclusive academic settings. This survey says more about the surrounding culture than science.

  24. But I thought anyone’s opinion who wasn’t a “climate scientist” wasn’t to be considered worthy? That’s been the response every time it’s pointed out the majority of other scientists, not hand picked ivy league types, and engineers, meteorologists, etc. don’t agree. Another astounding example of doublethink-blackwhite.

  25. I would agree that temps are likely warmer than the 1800’s and that man has an influence, I mean any city is warmer than the surrounding country……..

  26. As with any good lie, there are always elements of truth:
    1) Yes, global temps have risen about 0.85C over the last 165 years.
    2) Yes, it’s been known since 1824 that CO2 has a greenhouse effect.
    3) Yes, CO2 has probably contributed about 0.2C of the total 0.85C of warming since 1865.
    So what?
    CAGW hypothesizes a doubling of CO2 levels to 560ppm, will cause the following (and many others) catastrophic consequences:
    1) Rapid and dangerous sea level rise (absolutely no empirical evidence supporting this)
    2) Rapid and dangerous “acidification” of oceans (absolutely no empirical evidence supporting this)
    3) Rapid and dangerous increase in intensity and frequency of severe weather events (absolutely no empirical evidence supporting this)
    4) Rapid and dangerous increase in global temps. (Absolutely no evidence supporting this)
    5) Rapid and dangerous melting of polar ice caps (absolutely no empirical evidence supporting this).
    In real science, “consensus” is a completely meaningless concept . The ONLY way to confirm or disconfirm a hypothesis is to evaluate whether or not hypothetical projections match reality in a statistically significant manner for a statistically significant duration. Period! (TM).
    Since CAGW has failed catastrophically in its numerous projections, CAGW is dead.
    Rather than admitting the CAGW hypothesis has crashed and burned, CAGW advocates churn out junk-science pal-reviewed papers (like this one on consensus), fiddle with raw data, extend the criterion goal posts and conjure up 50+ excuses for why their precious CAGW hypothesis doesn’t work….
    It doesn’t work, because it doesn’t work…
    It’s time to call it a day….

  27. We are all seeing what is happening with VW, it appears that there has been serious and dangerous pollution put in the air, especially in Europe in this misguided thrust to reduce CO2, a harmless sustance which is put into every Coke and Pepsi and greenhouse owners meaningfully produce to help plant growth.

  28. I don’t get it. The issue really isn’t whether the climate is real or that it may be influenced by human activities. There is no controversy on those issues. Do all these “scientists” agree that the proposed reduction in CO2 by draconian measures in economy and energy production the proper approach to address the issue? Certainly there is no consensus among scientists and engineers with regard to the “conversion” of our energy dense forms of electrical energy production (fossil fuel, nuclear, and hydro) to energy defuse forms (wind, solar) The consensus there is certainly that wind and solar are without a doubt incapable of filling the bill and in fact may be an utter waste of resources. So the point is there has been no study where the actual state of engineering and science is being allowed to express itself if it doesn’t meet the POLITICAL goal of the IPCC. The number of scientists that overwhelming understood DDT to be a huge benefit was just that overwhelming. The number of “cooked” studies and liars where few. Nonetheless DDT was banned for political reasons and now “everybody knows” that DDT caused thin egg shells!

  29. I think most scientists and other interested people would agree that the temperature HAS warmed from the pre-1800 level. Skeptical climate scientists and people who are interested in climate science who have technical or scientific degrees would probably agree at a higher rate than the survey indicated that the temperature HAS warmed from the pre-1800 levels. Probably 97% or more of these type skeptics would agree to that.
    What is much less certain is the degree to which there is warming or climate change due to human activities. How much of the warming can be attributed to humans and how much climate change can be attributed to humans? This is the difficult question. They needed to ask specifically what percentage of the warming since the pre-1800 levels can be attributed to man – then give some ranges for people to pick. Then ask how certain they were of the answer that they gave with some percentages. That would be an interesting survey.
    I would also like to see the question of whether or not they believe that CO2 in the future is likely to cause catastrophic climate change or catastrophic warming. And then a follow up question of how certain they are of the response.
    What the survey does is further obfuscate what the real opinions of people are about this subject.
    It also indicates that most people still don’t understand that skeptics are skeptical not that CO2 is a greenhouse gas or that the climate has warmed – but of the predictions of catastrophic anthropogenic global Warming and catastrophic climate change caused by CO2.
    I think it is more plausible that CO2 released by man will have an overall positive impact on the environment. This is not to say that other industrial activities will also have a positive impact – probably they won’t.

    • IMO earth’s lower atmosphere has warmed less than 1 degree C since the end of the LIA, c. AD 1850. The major human contributions over recent decades has been cleaning the air, despite growing pollution in China and India, and making more UHIs and other land use changes. Neither is significant globally.
      Perhaps 0.1 of the maybe 0.7 degree C warming since the LIA could be attributed to human activities, which also cool the planet.
      The scientists should have been offered choices among estimates of the human contribution since 1850: eg, a net cooling effect, 0-10% warming, 10-20%, 20-40%, 40-60%, 60-80% or more than 80%. Ideally respondents would attach a confidence level to their choice.

  30. Depending on how they define “significantly” I could agree with both of those points, so this so called consensus is meaningless.
    Secondly, I’ve debated with a number of scientists from other fields and have been told that while they know nothing about the science involved, they find it impossible to believe that a true scientist could do the things that the climate scientists have been accused of doing, therefore they believe that the climate scientists must be telling the truth when they make their pronouncements.

  31. They surveyed Big Ten university “scientists”. So they went to the right place to get the results they wanted.

  32. “Of 698 respondents, about 94 percent said they believe average global temperatures have “generally risen” compared with pre-1800 levels, and 92 percent said they believe “human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.”
    Now how with any brain would not agree with that? They started the period at the end of an abnormally cold period – the end of the Little Ice Age where rivers that were navigable in the winter for hundreds of years froze over for the entire winter. I would like to have a list of the respondents. I could make a fortune selling them stock showing them how it has doubled and tripled in value over the last few years. And hid or leave out the fact that it was because of the crash in 2008 like the AGW group has.
    However, Not asked (I believe) or reported here is “Do you believe that the majority of the warming since 1800 has been caused by or is related to the increase in CO2? There are a myriad of other anthropogenic actions that can be a contributing factor and the combination of the ones with a positive influence could be greater than those with a negative influence. Yet there is no discussion on that. So, if CO2 is not the real problem, then the present course of action could do more harm than good.
    The temperature has only increased 1 degree C since the end of the LIA, and still has not exceeded the average of the MWP. The studies that I read indicate that at least 1/2 of that change is from the expected increase due to the EXPECTED warming after the end of the LIA. That leaves 1 Degree C of change over 150 years (chosen at a point to emphasize their claim. Even the expensive microprocessor controlled high efficiency, demand anticipating thermometer for your well insulated home can not maintain a temperature variation of less than 1 degrees peak to peak in your house over a period of one year. I live in a single story home with no basement and it has never maintained that close a regulation in temperature. So, I still don’t see proof of anything.

  33. That it is generally warmer than back in the 1800’s is something people don’t seem to disagree on. That man has some kind of impact on the climate is also not controversial.
    Beyond these are the really tough questions…tough to ask and to answer…tough to address scientifically. What would the world look like today if we never burned any fossil fuels? We will never know… and that is the key issue here.
    I get tired of arguing over the unknowable.

  34. Ponder this,

    about 63 percent rated climate science as “about equally trustworthy” compared to their discipline

    So do one out of three scientists think Climate Science has a special problem?
    Or do two out of three scientists think their discipline is also untrustworthy?
    The fact that one in three sees a difference in trustworthiness implies that climate science is seen to be a problem.
    Would you buy a used car from a firm that one in three thinks is untrustworthy?

  35. I was curious as to the personal and academic background of someone who is a “professor of natural resource social science”. It appears to be a combination of two subject areas that conveniently align with contemporary cause-driven activities, and, of course, can appeal to political-driven funding.
    So at its core, an academia-based social(ist) science program executed a public opinion poll of other academics. This falls a bit short of what would classify as a “study”.
    BTW, was there not something recently published about the failure rate of repeating of social science “studies”?

    • someone once told me that when you put “social” in front of any other word, it acts as a negation. You could replace social with not, and get the same impact.
      social science = not science
      social engineering = not engineering
      and so on.

  36. The BIG question is what were they asked. Looks like leading questions.
    How would they answer the following?
    1. Have you considered the possibility of natural variation?
    2. Have you seen proof that humans are causing the change?
    3. Have you read a study that measures the changes caused by CO2?
    4. How many scientific studies on Climate have you read?
    5. Are you aware how temperatures are measured and reported?
    6. Are only actual measurements used in calculating the global temperature average?

  37. The survey should have quantified “significant”, as in human activity being “a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures”. Does “significant” mean that humans have caused more than half of allegedly observed warming since, say, 1850?
    If “climate science” were a science, then it would specify a start date for a “significant” human effect and state when our species became the primary driving force on global average temperature. Since it can’t even say with any genuine precision or accuracy how much the planet has warmed since 1850, that of course would be tough.
    People definitely do affect local climatic conditions, but IMO we have practically no effect on global mean temperature. Otherwise, how to explain worldwide cooling from the late 1940s to late ’70s and the lack of warming since the late 1990s, despite rapidly rising CO2 the whole time? Are natural forces somehow just balancing out any human effect? If so, earth’s climate is self-regulating.
    No worries. Enjoy the abundant plant food in the air while it lasts.

    • They knew that most scientists would define significant differently than your average layman.
      To a scientist it often means that the influence is discernible that is, greater than the noise in your system.
      To the average layman it means most or majority.
      Which is why the didn’t want to define the term, they knew that if each group used their own internal definition, it would skew the survey in the direction they wished to support.

  38. Quote:
    Of 698 respondents, about 94 percent said they believe that endorsing Global Warming cum Climate Change would improve their chances of getting a grant and promotion.
    There – fixed that for you….
    Ralph

  39. It is an admission of scientific failure when the observations don’t agree with the theoretical models to the extent that they resort to canvassing opinions to validate their claims.

  40. Did they provide a date range or simply say “prior to 1800”? If they were answering that they believe temps are higher today that at any point since the beginning of time, then their ignorance is truely extraordinary. Such a belief would bring new meaning to the term “climate change denier”.

  41. The big question is: why didn’t the survey ask the most direct question:
    “Is human action the *primary* cause of climate change?”
    They used the word “significant” instead. In my field of work, that means, as a rule of thumb, above about 5%. So all we got–all you can tell from this survey–is a weak agreement that human action is responsible for at least 5% of climate change.
    I think it’s likely that if you did the survey and asked if it is the *primary* cause, you would find that “not sure” responses would be considerably greater than “yes.”
    And I think the question designers knew this. Which is why they didn’t ask it.

    • They knew that scientists would interpret significant as you did above. However layman would interpret significant to mean a majority.

      • “…interpret significant to mean a majority.”
        You’re spouting an untested assumption. I just did a poll of laymen, and 100% answered either “important” or “noticeable.” Which pretty much echoes the dictionary definition of “sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention; noteworthy.”

    • I have also seen reports and analyses that associate the term “significant” based upon the fact that there is “statistically significance” to their conclusions. Or, in other words it is not “statistically insignificant.”

  42. When it comes to leading questions in polling, and how to get the answer you want, there can be no finer example than Sir Humphrey in ‘Yes Minister’. Classic comedy, and the finest scriptwriting…..

  43. “quite surprised to find cultural values influencing scientists” just like adherence to certain political partis, grant money, believes, mass media, and ignorance influence scientists; these are all cofounders that should have been included in the “study”.

  44. With all the credence the CAGW crowd gives the rising temperatures since the 1800’s, what is the perfect average global temperature? Where is the temperature where the annual averages never rise and fall and prove that we have “conquered” climate change? Or is this something that needs to be measured in dollars expended on the effort?

    • I would like to see us get back to the temperatures we had during the Minoan Warm period. Which means we gotta dump a whole lot more CO2 into the atmosphere to get those temperatures up another 3 to 5C.

  45. Statement : “Human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures” .
    I would even answer “yes” to that –but in the literal sense, which is not , I’m sure, what they meant when the question was asked.
    We know for a fact that human ( GISS, etc.) activity IS “changing mean global temperature” , by constant surface temperature data manipulation and poorly maintained surface stations (thanks Anthony 🙂 .

  46. 90 percent believe that average global temperatures are higher than pre-1800s levels and that human activity has significantly contributed to the rise.
    ====
    90 percent of scientists from non-climate disciplines…have never heard of the LIA

  47. What would we do without social science?
    Here in Canada, we just had a candidate for our national government (running for the NDP, which would be left-wing Democrats in the US or Labour in the UK), and who is the board chair of a school board (god help us), who admitted that she had never heard of the Holocaust before this week.
    Seriously.
    She, of course, has a Masters…

  48. The cartoon was enjoyable, but he left out another good example :
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis
    “Despite various publications of results where hand washing reduced mortality to below 1%, Semmelweis’s observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by the medical community. Some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands and Semmelweis could offer no acceptable scientific explanation for his findings. Semmelweis’s practice earned widespread acceptance only years after his death, when Louis Pasteur confirmed the germ theory and Joseph Lister, acting on the French microbiologist’s research, practiced and operated, using hygienic methods, with great success. In 1865, Semmelweis was committed to an asylum, where he died at age 47 of pyaemia, after being beaten by the guards, only 14 days after he was committed.”
    Look out folks, the “consensus” mob can get really ugly.

    • The history of science is rife with such examples. There would have been too many panels to the cartoon if all false consensuses were included, such as the young age of the earth, immutable species, fixed continents and no giant catastrophic floods.

  49. Welcome to the conflationary domain. Where circumstance, correlation, inference, estimate, and consensus establish a synthesis of logical domains.
    It sounds a bit like a cult.

  50. The funniest of the claims is that 2/3rds believe that climate science is a mature science.
    The other stupidity is the claim that scientists from other disciplines have an opinion that means anything.
    Worst of all is that the study id vague , claiming that human activity has had a “significant” effect on climate.
    They shouldhave asked whether global warming is still happening.

  51. BTW, We are at the Center of the visible Universe, and while I am fine that the universe could be 1,000 times bigger still (or infinite) and we could be anywhere in it, we still can’t see any of that.

    • In all directions, the universe is expanding away from us. Doesn’t that prove that we are at the center of the universe? /sarc
      It may also prove that the rest of the universe, having got a good look at some of our scientists, is trying it’s best to get away from us.

  52. I think most climate doubters would agree the earth is about a degree warmer than a hundred years ago and man-made CO2 is probably the cause. What climate doubters doubt is that this is anything to be concerned about.

    • In December 1995, the “observed” warming since 1860 was estimated at 0.55 degree C (Lean, et al, Geophysical Research Letters). I doubt that earth has warmed 0.45 degree C in the past 20 years, especially since it has not warmed at all for over 18 years.
      The difference is literally man-made, invented by mad climate scientists.

    • I don’t know any skeptic who believes that CO2 is the probably cause of all the warming over the last few hundred years.

      • That’s just all part of the slander.
        When I encounter someone who says I’m denying climate, I point out how stupid that statement is, and give them another shot at it.
        When they say, “Ok, I meant you deny climate change”, I tell them that I don’t, as it would be a very weird climate that didn’t change.
        “Ok” they’ll drone on (and they always seem to be droning, don’t they?), “you don’t believe man is causing climate change”.
        I point out that I believe the science is truly settled in that when we release sequestered CO2, we can’t help but add it to the atmosphere, which should cause some effect on climate, yes.
        Of course, many are confused by the word “sequestered”, but I let that pass.
        “So…what do you believe in?”, I will be asked.
        I’ll point out my lukewarmist thoughts, coupled with some historic bits about proxies, how we can’t really trust them to within a few degree then add them to truly scientific sattelite readings that go to two decimals, point out that even the Sacred UN doesn’t believe their models work, etc. Standard stuff to WUWT readers.
        I show them that there is a very large and continuing drop off in confidence between what the headline they’ve clicked on says, what the story actually says, what the spokesperson for the press release said actually meant (because too much journalism these days is an unpaid intern editing a press release from Big Green), all down through what the scientific paper actually said (using words like “might”, “could”, and a whole bunch of “maybes” that were not found in the article of course), and finally into the actual data, with all its caveats, asterisks and statistic torture.
        Yeah, I usually use them around that first drop…

  53. They surveyed Big 10 University employees for God’s sake and it shows that Big 10 academics believe in AGW? Wow! Call the press! If someone wants to do a real survey, they should survey Scientists/PhD’s in academia and in private industry. I work in a large corporation and I know a lot of scientists here who don’t believe in AGW but believe that CO2 will cause some rise in temperature. The way they phrase the questions can be considered proper but the way they trumpet the results will not be!

  54. As spotty as our data actually is, and the fact warming is nowhere near estimated levels nor close to claimed dangerous levels makes such a survey speak very poorly of the state of science if this poll is legit and a true representation.

    • aw that hurts – we were just doing good dope and enjoying free love, with some great music while trying not to get gassed for protesting carpet bombing of Cambodia (instead of going to classes)

  55. Here’s something I posted in the past. I’m reposting it because this George Mason survey asked the right questions and used the right survey techniques. I suggested in the past that it should be rerun. Why hasn’t it been? (Maybe because Pew, the sponsor, didn’t like the results.)
    ————–
    This George Mason poll http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union. It did not cherry pick the respondants who gave them the answer they wanted, and it asked more sophisticated questions, below. Under its “Major Findings” are these paragraphs:

    “Ninety-seven percent of the climate scientists surveyed believe “global average temperatures have increased” during the past century.
    “Eighty-four percent say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; the rest [11%] are unsure.
    “Scientists still debate the dangers. A slight majority (54%) believe the warming measured over the last 100 years is NOT “within the range of natural temperature fluctuation.”
    “A slight majority (56%) see at least a 50-50 chance that global temperatures will rise two degrees Celsius or more during the next 50 to 100 years. (The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change cites this increase as the point beyond which additional warming would produce major environmental disruptions.)
    “Based on current trends, 41% of scientists believe global climate change will pose a very great danger to the earth in the next 50 to 100 years, compared to 13% who see relatively little danger. Another 44% rate climate change as moderately dangerous.”

    IOW, 59% doubt the “catastrophic” potential of AGW. I suspect that number would be higher now, after six</strike seven more flat years.

    • Thanks.
      A better survey, but still with problematic methodology.
      In any case, whatever warming has actually occurred or not over the past 150 years or so, it is well within normal, natural limits.

    • PS: Here’s RGB on that Mason survey:

      rgbatduke says:
      December 3, 2012 at 1:24 pm
      Of those surveyed, 97% agreed that that global temperatures have risen over the past century. Moreover, 84% agreed that “human-induced greenhouse warming” is now occurring. Only 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global warming.[18][19]
      The 97% is bullshit — it is a direct read of the thermometric data. The 3% that disagreed must really be mavericks…;-)
      If only 84% agree that anthropogenic greenhouse warming is now occurring, 16% disagree, is it not so? That is slightly more than the 15% I asserted. Additionally, IIRC some 53% thought that there was anthropogenic warming, but that it would not be “catastrophic” by the end of the century (although I’m remembering the numbers without looking them up again). Added up, over 2/3 of them disagreed with CAGW., while some 80 to 85% of them believed in some measure of human induced GHE warming.
      The 5% can also be ignored, because most of them no doubt know of things like the Sahara desert and desertification due to land use changes. But those things are unlikely to be a major factor in future catastrophic warming. Or maybe not, dunno.
      It is still far from the homogeneous 96% of all scientists agree in global warming. Possibly true, but who cares! That’s just reading a thermometer, not assigning causes. The following, however, is a true statements:
      According to the George Mason Survey, over 15% of the climate scientists surveyed did not agree with human induced greenhouse warming as a hypothesis.
      Not really surprising. In physics, you can’t get everybody to believe in any controversial proposition at the 96% level. Why would it be different in the most difficult physics problem in the world, the solution of the most fiendishly complex set of nonlinear differential equations I can even imagine?
      rgbatduke says:
      December 3, 2012 at 3:42 pm
      A good summary is here:
      http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html
      They present the results summarized many different ways, some of them internally inconsistent, but they nevertheless make it very, very clear that the “consensus” on CAGW is at best a very thin one. A majority, for example, believe in “moderate” AGW that will do damage, but yet when you add in the 16% that don’t even believe in AGW due to GHGs at all, it doesn’t leave the right remainder for those that they also claim believe in “catastrophe”.
      Note well the mistrust of the media! Climate scientists are neither generally dishonest nor fools, but neither are they immune to the constant hammering and disproportionate reporting of every negative event magnified to the falling sky, every positive event completely ignored.
      Of course this survey isn’t the only survey and I mistrust them all given the money on the table. Witness the “surveys” conducted by the media in the last election. Only University sites and one or two private individuals got it all unequivocally right (notably U of Illinois, using Bayesian methods to process all of the surveys put together, that was damn near perfectly on the money, slightly underestimating Obama’s eventual margin). We sadly live in a time when not one of the major news services can be trusted to be objective on political or social issues, and most are so yellow in their journalism that it is openly revolting. Or so think I. Walter Cronkite and Huntley and Brinkley are all turning in their graves.
      Nothing like the “over 90%” usually portrayed in the media, not even among climate scientists. Of course not. They know better. And note well, this surveys their beliefs in spite of the “support” everybody imagines that they are getting. I have a lot of faith in the overall honesty of most scientists. They live on Earth the same as everybody else, and science as a profession demands far more than the usual modicum of ethical behavior because time will make a fool of you if you make a mistake, and a bad mistake can be and often is a career-ender. I think there are a lot of climate scientists that are a bit out on a limb at the moment, sorry that they let the media and religious zealots among their colleagues frame what they all frankly think is a very uncertain discussion.

  56. Wow! Big Ten biophysical faculty were surveyed. Think about that. That’s an echo chamber right there. It sounds like the survey was taken at a badminton tea-party tailgate session. Tea, crumpets, and a little weed to go along with the dainty tea cups. A better survey would have been to see how many of these non-scientists were vaping their THC.

  57. The survey questions are available at the IOPscience link provided above. Absent was a question similar to the following:
    Qxx: What percentage of your annual funding would vanish if “climate change” were to become a non-issue?

  58. “Climate literature is very compelling and convincing,” she said. “Scientists are not fabricating their data.”
    If it all came out of models it was fabricated. Even the imperial data has been adjusted to the point of torture.

  59. I work with ~400 hard-science PhDs, which works out to about 250 actual people. Not a one of them is, by virtue of their science, more qualified to have an opinion on the climate than the janitorial staff — for every last one of them, an entire molecule is too large-scale (usually) for them to consider, let alone a whole world’s climate. You really have to worship at the altar of Scientism (where anyone in a white lab coat is a high priest of Certainty) to care what non-climatologists believe (and I use that word with prejudice) about climate.

  60. In science, significant is the opposite of insignificant and it is quantified depending on the discipline, but in Biology and many other disciplines it is >2%. A factor is said to be non-significant if it contributes less than 2%.
    I would say 97% of skeptics of AGW would readily accept that mankind is responsible for >2% of global warming, so those polls are meaningless, because clearly mankind is responsible for a significant part of global warming if the scientific meaning of significant is used.
    When polls are made that ask the right question, ¿is mankind responsible for the majority of global warming?, only 66% of climatologists answer yes, with the rest saying no or we don’t know. That percentage goes down when scientists from different disciplines are polled. These numbers are typical for a dominant theory since scientists removed from the specific issue simply accept the dominant theory without taking the time to delve into the the evidence, and say nothing of said theory being right or wrong.

  61. In my view the important controversy is over the degree of climate sensitivity to CO2 forcing. I get a little suspicious that the big kerfuffle over “denier” is designed to avoid acknowledging this controversy. We are supposed to leap to the conclusion that climate change means imminent catastrophe.

  62. My random thought…The study shows that “culture” influences the response. If I understand correctly the study was focused on ” scientists from more than 10 non-climate disciplines at Big Ten universities” and I think we all know what the “culture” is like in today’s universities. They need to conduct the same study with scientists located in the for profit industries.

    • Exactly
      When you look at the Bjorn Lomborg issue at the University of Western Australia untenured academics would have to be very brave to actively dispute the consensus

  63. To be fair,
    I don’t think any early civilizations thought that the world was flat. I can’t say for certain, but from memory I believe most ancients thought that we either sat atop a hill or rode the back of a turtle?

    • After a quick search, according to Wikipedia , the flat Earth myth is one born from bigotry:
      “Historical writers have identified a number of historical circumstances that contributed to the origin and widespread acceptance of the flat-earth myth. American historian Jeffrey Burton Russell traced the nineteenth-century origins of what he called the Flat Error to a group of anticlerical French scholars, particularly to Antoine-Jean Letronne and, indirectly, to his teachers Jean-Baptiste Gail and Edme Mentelle. Mentelle had described the Middle Ages as twelve ignorant centuries of “profound night”, a theme exemplified by the flat-earth myth in Letronne’s “On the Cosmological Opinions of the Church Fathers”.”
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth (doesn’t appear to be politically charged except for the occasional vandalism…)
      I would alter the comic above to reflect notable scientists who have done irreparable harm to modern society. Such as Dr. Egas Moniz driving around the country giving out lobotomies from the back of his truck…

    • Ancient Near East cosmology did indeed envision a flat earth (either with four corners or circular), covered by a series of domes (the vault of heaven or firmament). The sun god daily traveled over the flat earth, then went under it or around outside the dome to return to the place of his rising.
      From a high place, the devil was able to show Jesus all the kingdoms of the earth because the earth was flat.
      Early Church Fathers argued that the earth is flat because the Bible clearly shows it to be so. Later the Church adopted the Ptolemaic system.

      • The pre-scientific Greeks and other Mediterranean peoples also believed that the earth was flat, a disc floating in a surrounding ocean. The pagan Northern European and ancient Indian cosmologies were similar.
        Scholars disagree as to whether the earth was flat or egg-shaped in ancient Chinese thought.
        There are also apparently references to a World Turtle bearing the earth on its back in both Chinese and Indian literature, but the earth which rests on the turtle’s back is flat.

    • Ancient astronomers had a simple proof: the earth’s shadow on the moon is always round. The only shape which casts such a shadow from any angle is a sphere.

      • Lady Gaiagaia,
        “Early Church Fathers argued that the earth is flat because the Bible clearly shows it to be so.”
        I can’t speak for “early Church Fathers”, but the Book does not clearly show any such thing, that I am aware of. I suspect you might be doing a bit of “reading into the text”. If a modern writer were to use the expression “from the four corners of the Earth”, one would naturally accept that as a euphemism, still used today occasionally, not act like they don’t know what it is implying, right?
        The texts of the Book are chock full of such euphemisms, allegories, symbolism, metaphors, parables, etc, etc, and most are obviously not meant to be taken “literally”, God was not speaking to modern scientists, but to people for whom things like “the vault of heaven” were everyday observable realities . . and statements like “He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.”, spoken by Job in what is generally thought by scholars to be the earlies written book in the Book, and this from Isaiah;
        “It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:”
        … suggest a certain Entity was slipping a bit of a “reality check” into the minds of humans when it comes to cosmology and such. Not only is the shape of the earth rather clearly implied, and it’s vastness in comparison to us, but the only recently accepted notion that the “heavens” are “stretching out” is there as well, it seems to me. And this notion of a “fabric of space” that is being stretched out occurs at several points I am aware of.
        I can accept something like “it seems to me to show”, but saying it “clearly shows” is a bit of a stretch, I feel.

  64. “Of 698 respondents, about 94 percent said they believe average global temperatures have “generally risen” compared with pre-1800 levels, and 92 percent said they believe “human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.”
    I would bet that you would get a higher percentage by taking a survey of WUWT readers
    Next up? Lets ask “Can automobiles be dangerous?” And “Do you think there are more cars now than 100 years ago?”
    When you get 90%+, then conclude that the question is settled and ban all cars.
    Obviously… And I suspect intentionally… They are asking the wrong questions

  65. This is essentially the same “survey” as Doran & Zimmerman, and just as irrelevant.
    Who doesn’t believe the 18th century was cooler? (LIA, anyone?) First flaw.
    Second flaw is wording of the second question – scientists who work with statistics in any way view “significant” far differently than the average Joe. “Significant” in statistics an science more often than not refers to “measurable” or “having a measurable effect.” Those running the survey are taking a question which could have an extremely broad interpretation and putting their own narrow interpretation on the results, equating “significant” with the IPCC’s AGW definition, “the majority of…” If the question were worded as, “Do you believe that human activity is the primary cause of all warming since the 18th Century?” the answer wouldn’t be so definite, would it?
    Did they really claim that the survey was of “non-climate scientists” despite inclusion of scientists from most of the disciplines which make up the broad spectrum known as “climate science?”

    • They knew what they were doing. When they asked about the influence of solar activity they asked if those polled agreed with the statement; “Variation in solar activity is responsible for the majority of the observed warming in the past century.”
      Here they use the specific term “majority”. i.e. most of.
      Hence, it would have been impossible to indicate that you believe that solar influence may have been “significant”.
      When they asked about man’s influence they only request agreement that man’s influence is significant. i.e. that man’s influence is not insignificant, I suppose. Depending on how significance is defined in this instance. (But it isn’t defined).
      I can’t see how our influence can be insignificant – there are 7.3 billion of us. All doing stuff!!!

      • IMO human activity is indeed insignificant on GASTA, if such a measurement be possible. We do definitely have an impact on local climatic parameters, however.
        Compare the temperature of Las Vegas in 1905 with now.

  66. I suppose that this is a “survey” of sorts.
    It is a survey of the opinions of people who decided to respond to another crap survey.
    Those people were a minority of those initially polled.
    Unfortunately the survey reveals quite clearly through its choice of questions that it is designed to produce a result that gives the impression that there is a “consensus” regarding science related to the theory of global warming. It would be almost impossible for a reasonable skeptic to express their position within the confines of the questionnaire design.
    Hence, there are only two types of people who would readily participate – supporters of the survey and its creators and its clear objective – i.e. supporters of AGW alarmism and then maybe some people who were unable to perceive that the survey is a trick.
    Another group of people may well exist who are not AGW alarmists and/or are not interested in the stupid survey and/or think that the creators of the stupid survey should shove the stupid survey up where the sun is not a significance influence on mean temperature.
    This leaves us to wonder what views may be held by the non-respondents.
    Now remember that the majority of those polled were non-respondents. Almost 2/3rds of those polled. “we surveyed a sample of 1868 scientists and received 698 responses (37.4% response rate)”.
    So, let’s look at some of the other questions asked and see how representative the respondents are of generally held views on other matters. For example, according to the survey only 0.63% of respondents described their political views as “very conservative” and only another 4.60% as conservative, at all.
    So, there you have it. Let’s forget elections. There is a “consensus” that conservatives are wrong.
    94.77% of scientists do not hold conservative views. It’s damn near a consensus.
    So, how many of the respondents hold libertarian views?
    The response to statement “the government interferes far too much in our everyday lives” should tell us.
    A libertarian would strongly agree.
    2.95% of those polled strongly agreed. So less than 97.05% of respondents are libertarian.
    So, libertarians and conservatives are proved wrong finally – BY SCIENCE.
    That’s it folks, all pack up and go home. The show is over.
    Except that you may possibly be asking – where were all the other people with the other views?
    The views that we all know that many people actually DO have in real life.
    Maybe hiding somewhere in and among those 1170 people who did not reply.
    i.e the vast majority of those polled.
    Of course, there are other serious problems.
    Addressing them all would be too tedious a task for a blog thread.
    Yet another lacklustre piece of propaganda masquerading as science. Somewhere between cargo-cult and voodoo. Actually pathetic. But the media and politicians will doubtlessly lap it all up.
    It only has to fool stupid people to achieve its intended aim.

    • Whoops!! I meant to observe that less than 2.95% of respondents are libertarian. i.e. that a 97.05% “consensus” does NOT hold libertarian views. (And therefore libertarians are simply proved WRONG.)
      I’m sure that it was obvious that that was what I intended to say!!

    • While you’re at it, in the interest of truth in climate science, I suggest this editorial adjustment;
      ” … or think that the creators of the stupid survey should shove the stupid survey up where the sun is not a significance [short term] influence on mean temperature.*
      It seems highly probable to me that the place you refer to there would not exist but for the big ball of fire in the sky you mentioned. Further study is surely needed to confirm my theory, but until the “scientific community” in general grows a pair, so to speak, and pulls their collective heads out of those warm places in question, I fear that might have to wait a dark age or two.
      Seriously, scientists, humanity needs you to freak out in a big way, I feel. These goons on high are not going to stop “impersonating” you for public consumption, and unless you “act out” in large numbers (as some have already begun to do) I fear there is no stopping them from “advancing” us . . to about 1984.
      This “study” opens the door for you to speak up, regardless of discipline, it seems to me. Step through it, I suggest . . or forever hold your peace.

      • Thanks for this correction.
        It did occur to me, of course.
        But I abandoned scientific precision for the sake of comedic effect.
        At least that is more honest than abandoning scientific honesty for the sake of self-promotion and the acquisition of financial security, status or in some cases great riches.
        It is very sad to witness the shenanigans represented by this schlock masquerading as science.
        It’s actually far cleverer than the work of Diederik Stapel. Stapel was unmasked as having concocted his work in social sciences. These fools have not technically broken any rules.
        Doubtless their results are “genuine”.
        Genuine and also meaningless and also misrepresented in the conclusions.
        They have also failed to discuss the various glaring flaws in their own work.
        We can assume that they were quite well aware of the bias introduced by the self-selection of the polled group and so, in failing to consider the potentially critical implications of this bias in the conclusion they are guilty of deception by omission.
        Suffice to say – wool has doubtless been pulled over eyes, again.
        And notably, that was quite clearly the intention from the very beginning.

      • You’re certainly welcome, indefatigablefrog . . but one reason I addressed your comment as i did is because I felt you missed an opportunity for a bit more humor, by not including the parenthetical; (short term), to be perfectly honest. Gives it a nice appropriate ring of scientifical jargonese, it seemed to me.
        ” …wool has doubtless been pulled over eyes, again.”
        I doubt that, in the sense of fooling many scientists and academics and such . . (and the general public are pretty much out of the loop at this point, in terms of influence on how this will all play out, as far as I can tell) My sense is that each shoddy attempt to “seal the deal” on scientific consensus for the CAWG clan, actually leads another wave of people who grasp the nature of such surveys and “studies” to get more suspicious now.
        Sites like this one, and all the people who have been sounding the fake science/consensus alarm in general, have been far more effective than the mass media masters like to let on, it seems to me, or they wouldn’t be running these dopey (and therefor potentially bean-spilling) micro scams every few months. I sure as hell wouldn’t put something like this “survey” in front of reasonably intelligent/educated people if I thought I already had them “in the bag” so to speak . . Would you?
        Fight on I say, and use this slimy BS as more ammunition.

  67. Of 698 respondents, about 94 percent said they believe average global temperatures have “generally risen” compared with pre-1800 levels, and 92 percent said they believe “human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.”
    Completely meaningless results. That temperature has “generally risen” since the LIA isn’t really debated. That human activity is a “significant” contributing factor means what exactly? 5%? 50%? 99%? It’s completely meaningless without clear quantification.
    This is sophistry, not science

  68. First they dismiss scientist who are skeptics because they are not “climate scientist” and now they embrace them.
    Did I miss another “adjustment”?

  69. “Climate literature is very compelling and convincing,” she said. “Scientists are not fabricating their data.”
    –Linda Prokopy
    Why throw in that last part? The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
    I have to wonder by what means she knows it? Has she done an audit of climate data? Or does she know scientists are not fabricating their data because they say so? Is science a matter that has to be accepted on faith now, once a vote of consensus has been taken?

    • This jumped out at me, too. What is in-filling, homogenising, adjusting (for time of day, site movements, bucket vs bouy, etc) if not fabricating, regardless of the justification for doing so?

    • The pause is real, as shown by the less “adjusted” satellite and balloon data.
      The “actual research” isn’t either.

      • I just get batted around all the time. I keep trying to be open to “both sides” and often end up agreeing with the skeptics. But I’m not a scientist – a skeptic and an atheist – but I have no real basis for evaluating either claims at times.
        Every time I scratch the surface of their claims I find a debunking. It’s kind of terrifying. But the level of certainty and the number of angles they take can be overwhelming at times.
        Sigh. Thanks for your response. I think a lot of people feel like me.

    • The current plateau in global temps commonly and unscientifically called “the pause” has been grudgingly acknowledged by “team” members Trenberth (“it’s a travesty) and the UK Met office, as well as by less operantly motivated people looking at satellite observations at RSS, UAH, and by many others as well. Because of the so-called “pause,” it’s likely the IPCC’s AR5 abandoned the statement of an estimate of climate sensitivity, which it had confidently espoused in AR4.
      Of course, you’re free to trust whichever “experts” you like.

      • I actually “trust” the POV expressed here and elsewhere in the truly skeptical community on AGW. I guess all I was saying is that I realize the limits of my own knowledge. I have a difficult time evaluating the validity of the claims and counter-claims, despite expending serious effort trying to do so.
        I’m not here vying for Greg Laden but when he publishes something like this, it’s used by AGW proponents to “debunk” the “crazies”. This is actually a great example to pull apart, if you wouldn’t mind.
        I remember when the datasets were changed by – was it NOAA and was it buoy data, back in like June? You see, I don’t really remember, I just remember a sense of outrage at how baldly the data was being manipulated. But I didn’t know if this paper cited that data.
        I also heard it said that the “increase” this year was only 1/100th of a degree – it just goes on and on like this.
        Also Laden is making an argument in defense of AGW modeling, essentially claiming that temp records actually are not outside the error bands of the models. I seem to recall other presentations and articles claiming the other was so, but you see, I don’t know which model is being referred to and why it’s better or worse than others. I don’t keep track that well and even when I try to i get lost. I’m not stupid, fyi, it’s just that the science and analytic techniques and the measurements and the statistics and math required to evaluate the claims being made are beyond my understanding. It’s a highly specialized analysis.
        I’ve been reading about AGW on sites like this – from varying points of view – for 12+ years, and I’m still confused. It’s getting weirder now because the “truth” of AGW is taken as a social good and reality in more and more of the circles I exist in. Circles filled with curious, smart people. And remember, what I’m essentially doing is picking someone I like to listen to, like say Richard Lindze. Sigh, my point is that despite being dedicated to being a skeptic and listening to a lot of different points of view, I’m still unsure.
        I just watched a documentary on the antarctic that claimed the sea lanes there opened up for 90 days more a year now due to AGW. I hear constantly that AGW is causing this or that to melt, etc. I hear many real scientists claim it with certainty and dismiss the AGW skeptical movement.
        Given my lack of technical skills, how can I ignore the “social proof” all around me? I recognize the limits of my own reasoning and am in a quandry over it.
        I know, this probably sounds like a whine but it’s not. I’m legitimately trying to communicate a meta level problem in this “debate” – it’s highly technical and specialized. It truly requires “experts” to properly analyze and hypothesize about it.
        And yes, the AR5 was a remarkable document for skeptics, and really, the most shocking part was the summary for policymakers and the blanket contention of 90% confidence of their predictions and analysis when many other aspects of the report seemed to undermine their hypothesis, not confirm it.
        Perhaps this comment is a waste of time. I guess if I was trying to be constructive I would suggest how to get this debate into the mainstream media more regularly. But for now, I hear no skeptical commentary presented in the mainstream media – none. It’s a complete blackout.
        I do know this. Just about every smart person I know thinks AGW is a real problem. In a field where I’m admittedly out of my depth, how can I possibly ever know if I’m succumbing to biases born on large part by my ignorance?

  70. The questionnaire is obviously contrived given the fact that no self-respecting scientist would participate in answering something that is clearly politically charged.

  71. In a highly politically-charged environment that is largely isolated from real-world consequences and significantly funded by those who support the Preferred Political Narrative, the vast majority of those willing to speak up publicly support the Preferred Political Narrative. *Shocking.*
    And it’s even the “weak form” narrative, that there’s *some* warming and *some* of it is an anthropogenic effect, also espoused by many skeptics (though the amount is considered non-dangerous or even barely measurable or immeasurable).
    Mind you, in the MFM and on Social Media this will be reported as supporting Strong Form, because that’s what their job is.
    You know, everyone’s life would be substantially easier if not for the *torrent* of “spin” shoveled up on farms and delivered to us daily.

  72. You know, the more I think about it, the more intellectually insulting this is. It’s like every possible bias is built in, then biased language is slathered on top, *knowing* that only the two-sentence summary will be picked up by a biased press corps.
    It’s basically lying and laughing about it.

  73. A serious, not politically motivated survey would ask what share of mean global temperature change since the end of the Little Ice Age (pick a year) can be attributed to human activity in general and to GHGs in particular. Options might be: 1) cooling, 2) no warming, 3) negligible warming (insignificant), 4) less than 25%, 5) 26 to 49% and 6) over half.

  74. “human-caused climate change”
    It is very vague questions, because what is meant by climate and climate change? The components of the climate always change, so how to define climate change in a single figure. How to add together the changes in tempetarure annual or in summer in winter and so on, rain, sunshine, clouds, storm, snow, growing days, frostdays, good days, bad days, to a single measure of climate, so that you can say it has changed.
    It was so much easier when it was called global warming. A single figure you could relate to.

  75. Yogi Berra died today. He was 90.
    This quote by him seems appropriate relative to engineering vs pure science.
    “In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.”
    Yogi Berra
    RIP

  76. “While our study shows that a large majority of scientists believe in human-caused climate change, it also shows that their beliefs are influenced by the same types of things that influence the beliefs of regular people: cultural values, political ideologies and personal identity,” In particular, they are influenced by their grants and pay packets which depend on ‘correct’ answers.

  77. Previously we’ve been told to ignore the opinions of non-“climate scientists” because they aren’t “climate scientists”. What’s suddenly changed?

    • Previously we’ve been told to ignore the opinions of non-“climate scientists” because they aren’t “climate scientists”. What’s suddenly changed?
      actually was: ignore the opinions of non-“climate scientists” [when they disagree with AGW] because they aren’t “climate scientists” [who agree with wealth redistribution].
      So, What’s suddenly changed? Nothing has changed. They are largely citing those who believe in the AGW religion.

    • What exactly is a climate scientist? I am pretty sure that I am one but i’m not sure I want to claim the title.
      Give me a definition and I will decide if I am one.
      I don’t work for the government or academia or an environmental group. I receive no grant money and work in the private sector. Does that disqualify me?

  78. The terminology needs updating again. “Climate change” was a dastardly misnomer.
    The accurate term is “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climatic Alteration”—CACA. This would good for the Climatastrophists, since no one dares deny that CACA happens.

  79. Scientists never registered and voted on the matter. Science is not a democracy. Scientific theories are not validated through opinion poles. The laws of science are not some sort of legislation. The whole thing is rather foolish . It is politics and not science. The AGW conjecture is full of errors and no opinion pole is going to make up for them. The reality is that there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate.

  80. more than 90 percent believe that average global temperatures are higher than pre-1800s levels and that human activity has significantly contributed to the rise.
    Yeah? And?
    I agree with all that, myself. Call me Mr. 97%. And I am the alarmist’s worst enemy.

    • I don’t agree with significantly. What does that mean? That ten percent of whatever warming has occurred since sometime in the 19th century has been caused by humans? Twenty-five percent? Thirty-three percent? Fifty percent? More?
      IMO it’s less than ten percent, but IPCC says without basis that it’s over 50%.

      • If “significant” means “not statistically insignificant”, then we might be talking low single digits, as in perhaps 4% caused by humans.

    • The above is a trick question . There are really two separate questions here . Most people including skeptics would agree that temperatures have been rising, and would even agree that mankind has had an effect. But they would disagree that humans have “significantly” affected the rise because there is no such evidence . Many alarmists even use the term ” primarily” which is even more wrong due to lack of evidence.

  81. “Of 698 respondents, about 94 percent said they believe average global temperatures have “generally risen” compared with pre-1800 levels,”
    This statement has never been contested by most if not all skeptics . The disagreement is over the claim that man is primarily responsible for this back ground warming of about 0.75 C per century.

    • The post-LIA warming is much less than 0.75 degrees C per century. As I commented above, in December 1995, the “observed” warming since 1860 was estimated at 0.55 degree C (Lean, et al, Geophysical Research Letters).
      That’s a warming rate of 0.407 degree C per century, but even 20 years ago, there had already been unwarranted “adjustments” to the “record”.
      Since the planet has not warmed at all for over 18 years, the rate must have slowed. Let’s be generous and assume that from December 1995 to now, the surface has gained 0.05, for a total of 0.60 degrees C since 1860 (the presumed warming occurring in 1996 and part of 1997). That works out to a rate of 0.387 degrees C per century.

      • Which is almost exactly the same as cumulative adjustments made by GHCN.
        I don’t care any more. My monthly stipend from the Koch brothers didn’t show up, so I believe in AGW now.

      • That’s right. All the warming is “man-made”, as in invented by paid flunkies.
        But maybe I too would be wise to join you in the Collective and get a monthly pittance.

  82. Climate scientist? I still can’t figure out what a climate scientist is? The best guess is some who programs climate models. All others are of different disciplines

    • Well one definition is ‘ a climate scientist is a person whose views support the CAGW theory regardless of training or expertise in any scientific area ‘. That is why railway engineers and failed politicians have been called climate scientist .
      But it is a good point , in fact there is no agreed definition and no idea at all about the number of people who are scientists of any sort, which is another indication how much BS the infamous 97% claim really is , for if you do not know the whole number you cannot know the percentage a sub-group represents of the whole regardless of its size .

  83. Here’s something I posted 3+ years ago. It’s still relevant, alas. I should make one addition: Participants in such a lengthy poll should be given a few hundred bucks for their time. This will have the benefit of getting a higher participation rate. Compensation should be upped, if necessary, to get that rate over 2/3.
    ——–
    The opinions of these experts are not something we are bound to accept at face value, without knowing about their opinions on other climate-related controversies that we laymen are better able to form opinions on. From that, we can judge whether this 97% is likely to be competent and objective in its consensus on abstruse controversies.
    So the original pollsters should be urged, loudly and repeatedly, to conduct a follow-up poll of the 77 containing questions such as those below. (Nearly all of these questions could be subdivided.) In addition, they should commit to conducting additional follow-up every four years. These will give snapshot of contemporary expert opinion on a range of topics that will be very helpful to forensic sociologists in the future. Ultimately, these surveys will become the most-cited articles in the scientific literature. (Evil grin.)
    My versions are crude first drafts. A polished version should contain well-expressed quotes from four or five commenters all along the opinion-spectrum on some topic (perhaps with two or three quotes for each “point” on the specrum) and the respondent should be asked which set of opinions most closely reflects his own. He should be allowed to vote for an in-between position as well. And he should be allowed to skip questions.
    1. Climategate. Do you think it was a tempest in a teapot, something mildly worrying, very worrying, or a peak under the rock of climatology? (I haven’t spelled out the questions that follow to this extent.)
    2. The Hockey Stick. To what extent do you think the original study has been debunked?
    3. To what extent do you think its conclusions are still true regardless?
    4. Extinctions. How many are likely under a business as usual scenario by 2050? By 2100? Etc.
    5. Extreme weather. Under a business as usual scenario, what opinion do you have about an increase or decrease in (tornados, hurricanes, droughts, floods, earthquakes, hail, snow, etc.)
    6. Sea level. Under a business as usual scenario, what opinion do you have about an increase or decrease in it?
    7. Global ice extent. Under a business as usual scenario, what opinion do you have about an increase or decrease in it?
    8. Arctic sea ice. Ditto.
    9. Land ice on Greenland and Antarctica. Ditto.
    10. Methane release from permafrost. How worrisome a problem under business as usual?
    11. How closely will global temperature anomalies match the IPCC’s scenarios over the next 5 / 10 / 20 years?
    12. The “missing” tropical hotspot. How much of a problem is this?
    13. The “missing” heat. How much of a problem is this?
    14. The IPCC and its reports. How credible? (This question could be broken down into many smaller questions.)
    15. The IAC’s criticisms of the IPCC. How justified?
    16. Renewables. How soon do you think they will be cost-competitive with fossil fuel (assuming all costs are accounted for)?
    17. How soon would they be cost-competitive if fossil fuel “subsidies” were removed?
    18. Should move to renewables now even if CO2 weren’t a problem?
    19. Biofuel and ethanol. Worth continuing?
    20. Nuclear power. What do you think about moving to it?
    21. Hydropower. Should there be more or less of it?
    22. Cold fusion. Should it be funded?
    23. Amory Lovins. Your opinion?
    24. The Third World. If they won’t agree to match the pace of the West’s emission reductions, should we reduce our emissions sharply anyway?
    25. If they do agree to match our reductions, how well do you think they will actually perform?
    26. Climate contrarians. What do you think of climatologists who hold contrarian views?
    27. What do you think on non-climatologist scientists who hold contrarian views?
    28. What do you think of laymen who hold contrarian views?
    29. “The time for debate is over—the time for action has begun.” (Gore, approximately.) Do you agree?
    30. Debates. What sort of debate would you think would be fair/worthwhile, if any?
    31. Peer review. Is it fair, or is there a bias against contrarian views?
    32. Funding. Is it fair, or is there a bias against contrarian views?
    33. Does climatology need more funding, and if so, how much? And for what purposes?
    34. Media. How fairly do you think the mass media have handled the global warming topic? (This question could be subdivided by types of media, country of media, level of media, etc.)
    35. “Silent Spring.” Your opinion?
    36. Cap and Trade. What’s your opinion?
    37. Global financial crisis. How much of a problem will this be for funding a switch to renewables?
    38. Popular backlash against increased fuel & power bills. How much of a problem might this become?
    39. Agenda 21. Your opinion?
    40. The EU. Your opinion?
    I’ll probably think of twenty more by tomorrow. These are all “off the top of my head,” typing as fast as I could. Please repost freely. This sort of challenge is the only effective counterpoint we can make to the 97% meme.
    41. Contrarian criticism. What have you read of it?
    42. (A long list of books pro and con on climate and the envioronment.) “Please check all that you have read.”
    43. What funding have you received over the past ten years?
    44. Archiving and open access to data and software programs. Your opinion?
    45. What do you think of Gore’s movie, “An Inconvenient Truth”?
    46. List what presidential candidates you voted for in the last ten elections.

      • If you can calculate that less energy will leave, and can measure that the same is coming in, you can fairly well understand that the system will warm.
        Do you think there is a problem with the law regarding the conservation of energy?

    • As a small adjustment to your questions – let’s include the concept of acceleration of change.
      For example in relation to sea level:
      Do you think that sea level is, on average, rising?
      At what rate do you believe the sea level is rising, on average. Answers in mm/year?
      Do you consider the current rate of sea level rise to be of any concern?
      If you have answered that sea level is currently rising, then is it rising at an accelerating rate?
      If yes, then is this acceleration caused by anthropogenic influence? Partly or in whole?
      Maybe, if we provide the known answers after the survey has been completed, then in addition to learning something about what the experts think – we may also be able to teach the experts something about what is now known about the climate.

  84. If any can show a refutation of Fourier 1825, Tyndall 1856, or Arrhenius 1896, let us know. It’s only been 100+ years, maybe one of them will be refuted next year.
    As for: “It seems curious to me that if man-made climate change is so certain, why do some people feel the need to prove that a majority of their peers believe in it and that anyone who doesn’t is simply wrong?”
    Umm, looked in a mirror lately? You, and people like you, are the reason. People can believe you, whose web site makes statements directly contradicted by your research, or they can believe that the majority of researchers over the last 200 years have not been entirely wrong.

    • Arrhenius, like IPCC after him, included in his calculations latitudinal effects and feedback from presumed changes in water vapor, but he omitted clouds, convection of heat upwards in the atmosphere and other essential factors, leading to erroneous conclusions and exaggerated estimates of warming.
      Yup, a real trend-setter!

      • So, no, you can’t refute Arrhenius.
        BTW, how do you figure convection up to the tropopause conducts energy up past the stratosphere?
        And why do you think convection did not exist prior to our increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere?

      • “presumed changes in water vapor”
        Presumed? Quick question: Which has a higher absolute humidity, cold winter air, or warm summer air? You seem unaware of basic chemistry, and yet you hold your opinion of science higher than the vast majority of researchers.
        You might also want to come to grips with the reality that increasing humidity has been observed.
        “We use satellite measurements to highlight a distinct radiative signature of upper tropospheric moistening over the period 1982 to 2004. The observed moistening is accurately captured by climate model simulations and lends further credence to model projections of future global warming.”
        http://www.sciencemag.org/content/310/5749/841.short

      • Why would I want to refute him? Scarcely anyone here wants to do that. Most skeptics consider the GHE valid. Did you really believe otherwise?
        Why would you think that I think that convection didn’t exist before? The issue is that there are major negative feedbacks on the GHE that IPCC ignores.
        The issue with the GHE is that it is negligible, not that it doesn’t exist. Why is that distinction hard for you to grasp?

      • OK, in 1896 Arrhenius said that digging fossil fuel out of the ground and burning it would warm the earth, and you say you have no reason to refute him, but you think the majority of scientists are wrong when they say that is what we are seeing today.
        I don’t think we are having a rational discussion.

      • Chris G
        September 24, 2015 at 8:24 pm
        Clearly, the models have way overstated the positive feedback effect from water vapor. In the ten years since your citation was published, GASTA has actually fallen, as observed by satellites and balloons.
        So, clearly, the old paper you linked has been shown false.

      • It’s not an assertion, but an observation. Don’t know how you missed all the news about the so-called “pause”, better considered a plateau, since from flat, temperatures could go either up or down.
        The satellites and balloons clearly show that the earth stopped warming in the late 1990s. So did the “surface record”, despite its being manipulated, until the latest, totally unjustified “adjustments”.

    • Chris G
      September 24, 2015 at 8:33 pm
      Clearly, we are seeing no such thing today.
      With steadily rising CO2 since WWII, we have seen global cooling from 1945 to 1977, then 20 years of slight warming until 1996, followed by flat to cooling temperatures since then. So the man-made GHE “worked” for only 20 of the past 50 years, purely by accident. Where is this global warming of which you speak?
      Callendar in 1938, like Arrhenius, imagined that increasing CO2 was warming the planet. Because he practiced the scientific method, Callendar admitted that, after the extreme winter of 1961/62, he was wrong. Only after the global cooling scare of the ’70s was the already falsified hypothesis of man-made global warming revived. But this time it was supposed to be bad, rather than good, as for Arrhenius and Callendar.
      The warming of the 1920s to ’40s was natural, just like the warming of the 1970s to ’90s. CO2 had little to nothing to do with it.
      But even if the man-made GHE should at some future date become detectable, it will be a good thing, just as Arrhenius and Callendar believed.

  85. Chris G says:
    If any can show a refutation of Fourier 1825, Tyndall 1856, or Arrhenius 1896, let us know.
    As usual, Chris gets it backward. Those making the conjecture that human CO2 emissions will cause runaway global warming (or any global warming, for that matter) have the onus — not skeptics.
    Skeptics are laughing at the complete inability of any of them to produce an empirical, testable, replicable measurement quantifying AGW. The alarmist crowd is convinced it’s a big problem. But they can’t even measure it after “200 years” of searching:
    People can believe you, whose web site makes statements directly contradicted by your research, or they can believe that the majority of researchers over the last 200 years have not been entirely wrong.
    We’re not asking to be believed, and that’s just the appeal to authority fallacy. The alarmist cult has the onus of demonstrating that measurable AGW exists. They have failed for 200 years, and that can only be because of two possible reasons:
    Either AGW doesn’t exist, or it is too tiny to measure. Take your pick. I think it’s the second reason myself. If AGW is too minuscule to measure, then it is a complete non-problem and no more public money should be wasted on the AGW scare.
    We don’t have to refute Fourier, Tyndall or Arrhenius. That’s just deflection. All we have to do is ask: where are the measurements? There aren’t any. Thus, “dangerous AGW” is a false alarm, based mainly on assertions.

    • Let’s see, on one side, you have 200 years of measurements of the physical world, and on the other, you have your wishful thinking. No, if you want to counter physical measurements, you have to bring physical measurements, not wishful thinking.
      “where are the measurements? There aren’t any.”
      You mean, there aren’t any except for every spectroscopic analysis over the last 150 years, direct satellite measurements,
      http://www.geo.cornell.edu/geology/classes/Geo101/graphics/Nimbus_energy_out.jpg
      and the 10 years of watching the greenhouse effect increase in exactly the wavelengths only affected by CO2.
      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html
      What, you think CO2 molecules absorb and emit IR only above those two stations and everywhere else in the universe they do not?

      • Clearly, to me, anyway, DB referred to measurements of man-made global warming, for which evidence is in short supply, to say the most. That’s a separate issue from the existence of a so-called GHE, of which most here accept the validity. In fact those who push hardest against it, the self-styled “Sky Dragon Slayers”, are banned.
        The issue is whether the effect on climate of man-made CO2 is important (or even measurable) and beneficial, as Arrhenius thought, or deleterious, or negligible on temperature and beneficial to plants, as most here are convinced.
        Put another way, is ECS 3.0 degrees C, as IPCC would have it, virtually without evidence, or closer to 1.0 degree, as observations indicate?

      • The effect on global mean temperature of CO2 from human sources has not ever been measured. Had it been, science would know ECS with great precision. IPCC’s present, lowered range is 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C per doubling. It’s probably more like -0.5 to 1.5 degrees because of the net negative feedbacks ignored by IPCC.

        • You get the best statistical post processing fit (MOS) to the climate models by multiplying forecast times 0.4 = observed.
          In other words, the climate models have forecast more than twice the observed warming. If the models had no skill and CO2 was not a factor in the warming, then the coefficient would be near zero.
          The sample size of forecast vs observed is so small that randomness and luck (good or bad) is a serious concern. But, as a climatologist who works in quantitative forecasting and verification, I have two tentative conclusions…
          (1) CO2 is a factor in the warming. The models forecast warming. CO2 is the prime forcing in the models. The atmosphere has warmed.
          (2) The models have over-forecast the warming by a factor of greater than two. This doesn’t mean the models are worthless. It just suggests that their assumptions of the unknowns are likely flawed or their is a feedback problem.
          For those old enough to remember, the old LFM model was the state of the art weather forecasting model in the late 70s to about 1985. It always over-forecast rain. Forecasters would laugh and cut it in half. The MOS forecasts would statistically cut it in half. The model wasn’t useless. It just had bias. Raw model output always does. That’s why raw model data must be statistically post-processed to link it to reality. This is difficult to do with the small sample size of climate forecasts.
          But until the models are substantially changed… the forecast for me is …
          Temp forecast = Climate Model Forecast * 0.4
          This puts us around 1.2 deg/century

      • Chris,
        Even if there is a positive feedback from water vapor, it clearly is cancelled out by the negative feedbacks ignored by the IPCC.
        Were that not the case, then the world would not have cooled under rapidly rising CO2 for the 32 years after the end of WWII, nor would it have stayed the same or cooled for the going on 19 (or more) past years.
        If ECS, as seems likely, based upon a plethora of recent studies, is less than 2.0 degrees per doubling, then there is nothing to worry about. If man-made GW is negligible and more CO2 is beneficial, what is the problem?

      • It just occurred to me that your prior comment about convection indicates that you might not understand how negative feedbacks work. I sometimes make the mistake of supposing that others understand climatic phenomena.
        Convection is not a fixed quantity. It will increase as the difference in heat between a warmer layer and a cooler layer increases. Thus, convection will increase between a part of the atmosphere warmed by increased GHEs and a cooler part. This is a negative feedback in the climate system, just as are clouds in certain layers, damping out whatever effect more H2O in the air might have.
        Like Arrhenius, the IPCC and modelers ignore or understate such negative feedback effects. Thus, it should come as no surprise that the IPCC’s predictions and the GCMs have failed so miserably to reflect observed reality for going on 20 years or more.

      • No, if you want to counter physical measurements, you have to bring physical measurements

        Day to Day Temperature Difference
        Surface data from NCDC’s Global Summary of Days data, this is ~72 million daily readings,
        from all of the stations with >360 daily samples per year.
        Data source:
        ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/gsod/
        Code:
        http://sourceforge.net/projects/gsod-rpts/
        https://micro6500blog.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/rise_fall-temp-differences.png
        This is a chart of the annual average of day to day surface station change in min temp.
        (Tmin day-1)-(Tmin d-0)=Daily Min Temp Anomaly= MnDiff = Difference
        For charts with MxDiff it is equal = (Tmax day-1)-(Tmax d-0)=Daily Max Temp Anomaly= MxDiff
        MnDiff is also the same as
        (Tmax day-1) – (Tmin day-1) = Rising
        (Tmax day-1) – (Tmin day-0) = Falling
        Rising-Falling = MnDiff

      • Chris,
        If people believe the earth’s surface temps rose over the decades of the 80’s and 90’s, why exactly ought they to believe the CO2 in the atmosphere would NOT rise for a while, AS A RESULT OF THAT WARMING? Ice core samples seem to pretty clearly indicate that pattern occurred throughout the “record”, do they not?
        This looks a lot like the tomfoolery Mr. Gore pulled in his infamous “Inconvenient Truth” video, to me, with a “satellite data” veneer pasted over “the top”, so to speak.
        I’m no “climate scientist” but I can understand that if warming inevitably causes increased CO2, and increased CO2 inevitably causes further warming, we wouldn’t be here to discuss this “crisis” . . we would have been baked to a crisp long ago. That’s a guaranteed recipe for hell on earth, it seems to me. Logically speaking, CO2 cannot be “driving” this bus, I say.

        • Oh. But its different now. /sarc. There are taxes to be collected andd grants to be issued only if there is a potential crisis.

    • Climate change is not some theoretical problem that can be solved or a law of physics that is black and white. It is a real world problem with zillions of variables and many unknowns and a very limited sample of forecast verification.
      I basically agree with the two questions asked in this ridiculous survey. Yes, the Earth is warmer. Yes, humans probably are contributing, maybe significantly.
      The “catastrophic “part is where I have a serious problem. That requires judgment and a tenth of a degree warming per decade simply doesn’t scare me. If we can’t adapt to that then we are doomed to the scrap heap of evolution anyway. As for saving the earth, the earth will be fine long after we are gone. The idea is to “save the humans” and at a tenth of a degree per decade, I don’t think we need saving.

  86. Chris G,
    Clearly, my question went right over your head.
    I said there are no empirical, testable, replicable measurements quantifying AGW — the fraction of man-made global warming (MMGW) out of all global warming from natural events, such as the recovery from the LIA.
    No one has ever produced a verifiable measurement of AGW. It’s all based on assertions.
    If you can produce a measurement that quantifies MMGW, you will be a shoo-in for the next Nobel Prize. But after centuries of searching and hundreds of billions wasted, those measurements are as elusive as ever.

      • That CO2 is radiatively active in those wavelengths is not in dispute. Neither is anyone “refuting” Fourier 1825, Tyndall 1856, or Arrhenius 1896, despite your assertion to that effect.
        The central world authority on climate science is the United Nations IPCCm which from time to time publishes reports summarizing the most current knowledge we have, the latest being AR5. If the science is as obvious, trivial, and settled as your seem to think, one can only ask:
        1. Why did AR5 publish (yet again) their sensitivity estimate as a range (1.5 to 4.5 deg C per doubling)? Do the elite climate scientists of the world, in their missive to the governing bodies of the human race, not know what the right number is?
        2. Why did they, for the third report in a row, reduce the lower end of their sensitivity estimate?
        3. Why, for the first time since the AR reports were first published, were these world leaders in climate science unable to arrive at a consensus estimate of sensitivity at all?
        4. If the science has been so well known, for such a long time, and is so obviously trivial, why do climate models get completely different results from one another? You’d think they would all be the same? Are they not based on the known science? Further, if they are, why did the scientists set aside the known science in the climate models in favour of “expert opinion”?
        You see Chris G, it isn’t a matter of rejecting anything. It is a matter of accepting the science exactly as it is expressed by the climate scientists themselves.

      • David,
        You say that the IPCC is the most credible source, the IPCC states that human emissions are changing the climate, and Watts says, “It seems curious to me that if man-made climate change is so certain,…”
        Maybe your argument is with Watts and not me.

      • Are you going to answer my questions, or not?
        Well Chris G? Are you going to answer? My guess is no. Whenever people like you are confronted with the actual facts of the debate, you slink off in silence. You created a straw man argument to attribute to others, and when faced with what scientists from your side of the debate are actually saying, you’ve got…. nothing.
        If your protests were genuine, then perhaps you learned something. Your welcome. If they were not genuine, then all you have been is a troll trying to distract attention from the actual issues.

    • Self flagellation and sacrifice of treasure will appease the angry wrath of the weather gods.
      Increase the flagellation and sacrifice will increase the appeasement.
      Why do we need maths when such things are so self-evident. (sarc)

    • My hand is raised. I think windmills will factor in.
      Climate Model Forecast warming next 100 years from fossil fuel sources = 3.0 deg K
      Coefficient of climate model success 0.4
      Skill adjusted climate model forecast next 100 years 3.0 * 0.4 = 1.2 deg K
      Windmill % of global energy 1% … estimate growing to 3% by end of century yielding 2% average.
      Windmill free lunch coefficient = 0.5. Half of windmill benefits erased by fossil fuels used to build and maintain them and extra guilt free consumption and researchers driving around counting birds.
      Therefore…
      Windmill temp reduction next 100 years = 0.5*.02*1.2 = 0.012 degrees K per century or one degree reduction every 8333 years.

  87. It’s doesn’t make any difference if there is a consensus opinion or not, Unless of course, funding for something is your biggest concern.
    So it’s not really that much of a shock to see astronomers now going after their share of the pie when it’s potentially a far bigger part of the climate puzzle than the less than 4% anthropogenic co2 contribution of 0.04% of the Earth’s atmosphere. The veteran of the group has now learned that if you want to get in the game, you have to let the coach know you’ll play on special teams.
    Mother Nature however, will give you the finger regardless of what you believe in.

    • All of science is being corrupted, as Ike warned could happen.
      If you want to study squirrels, say the magic words and win a grant. If you want to study stars, ditto. If you want to study minerals, ditto. If you want to study molecules, ditto. If you want to study engineering transport systems, ditto.
      You name it, ditto.

      • Spot on Lady Gaiagaia !
        A “study” (stopped reading at the first sentence) = GRANT MONEY.
        A “study” = Parisite-speak (drivel, white-wash, nonsense) to try and CON the public.
        Regards,
        WL

  88. Since you brought it up Anthony, The Theory of continental drift is just that, a Theory. It is now an accepted dogma in geoscience. A hard core minority of international geoscientists still have their doubts, and like climate science, a large number are afraid to express their true opinions becuse they risk losing their careers. There are many parts of the ocean basins that contain older rocks than predicted by continental drift theory. Also the age of the uplift of many mountain ranges do not fit the current theory. FYI, to get an alternative view, go to the website of the Journal of New Concepts in Global Tectonics:
    http://www.ncgt.org/

  89. Go to left leaning universities, contact friends in in left leaning communication, social and earth science departments, get their left wing opinions, call it a survey and claim consensus on human-caused climate change in the broader scientific community. Simples.

  90. Whenever I am confronted by a study like this, I always say that it shows more about the biases of the “researchers”, than about the subject being researched.

  91. A relevant quote from Lindzen’s 2 June 2009 address at the Heartland conference: “The specialties of the scientists involved lie well outside of climate physics, but they can find funding and recognition by attempting to relate their specialty to global warming. Their ‘results’ are to be found in the newspapers every day. Cockroaches and malaria are spreading, the sex drive of butterflies diminishing, polar bears in potential danger, etc. From the point of view of serious science, this group is mostly a nuisance, but they play a major role in the maintenance of alarm. They also artificially swell the numbers of scientists who endorse the alarmist view.”
    He also noted in another address that many scientists outside of climate science endorse the global warming meme just because ‘it makes their lives easier’ (close paraphrase).

  92. Anyway, this has all been bugging my mind now for a couple of days.
    Its almost as irritating as the fact that Lewandowsky exists.
    Anyway, I would like to concoct a study which helps us to understant the problems with this study.
    Here is my idea: My study will investigate the widely acknowledged problem that male University professors tacitly feel sexual attraction towards their much younger sexually attractive female students.
    Here’s how the study would be presented:
    We contacted a random selection of University professors via email and asked them to complete the survey containing the single question – do you ever feel sexually attracted to your female students.
    Of 2000 professors contacted 328 responded, of these 98.4% stated that they feel no sexual attraction to their sexually attractive female students.
    Hence, we conclude that the existence of a pervy male University professor is merely a myth that is being promoted by the media. Whilst such individuals are almost non-existent in the real world.
    Why can the world not immediately detect that such an approach is childish bullcrap,
    AND – on top of that was the glaring problem with the word “significant”.
    I called it childish, but children in general are more honest and more intelligent.

  93. A response to Lady Gaiagaia and Climatologist , responding to my post from waaay up the thread.
    So true!!!
    Many posters have already provided other excellent examples of the damage done to honest scientists of times past who went where the data led them and were proven correct.
    It might be “fun” to have our own list of examples in the sciences (with brief synopsis of the cases) here at WUWT, as a separate reference tab. Would that be possible Anthony?
    [Tips & Notes is where your request should go. It’s sure to be seen there. ~mod.]

  94. This is the list of Big 10 Schools: Illinois. Indiana. Iowa. Maryland. Michigan. Michigan State. Minnesota. Nebraska. Northwestern. Ohio State. Penn State. Purdue. Rutgers. Wisconsin.
    Notice Penn State. Now, the survey didn’t say which schools were surveyed. If the past is any indication of pure honesty, i wouldn’t be surprised if most of those surveyed were at Penn St.

  95. forgot to add that 50% of scientists and 53% of scientists believe in man-made climate change. So two studies and two opposite results.

  96. I am a geoscientist
    I believe that the earth is probably warmer than before the early 1800s.
    The Thames River hasn’t frozen over since 1814
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Thames_frost_fairs
    Though perhaps not as warm as around 950 – 1100AD but still warmish
    I also believe human activities can affect the climate, for instance rainfall in south west Australia
    http://joannenova.com.au/2013/12/land-clearing-responsible-for-most-of-rainfall-decline-in-south-west-western-australia/
    So I would probably be included as a believer by the Purdue University survey
    However I also believe that the AGW/C02 hypothesis is fantasy pedalled by people ignorant of earth history
    So what value the survey?

  97. “In 1931, a book was published titled “100 Authors Against Einstein” refuting Albert Einstein’s theories of relativity. In the publication, there were not just 100, but 120 scientists, engineers and laity who all attempted to repudiate Einstein’s theories and promoted the book as the consensus view against relativity.”
    Dr. Dennis Chamberland
    Read more if you like. primarily about AGW: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/09/the_tyranny_of_consensus_.html#ixzz3mrzGS24V

Comments are closed.