We often hear of the 'scientific consensus' wrt AGW.?

Question

Can anyone cite a SCIENTIFIC survey of qualified scientists where a certain percentage accepts AGW and a certain percentage rejects it and a certain percentage is neutral?

And WHY has no such survey been done? I really can't believe you are relying on the old Oreskes 'survey'. It doesn't answer a thing and is an embarrassment to those who cited it before it was put down via modest scrutiny.

Answer 1

No one will ever do a survey like this. The believers don't want it to be known just how few scientist agree with them.

By obfuscating the numbers, it will appear that almost everyone agrees with them when in fact few do.

Answer 2

No such survey has been done, but several surveys of scientific literature have been done, and virtually no scientific papers reject the consensus (some editorials do, but no peer-reviewed scientific research papers). If any sort of significant percentage of scientists rejected the consensus, then a significant percentage of scientific papers would reject it (since valid scientific conclusions are dependent on scientific data which are analyzed in scientific papers).

I don't know why such a study has been done - nobody ever takes surveys of scientists and their opinions. Nobody has ever surveyed scientists to see how many believe the evolutionary theory either.

Scientists are the ones who are saying there's a consensus. If there were a bunch of scientists out there who disagreed, don't you think they'd be making a giant ruckus about the consensus myth? Don't you think they'd do a simple survey of scientists to prove that there's no consensus?

Most skeptical scientists don't say "there's no consensus". Most of them say "the consensus is wrong".

There's also not a single scientific organization that rejects the consensus. Even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists dropped their rejection.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071210150727AAeMekO&r=w#RsR4WTC1UGLXAOZlOfd26Pr22G__DAD6hVJeJW5TpX.ayPFJ4ZHX

The Oreskes study is valid. You're thinking of the Peiser study that was discredited. He said 3% of the papers rejected the consensus when in fact further review showed that only 1 of the 1200+ papers he looked at actually rejected the consensus, and that one was an editorial.

It's really quite simple logic. Scientific conclusions are based on scientific data. Scientific data are gathered and analyzed in scientific papers. Thus if there is a valid scientific skepticism, there must be scientific papers that reject the consensus.

There aren't, because it's a consensus.

Haven't you noticed how few scientific papers skeptics discuss here? A rare skeptical paper from Christy and Singer is coming out, and we've already seen several questions about it here, because it's so rare for a scientific paper to reject the consensus!