The STATS study polled nearly 500 randomly selected members of the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union listed in American Men and Women of Science, the longtime “Who’s Who” directory of the scientific community. This provided the best glimpse into the views of prominent American scientists with expertise relevant to climate change. We asked them not only whether they thought global warming was occurring, but how severe the effects might be, and how certain they were about making such judgments.
As with all polls, the answers you get depend on the questions you ask. We found that almost all climate scientists believe that the world has been warming: 97% agree that “global average temperatures have increased” during the past century. But not everyone attributes that rise to human activity. A slight majority (52%) believe this warming was human-induced, 30% see it as the result of natural temperature fluctuations and the rest are unsure.
Dickmnixon reminds us in a comment that this study is from 2007, before Climategate. The numbers are probably lower nowadays.
Bobbo #38
I though you would like that little bit of info. The breath and depth of government/banking corruption is truly unimaginable.
I do have something else for your contemplation. It’s not a right or wrong proposition, just something to consider.
“the truth is independent of the media hoopla/fraud/politics”
I’m not so sure. While I was at UCLA I mentored under a couple of Physics professors, Vera Rubin and Robin Cousins.
Vera Rubin was one of the principle authors of Dark Matter. In fact she was the one who discovered and first proposed Dark Matter.
Robin Cousins (a guy, btw) proposed various theories on subatomic physics.
Vera’s discoveries went forward. Robin’s didn’t pan out.
Vera was worth over $100,000/year on the lecture circuit alone. Not to mention a handsome salary.
Robin wasn’t worth a dime on the lecture circuit and wasn’t a star.
Here is the rub. Vera has become a known person of repute in the academic circles while Robin is basically a nobody.
When you are right, or at least thought to be right, you get both the money and the acclaim.
It’s the acclaim these people crave. They want to be remembered. They want to be an Aristotle, Newton, or Einstein.
This is far more important even more than the pay. To leave a legacy.
And here is the corruption.
These AGW scientists have invested not only their time but their livelihoods and more importantly their legacies on being right.
If they are found wrong, then they will be destroyed as scientist and their legacy will be laughable. Right up there with the earth being the center of the universe.
Therefore, these scientist must push their AGW theories in the hope that they can at least get out from under it alive.
They have NOTHING to loose.
So, can you be so sure that the “truth” is independent of fraud?
In defense of the scientist, they cannot be held accountable for the carbon credit scam. That arose out of opportunism and has probably pressured the scientist in maintaining their positions.
Not to mention, I wonder how many of these universities and institutions these scientist work for have invested into carbon credits, waiting for the huge payoff?
So in other words, we need a complete restart.
Open all the data and form a body of scientist who have no dog in the fight. Have them review, publicly and openly, all the data. Then healthy debate.
This will clear the air and get either everyone on board or end AGW entirely.
It’s the only way this can go forward with any true meaning.
I like what #65 said.
In 2007 I believed man made global warming was significantly heating the planet and constituted a grave risk.
After doing some digging that isn’t what the data suggests. Man made global warming exists, barely, but the very modest amount of heating is having a trivial impact on the planets temperature and climate which is currently cooling. Other factors are much more powerful and many of the dooms day claims are pure scare mongering.
deowll, Exactly!
The whole issue of AGW has become so tainted by those making money or reputations that it’s impossible to tell if it’s real or not.
Science is not a consensus game. For that we have “democacray”.
It’s evidence, tested, argued, expanded upon, and studied.
One big volcano’d override our output of the suspect gases anyway, sheesh.
#63: Fusion:
First, he didn’t ask, he started the name calling and demanded a link. I don’t give into demands from trolls. And yeah, I’m on the right thread. Tell that to your lover who had to drag that discussion here onto this thread.
Second, since you are all with the links on demand, what “wingnut” site did I get the number 3692 from, since you can’t fathom that was a typo from 3962? Come big guy, put up or shut up if you are going to call someone a liar and plagiarist.
#64-67 I call Bullshit!!
Efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would cost the oil and coal industries BILLIONS!!! No amount of grant money and lecture circuit money comes even close.
The anti AGW propaganda is ENTIRELY financed by the oil and coal industry, who also buy ads on Fox News as long as they continue to push their propaganda.
“If they are found wrong, then they will be destroyed as scientist and their legacy will be laughable. Right up there with the earth being the center of the universe.”
This statement is quite possibly the most ignorant statement about scientists you can possibly say. Scientists do not mind at all being proven wrong, it often leads to even stronger theories and evidence.
Almost every “doubt” posed by deniers has crossed the minds of the scientific community decades ago and have been addressed. AGW is a solid theory with tons of evidence, that the oil and coal industry is trying to destroy by propaganda.
Let’s not forget…TV weathermen are members of the American Meteorological Society. Does that make them part of the huge number of scientists they keep referring to?? Take that for what it’s worth.
American Meteorological Society primary spokesman is Anthony Socci who is neither an elected official of the AMS nor a contributor to climate science. Rather, he is a former staffer for Al Gore. AMS president Tom Karl who has no MD nor PHD but calls Himself Dr Tom Karl. Tom Karl is another one of Al Gore friends.TK to the members of the AMS: ” tow the line or loose your accreditation” .
# 71 ArianeB : “Almost every “doubt” posed by deniers has crossed the minds of the scientific community decades ago and have been addressed.”
Nonsense, ma’am. In the 70s and early 80s, the climatologists assured us we were all going to freeze to death in an ice age that wuz a’comin’.
BTW – an interesting read in Investor’s Business Daily: http://tiny.cc/f3fmG
From: Obamaforever
To: Animby
To: ArianeB per #74
ArianeB, you must “forgive” Animby. He is a tea bagger who gets all his science from reading Investor’s Business Daily.
Go home, Animby, go home!!!!!!!!!!!
ArianeB, please be careful about your language. Since you are NOT a tea bagger the EDITOR could banned you from this “lovely” blog.
Thanks #75 I see the “scientists say an ice age is coming” argument, and I know its someone who hasn’t bothered to check their own facts.
One scientist argued for an ice age and it made the press as if it was a sure thing. Most scientists have been aware of the global warming hypothesis, and after a few decades of evidence it is now the dominant theory, the “ice ager” has been disproven, which is what science does all the time.
So the deniers continue to drag the press reports about this one scientists conjecture as if the whole science community supported it back in the 70’s.
#69, nospam,
Second, since you are all with the links on demand, what “wingnut” site did I get the number 3692 from, since you can’t fathom that was a typo from 3962? Come big guy, put up or shut up if you are going to call someone a liar and plagiarist.
How the hell am I to know where you got that information. I don’t read minds. You had ample opportunity to correct yourself and refused. Even now instead of admitting you made an error, you want to put the blame somewhere else.
Grow up.
Efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would cost the oil and coal industries BILLIONS!!! No amount of grant money and lecture circuit money comes even close.
Balderdash. They will just raise their prices. You think they are going to take it in their pocket book?
#78, Fusion:
Gee, I know it was sooooo hard for you to miss where I corrected the transposed numbers, considering it was ON THE VERY NEXT FUCKING POST AFTER YOURS ON THAT THREAD! And you’re the one claiming I copied and pasted it right out of another site. Back it up or move on.