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.
And this study came before the CRU Email / Code release. Would love to see new numbers.
“The numbers are probably lower nowadays.” … and why would that be?
I suppose if the “numbers were higher” it would indicate that climategate is a media driven cess pool of ignorance OR the scientific evidence/models has grown from reputable sources?
We won’t know one way or the other even with a more current poll on the question.
but thanks for playing “Add your Own Bias to the Mix.” Alex, I’ll take “blow it out your ass” for $100.
No worries. Goldman Sachs will get this pushed through, no sweat. Goldman Sachs is poised to reap billion of dollars every year from carbon trading, and as we all know, what the Goldmen want, they get.
Your selective quoting is slightly disingenuous. The rest of the report goes on to say:
“When it comes to current conditions, however, the consensus in favor of human warming reemerges: 84% believe “human-induced greenhouse warming” is now occurring, compared with only 5% who reject this conclusion. And 74% say the “currently available scientific evidence substantiates” its occurrence, while only 9% disagree. So global warming doubters are a genuinely small minority among American climate scientists; it is difficult to believe that any transgressions against scientific procedures or the scientific ethos uncovered by Climategate are going to change that.”
Uh next paragraph…
When it comes to current conditions, however, the consensus in favor of human warming reemerges: 84% believe “human-induced greenhouse warming” is now occurring, compared with only 5% who reject this conclusion. And 74% say the “currently available scientific evidence substantiates” its occurrence, while only 9% disagree. So global warming doubters are a genuinely small minority among American climate scientists; it is difficult to believe that any transgressions against scientific procedures or the scientific ethos uncovered by Climategate are going to change that.
I think their is a big difference between just believing in global warming and believing that global warming is directly caused by humans.
Considering the fact that their have been cycles in the Earth’s weather that have warmed before without any human input. Why all of a sudden do we believe humans are to blame now?
I think we have a right to be skeptical considering the facts or lack of facts definitively concluding anything.
I hate this word “Believe”. It means: to hold something as an opinion; think or suppose… no certainty what so ever.
Climate change or not.. It’s time to clean up our shit.. It really would be best.
100% of scientists believe that the decision to clean up our planet should not be left to a popularity contest.
Let’s leave marriage, civil rights and other trivial things to what’s most popular with the sheep today. However, cleaning up our planet and taking responsible action for our future generation?
That needs to be based on something better than some loaded interview aside from “hey, whatcha think about …”
“As with all polls, the answers you get depend on the questions you ask.”
The only line worth reading in the whole thing. STATS is usually better than this, but they screwed up here.
What?!
Climategate would change opinions? That’s ridiculous. First, those emails are 10 years old. Second, any scientists who would change their view based on anything other then as the direct result of research is no scientist to begin with. I could go on with the defects here but it looks like others already beat me to it.
Nice one Cherman.
@#11 “Climategate would change opinions? That’s ridiculous. First, those emails are 10 years old. Second, any scientists who would change their view based on anything other then as the direct result of research is no scientist to begin with.”
-Yes, because most of us, scientists, believed the published numbers and lack of opposing views. Both are affected by e-mails. First, obvious attempts to non-scientifically alter the data “for the cause”. Than, evidence of intentional bullying of publications and reviewers not to publish or even consider opposing view papers.
-E-mails gathered start 10yrs ago. Hackers got them all, up to the present day. Some of most damaging ones date as of November ’09. Publication manipulations as of May ’09.
-Scientists are on the edge of accepting AGW because of natural synchronicity of several crucial factors during the last century. How can you tell if temperature is rising due to the cause A or B or A and B combined (and in what proportion) if both factor A and B are rising during the century? But, we have recent drastic departure from this situation. As of 2007 factor A is still rising steadily while factor B took “nose dive”. Science will be slow to decide as we are talking about geologic time intervals but so far Earth temperature is “detaching” completely from the factor A behavior and following factor B. We’ll need at least 20 more years to have stone clad evidence, but the conditions change since 2007 is changing scientific opinions as we speak.
(Factor A: CO2 levels; factor B: Solar activity)
When did science become a product of voting? Science isn’t done by asking a room full of scientists to raise their hands for aye, or nay.
4,000 scientists may think they are right, but it can take only one scientist to prove them all wrong. It’s the way REAL science has been working since science began.
With climate change, there are too many scientist skeptics with valid claims to even consider that the issue is settled. Data, has been manipulated, REMOVED, lost…. right in front of you and STILL you can’t see the flawed science. Current climate change science is nothing but a house of cards, headed by a corrupt IPCC, and perpetrated by alarmists.
Just because the Global Warming hype was a lie perpetuated by Al Gore’s power/money grab doesn’t mean I want people shitting in my fishbowl. Go shit in Al Gore’s for crying wolf.
Yes the earth is warming and what of it? Newsflash, the earth has been warming ever since the Little Ice Age.
CO2 trading is the biggest scam ever. Hard to believe that CO2 is only 0.037% of the atmosphere (nitrogen is about 80%, oxygen just under 20%). Ever harder to believe is that a little more CO2 causes increased warming. There are a lot of other factors that would cause warming, like the sun, cloud cover, volcanoes and greenhouse gases other than CO2.
Global warming is normal and natural. Al Gore and other scam artist would like you to pay billions in carbon credit scams. Don’t let them, CO2 trading is just a transfer of weatlh scam.
#15 Your exemplify how people can be convinced of something they like or want to like. Then, you collect and build a scenario around it to support that claim.
I think religion is sort of like that.
Fishy results: whenever you see about 50% response rate to a question in a poll then you should be suspicious of the question. Usually it means the question was vague and ambiguous so you get about 1/2 answering each way.
The same holds true for elections. Since each party in the US polls about 50% it means the voters can’t really tell them apart and the party system has completely crapped out.
#16, Dallas, re: Then, you collect and build a scenario around it to support that claim.
Exactly what the IPCC did. All dissenters were systematically removed. Learn about Benjamin Santer.
Look, even if it is fifty percent chance that we are the cause of global warming and even if it is a fifty percent chance that global warming (whatever the cause) is a very bad thing, that means that there is a twenty five percent chance that we are responsible for a very bad thing.
So we cut back on carbon emissions, what happens: we reduce our dependence on oil (good), we create smarter more energy efficient technologies, (good) and we take responsibility for at least a twenty five percent chance that we are causing a very bad thing (good). So it costs us a few dollars; I’m willing to bet it’s not nearly as much as the last couple years have cost us and at least this is about saving the planet, not some bankers.
And if we’re wrong, we are out some money. If we are right we may prevent or mitigate a very bad thing.
In case you missed it, here is the reason for Cap and Trade.
http://rollingstone.com/politics/story/29127316/the_great_american_bubble_machine/7
I’m serious, read this. The article lays it all out in detail.
It’s an astonishing article full of tibbits like:
“Nobel Prize winner Al Gore, who is intimately involved with the planning of cap-and-trade, started up a company called Generation Investment Management with three former bigwigs from Goldman Sachs Asset Management, David Blood, Mark Ferguson and Peter Harris. Their business? Investing in carbon offsets.”
Bobbo, I bet you’ll love it. Corporate greed and government collusion all the way.
Dallas, Obamapologistforever. Well, what can I say.
BTW:
Obamapologistforever, you STILL won’t comment on this article???
http://rollingstone.com/politics/story/31234647/obamas_big_sellout/1
Can’t face the truth??
LOL…what a funny pseudo-study. It’s cute to know what local weatherman (AMS) and such “believe”, but how about actually surveying people who specifically STUDY the issue, not just people in any way related to the industry in general. But even with this passing glance at it…only 30% say it’s not human created? The other 70% say it is or they’re not sure.
Funny thing is, this isn’t religion where issues are settled once and for all by magic decree. Whatever the nuts believe (one side or other) the science will KEEP happening, we’ll keep studying it next year, and the rest of human existence, so we’ll figure it out eventually. Science always keeps going and gathering data…we will on this too.
#21 Kinda makes this point. This isn’t about science or studies, it’s about politics. Regardless of what the truth is, the Republicans don’t like it if it comes from Democrats, and the Democrats don’t like it if it comes from Republicans. These idiots are just Crips vs Bloods. They just oppose the “other side”…science or reality be damned. Sad and pathetic.
Do this Google search…
benjamin santer IPCC edited ventura
IPCC science reports were corrupt from the beginning.
What a bunch of BS. Who cares who caused it, that hardly matters now. What should really be the issue is what to do about it. Nobody can argue that the earth is melting ice that’s many thousands of years old, or that soon we’ll see the north polar cap without ice. What they should be concerning themselves with is what will happen when that enormous heatsink is taken from the planet. Of course we should be thinking of what measures to take, and not just how to mitigate the impact of CO2, but what we can do to adapt to the changes which soon will be upon us.
Some of you seem quite content to argue about the cause until the change affects you personally. That’s what scares me the most about this, makes me think that perhaps the human race is ill equipped to survive in a universe where things can change so rapidly and so drastically.
#25 Good point, it’s almost pointless to debate the cause. If it IS human caused, we’re not going to change enough to fix it regardless. Yes we should reduce CO2 and all pollutants on GENERAL principle, but regardless, the levels they’re talking about changing aren’t enough to do anything even IF we caused this, and it would probably take 50 years to start ‘reversing’ course anyway. So we’re going to live without polar ice, with more radical swings in climate and such no matter.
If Iowa becomes a new desert, or inland sea, arguing about how you hate Al Gore or if this is a liberal conspiracy won’t matter. The military (that great liberal think tank) considers this a threat to our security now. So wake up.
Re: amodedoma re:What a bunch of BS. Who cares who caused it, that hardly matters now.What should really be the issue is what to do about it.
Yeah, we should definitely sop these from happening…
– North West passage saving megatons of carbon emissions
– More CO2 = higher crop yield in 2/3 of existing arable land
– vast increase in worldwide arable land to feed the hungry
– huge decrease in energy used to heat homes in cold climates
– it protects us from the unpredictable big freeze that would be far, far worse.
… just for starters
#27 JimR
Yeah, now that you mention it all of those things would be great, if those were the only consequences. I’m afraid that rosy picture is wishful thinking on your part. But the truth is we don’t have reliable science to predict it completely, and I’m inclined to think that if things have been so wonderfully stable here on earth as to permit man’s evolution into a technological society it’s thanks in part to a relatively stable climate system. Obviously drastic changes in a system that’s so delicately balanced are going to have severe consequences. Either way I’ll be praying that your right and I’m wrong.
Canada will become America’s new bread-basket, the Sahara will become arable, Britain will be the new Bordeaux, we’ll probably loose the mid-west to a new inland desert (including California), southern Africa will become a vast desert along with Australia and India, Florida will become a tropical island, Antarctica will be able to be mined for uranium and oil and gas, you will be able to sail to the North Pole in summer. And think of all that wonderful new coastal realty.
Re:#28, “and I’m inclined to think that if things have been so wonderfully stable here on earth as to permit man’s evolution into a technological society it’s thanks in part to a relatively stable climate system.”
Actually that statement is completely false. The climate has been anything BUT stable through man’s evolution, and it’s that adversity that has forced us to adapt through advances in technology.
You have totally bought the IPCC scam, as they refuse to recognize natural extreme warming and cooling periods in their assessments.