Does a list of 400 skeptical scientists prove there is no global warming consensus?

Question

Inhofe's report lists 400 scientists skeptical of some aspect of the AGW theory in these fields:

"including: climatology; oceanography; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology."

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

There are 13,746 climate scientists in the US alone who are members of the American Geophysical Union (despite the name, several hundred European scientists are also members).

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2006/11/how-many-climate-scientists-are-there.html

And that's only American climate scientists in the AGU. There are hundreds of thousands of biologists, geologists, chemists, mathematicians, meteorologists, and engineers worldwide.

Does a list of 400 skeptical scientists out of the hundreds of thousands of total scientists in these fields prove their is no global warming consensus?

If the list were limited to just the climate scientists, you might have a couple percent (of course, you also couldn't find 400 skeptical climate scientists). When you start bringing in chemists, meteorologists, geologists, physicists, etc., 400 is a drop in the bucket at best.

Answer 1

over 6.5 BILLION people on the planet.. probably a good many who call them self "scientists" lets say... 10-15 Million at least... if 400 happen to think its not real... does it really matter???

Answer 2

The point of the report is that there is no scientific consensus on AGW. It is exactly in line with my experience. I am a professional Meteorologist with 25 years experience in the field, working in both the operational and research fields over the years for government, military and academic organisations. I have an MS in Meteorology. I know dozens of meteorologists and other atmospheric scientists. In my experience, THE MAJORITY of these scientists have serious doubts about the AGW theory. That is a simple fact as observed by one who is actually immersed in the field. A number of them are afraid to speak out because of retribution. This is what they have told me. To assume that these 400 folks on the list are the only ones who are sceptical is completely without basis. Would also like to mention that not all the people on the UN's IPCC panel are climate scientists. Most are not. If you do a little background check, you'll find quite a number of political appointees, a couple of chiropractors and an expert in Chinese herbal medicine!

Answer 3

What none of the answerers have picked up on is the fact that the 400 scientists are "skeptical of some aspects of AGW. This does not mean that all or any of them doubt that there is a trend toward global warming. The real question is whether production of carbon dioxide makes a material difference in the warming.

I have not made up my mind, but have learned a lot from the book "Unstoppable Global warning" bu Singer and Avery, and "An Inconvenient Truth" by Gore. They have opposing views.

Answer 4

What does this skeptical consensus prove?? Well nothing. This proves that they have their point of view just like the believers have their point of view. The question is. Who is right? If you really want to know the truth, only time will tell. Since climate science if supposed to be a very long-term science how can anyone say that it is man-made or a natural cycle or both. You just don't know yet. This 100-150 years of warming is not long enough to conclude such an idea considering we do know that the sun played a major role in warming for the first 100 years or so and we also know that Co2 is a heat trapping gas. There is a consensus on both sides and actually there should be. Everyone should be entitled to there scientific opinion. We should still do our best to reduce our dependency on foreign oil and cut GHG's just b/c it can't hurt. As long as it is done in the right way that does not harm our economy or anybody else's around the world. So I feel we have a little bit of time to play our cards right in the situation. This is a delicate matter and should be handled with caution, with no drastic measures.

Answer 5

I used the ratio of 99-1 in another question and got flak for it. I figured the ratio at 2-3 thousand top climate scientists to maybe a couple dozen well known skeptics. That would be less than 1%. Is this correct? In this example the ratio would 100 thousand to 400. Or as you say less than 1%.

Answer 6

Four hundred skeptics is no more proof of an hypothesis than 4000 True Believers. But there are many more skeptics than 400 and one thing it does disprove is that the overwhelming majority of scientists support the AGW hypothesis. That is total bunkum and made up of lies and distortions and propaganda swallowed whole and passed on to you by a Left Wing Media.

Answer 7

No it does not.
It proves that 400 scientist are able to compartmentalize the facts of daily life and work on a micro level in order to develop their macro opinions on Sunday mornings. 400 Geologist believe the Earth is only 10,000 years old too! 400 biologist and anthropologists don't believe in micro or macro evolution for the same reason. Unfortunately misplaced faith is powerful enough to ignore the most blatant of facts.

There is also the "human induced Climate Change" effect - anything to not be wrong! Don't call it "global warming" then we would be admitting we were wrong.

400 "scientist" are skeptical of some part of the document! :
Remember - Most Christians are "skeptical" of the bible when it says we should be speaking in tongues regularly... But they still believe in the main idea and the conclusion.

Answer 8

Someone must've hit a nerve. Some people really take their beliefs seriously and get very upset when others don't believe in the same things as they do.

There's no proof that the earth is even warming. I used to believe we were in a warming spell, but the latest reports show that the average temperature has actually stayed rather level for the last 3 or 4 years. And now NASA says the oceans are actually showing signs of cooling. That seems to contradict the idea that the earth is warming all over.

Either way, there's absolutely no evidence that humans have any affect on climate, so you must treat this like a religion, where belief is everything.

Answer 9

Can you give me a link to the poll taken by the American Geophysical Union that shows that all of these member agree? Are is it just the heads?

Members of the global warming community claim, that the debate is over, it is a no brainer, all scientists agree. The report shows that there are many who do not. That is the point. We are being lied to and mislead. So if we are being mislead in this issue, what other issue are we being mislead?

Answer 10

Dana - The IPCC report isn't written solely by Climatologists. And no matter what you think you know about the field of Climatology, it is still a very new scientific field. I would think you would need all the other branches of environmental science fields to help study something as large and complex as the climate. That's why NASA is sending up new satellites to help study the heat signature of the earth. Are all the people in NASA Climatologists now?

Answer 11

Ok I don't truly care how many scientists say there is no global warming. It's there opinion. That's what our entire country revolves around. A scientists opinion. Not facts because do we honestly know what a fact is? I don't think so. We built the world according to people's opinion. For example, Americans live by the way of Christians. And what's Christianity? A human beings opinion. I know I am going off track but that question consists of soo many answers I could say.