to those that refute anthropogenic global warming on the basis?

Question

that the relatively recent rise in global surface temperatures are just part of the Earth's natural cycle.

If this is the case, as so many on here have stated in their responses to questions, this must obviously mean that 98% of scientists are wrong, unaware or not taking these past cycles into consideration or just plain stupid enough to put their reputations on the line...especially when you think that each report/paper/idea etc.. is heavily scrutinized by peers and rightfully so because that is how scientists operate to maintain high standards of accuracy and reliability in their expert fields.

So my question is this, since so many also want to "talk" science facts...if 98% of scientists are telling us that there is an umbelievably high probability that humans are a major cause of recent warming trends, relatively speaking, then why should the rest of us, that is the lay, or moderately educated in this area that agree with the 98%, believe you over the majority? Evidence plz

Hi Mr Jello, nice name btw :)

do you see what you did there, you were instantly suspicious of a figure I added to my question...this is precisely why articles etc... are peer-reviewed (not that you didnt know that) and precisely why peer-review is necessary, to avoid inaccuracies and pick out false "evidence"

That being said, this wasnt some arbitrary figure I threw out, I actually got this figure from the New Scientist magazine and now that I've answered your question, can you please answer mine?

Thank you to all who have replied and especially those that kept it civil

Robert, Cosmo, Ingela and Bob, thank you for your supporting links :)

Deus:
The reason why I stated they were putting their reputations on the line is largely due to those that ignorantly claim that those scientists are only after research grants and will falsify evidence in order to acheive this. That's why I mentioned the importance of peer-review. Unless of course, they're now going to tell me that the majority of the climatology community is corrupt too?

Also, it's not simply a case of believing they're right, well not without any supporting evidence anyway.


3DM and BlondeGem: rather than focusing on precise figures and the importance of peer-review (though I'm not heavily criticising others for doing so) you were the only opponents that actually considered my question and took the time to respond accordingly, so thank you :)

3DM, I will look at that report :)

Answer 1

Not only is your 98% figure unfounded as Mr. J points out, exactly what this "majority" of scientists believes needs to be examined. If you accept that the only recognized consensus view is the IPCC, then you must look at the most recent report, AR-4 and see just what this "consensus view" is in regards to anthropogenic global warming.

If you look at SPM-2, you'll see a summary chart of different global climate change phenomena. Notice first that under the attribution column for humans it simply states "a" contribution, not "the majority". All this means is that there is a detectable contribution. If the scientists wanted to make the latter claim, they most certainly would, but you can't read into it that this is the case. You can, on the other hand, make the assertion that the contribution has not been quantified in each case. And that is EXACTLY the case in all but three of the phenomena, where you'll see via the footnote, that the "magnitude of anthropogenic contributions [was] not assessed."

So let's take a look at those phenomena where attribution studies were done:

"Warmer and fewer cold days and nights over most land areas" This says that of the expected cold days and nights, they will be warmer (ie, not as cool) and there will be less of them. The chances of SOME of this being caused by man is greater than 66%. If you look at urban heat island effect, then yeah, we've made A contribution. Note that it only says "over land" and remember that the "globe" is about three times more water than land.

"Warmer and more frequent hot days and nights over most land areas" Note first, that they immediately disqualify an anthropogenic contribution to the daytime heating, but that they maintain that the daytime heating has been occurring WITH MUCH GREATER LIKELIHOOD than the man-made contribution. This suggests a significant NON-anthropogenic source of global warming. What this also implies is that temperatures are simply "less cool" since the night time temperature is cooler than the daytime highs. Again, note that the likelihood of some contribution is greater than 66% and that it only applies over land.

"Areas affected by droughts increases" This is a very general statement. It doesn't claim that there are more droughts; it simply claims that there will be more affected areas. Poor water management strategy can be seen as a "human attribution" as it most certainly is. And yet, the likelihood of that contribution is rated at greater than 50% - just a hair better than a coin flip.

The remaining phenomena are subjectively rated as having a man-made contribution - that is, they are simply opinion. Even then they get that slightly better than a coin flip, >50%.

Without droning on any further, it's quite obvious that just what the scientific consensus is has been GREATLY DISTORTED.

You're not helping to change that trend, either, I'm sad to say...

Answer 2

Yes Mr Jello I did think this was a good question. I have seen the 98% figure mentioned before but agree that it might not be a referenced peer reviewed statistic based on a survey of say climatoligists, the specialists in this field. If it was a figure derived from someone making an honest estimate based on direct contact at meetings etc and wide reading of papers I would give it credence however, and that is my understanding of the position. I think that the fact that a very large majority of climate scientists do believe in man's contribution to global warming has been widely reported in the press and not particularly held as a matter of dispute to my knowledge. Perhaps someone else knows better?

Answer 3

A more careful review of the numbers will show that 98% of scientists surveyed, or 98% of the scientists working in the field agree to the anthropogenic theory of global warming. Think about it. Is it really possible to survey 98%, or even 50% of all scientists? For that matter, it is most unlikely that 98% of any one group of scientists would agree about anything.
When you have a number that large, it is like a toothpaste ad that claims, "9 out of 10 dentists advise their patients to use ------- toothpaste". To make this ad a fact, I need only nine dentists to agree and one to disagree.
Yes research is peer reviewed. Some research is more closely and carefully reviewed than other research. Getting something published in a scientific journal involves such review. This does not mean that the reviewers are all necessarily correct, or that the reviewed material is necessarily fact, or proven.

Answer 4

98% of scientists is a conservative figure. And here's proof:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Bottom line:

"The fact that the community overwhelmingly supports the consensus is evidenced by picking up any copy of Journal of Climate or similar, any scientific program at the meetings, or simply going to talk to scientists. I challenge you, if you think there is some un-reported division, show me the hundreds of abstracts that support your view - you won't be able to. You can argue whether the consensus is correct, or what it really implies, but you can't credibly argue it doesn't exist."

Dr. James Baker - NOAA

"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know -
Global warming is almost a no-brainer at this point. You really can't find intelligent, quantitative arguments to make it go away."

Dr. Jerry Mahlman, NOAA

Answer 5

I hate to say this but I think you are fussing over details.. regardless of whether this is a primarily anthropogenically induced global warming system or not - it is happening, Now. We know for a fact that chemicals have damaged the ozone layer, the sky is falling!!! Worry about details later.

Yes, these systems periodically occur naturally but by the time we get out and measure precisely one way or the other exactly what set it off ...forget it, climate change is upon us and we do need to take action, Now. The sky is falling!!

Even so, there may only be 'so much' we can do. Global climate change and global warming will follow a fairly predictable pattern. Lessening of anthropogenic impacts by stopping fossil fuels and emissions destroying the ozone layer will definitely help even if we do nothing else. And.. obviously we need to act Now.

First signs of damage to the ozone layer were found in the 90's I think so this has not taken that long to occur. I am hoping and praying that we may be able to repair our damaged ozone layer but that is probably a science fiction daydream.. but it makes sense that if we could fix it we could slow down climate change and put the brakes on to global warming.

If global warming - the pressure cooker effect, is not enough to scare your socks off, remember this process is happening now - it didnt take very long and you can bet the end of the world is nigh!!!

Answer 6

Read the Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism by Christopher C. Horner.

The earth's climate goes through cycles of warming and cooling, depending on the sun and rotation of the earth at a given historic period. 15 years ago the biggest threat perpetuated by the media was global cooling, or a new Ice Age. Global cooling would actually be much more damaging to the environment because flora and fauna would be in danger, and humans would not be able to sustain economic growth in their respective nations.

In the past, periods of global warming have resulted in increased economic prosperity. Look up the Medieval Warm Age and what it is about.

Today, the media is sensationalizing global warming because that is what media does: create a crisis for people to take notice. Of course we should recycle and avoid littering, but if there was no "global warming crisis" in the media, nobody would do those things and continue polluting the planet. The truth is, the planet is not in danger and even if humans stop industrial production altogether (on the entire planet), the climate would STILL change by 1 degree Fahrenheit in 100 years' time.

Answer 7

A little help with the 98%

It is true that fewer than 2% of the papers in refereed journals on climate science present data that refute anthropogenic global warming.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/306/5702/1686

Answer 8

some issues are merely too solid to be genuine. james: peer evaluate itself isn't medical (ain't it magnificent how something of the medical community thinks it is solid.) peter: it is undemanding to easily choose for the suited set of artwork-acquaintances. (you don't get to compliment.) jim z: are you able to locate any peer-reviewed articles that refute leprechans? (leprechans = AGW) kevin: If there's no longer then that doesn't that be something to hold against AGW? (can not locate any "anti-gravity", wager gravity's probable no longer actual the two.) kate: there is not any SUCH element AS worldwide WARMING (my gosh, who could desire to argue with that?) martin's youtube grew to become into solid. thank you. oh, oh, record, what approximately co2science. actual they had comprehend.

Answer 9

go to my profile and check out my two questions "for the global warming advocates" and "another one for the global warmign advocates". i touch down on that aspect in both posts.

"just plain stupid to put their reputations on the line"

no, they're not putting they're reputations on the line. think about it, if 98% of people believed in something, and you believed in it too, if it turns out you're wrong you won't be in trouble -- hey, everyone else thought it was true too. the people putting their reputations on the line are those that have the backbone to admit they're skeptical.

also, skeptics usually don't disagree that global warming is a possibility, they believe it simply hasn't been proven. with the climate, nothing can really be "proven" because there are no controlled experiments as there are in most other fields of science.

Answer 10

wow,

98% of the scientists agree?

since when has 98% of a group agreed on ANYTHING?

(elected officials, for example).

peer review....

isn't that like letting me see your answers so i can copy them and get grant money for both of us?

i have to agree with one of your statements though....

"that there is an unbelieveably high probability that humans are a major cause of recent warming trends"

it is indeed unbelieveable.