With the release of the revised statement[94] by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on global warming

Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2010A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and resulted in the following two conclusions:

(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[95]

[edit] Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 75 out of 77 believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. A summary from the survey states that:

It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.[96]
[edit] Bray and von Storch, 2008Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 different countries.[97] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 373 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18.2%. No paper on climate change consensus based on this survey has been published yet (February 2010), but one on another subject has been published based on the survey.[98]

The survey was composed of 76 questions split into a number of sections. There were sections on the demographics of the respondents, their assessment of the state of climate science, how good the science is, climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation, their opinion of the IPCC, and how well climate science was being communicated to the public. Most of the answers were on a scale from 1 to 7 from 'not at all' to 'very much'.

In the section on climate change impacts questions 20, 21 were relevant to scientific opinion on climate change. Question 20 "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?" got 67.1% very much agree, 26.7% to some large extent (5–6), 6.2% said to some small extent (2–4), none said not at all. Question 21 "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" received 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent (5–6), 15.1% to a small extent (2–4), and 1.35% not agreeing at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific ... ate_change

GMTom wrote:and what of the last decade being warmer? As far as decades go the previous one was warmer than the current one.

Based on what, Tom? The last 10 years fully reported (2000-2009) are not cooler than the preceding 10 years (1990-1999). If you don't agree, please present the data. I've already showed on here the source I was using and a simple method of proof.

Can you at least give us a clue as to which ten year periods you are comparing, if it is not the ones I have used?

So far, you've presented a grand total of zero evidence that backs you up, and yet you have the gall to complain of arrogance.

Ricky goes too far, but you seem to have a problem with facts yourself.

look at it this way tom. You're a tourist and You're thinking of going to go swimming in a pond, and the people living in the area who really know the area say "don't do it there's piranahea in the water" . Not just some of the local people but all of them. Some say, well maybe there's only a few piranhea. But they all say there is at least some... ...
And some fellow tourist with you says, nonsense, there's no piranhea in this part of the world. ...
You gonna go swimming?
You can always find a crank somewhere who'll take a contrary position. That doesn't mean there's a legitimate debate...
My Uncle Leonard, when a child told everyone he was a chicken. Nothing anybody said to him could change his mind. That didn't make him a chicken.
His family would have taken to seek professional help, but they needed the eggs.

Why is it I must provide links for my assertions (posted many times before) yet you want to skate by on your own say-so? MX posted one of the links himself, you seem to agree with all he has posted so far, I assume his link is good?

his quote:

Finally, relevant to a separate discussion above and for what it's worth, froma BBC interview with Phil Jones of East Anglia fame:

B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?

No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.

so the trend is downward, but since it does not fall on your side, it is simply dismissed as statistically insignificant? You can post all sorts of claims yet they simply are not true.

and thank you yet again for refuting your own position Ricky, yet again you claim their is zero debate but you post:

(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantialy below that of the convinced researchers.[95]

But you simply refuse to admit you were wrong and continue to claim "zero debate" you are the poster child of arrogance and ignorance, you make it easy to dismiss everything you say when you refuse to admit your errors like this.

and Ricky, your piranah story is cute but does nothing for your position. You claim (over and over) there is zero debate, ZERO. I said you could claim "little" but you did not accept that, you claimed they were wrong and not real scientists insisting your zero was correct. I called you on it and you again asserted you were correct, not that MOST agreed or those who disagreed were few, you once again claimed "zero debate" and that was wrong. Now you change to a cute story that has nothing to do with your stated position, if you want the story to be the same, then EVERYONE would claim the same thing with none who disagreed.

Nice try, ...still arrogance supreme!

GMTom wrote:

[Phil Jones] No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.

so the trend is downward, but since it does not fall on your side, it is simply dismissed as statistically insignificant? You can post all sorts of claims yet they simply are not true.

The measurement is -0.12C over a full decade; the statisticians say this is not statistically significant. That's not an off-the-cuff comment made because they don't like the number. "Significance" is a very specific concept in statistics and certainly one of the more important, but it is often (as it seems to be here) misunderstood. As a risk management consultant I worked with this stuff all the time, and here's what it really means when a measurement is calculated to be insignificant: in means IGNORE IT. You're more likely seeing an artifact of the measurement process than anything REAL. If you start making any sorts of decisions based on insignificant data you're headed for trouble. The real trick is to avoid having it influence you subconsciously. Ergo, the best thing you can do with such data is trash it immediately.

I hope that helps.

In a larger sense, however, there's an even better way of looking at data when you see a general trend but then a small counter-trend. You have to ask whether the system you're measuring (and the way you're measuring it) should yield results that are "smooth" or "jaggy". The acceleration curve of a Mercedes Benz is smooth. The Dow-Jones Industrial Average since 1950 has shown a huge rise, but not a smooth one: lots of ups and downs. Sunspot activity follows an extremely erratic course within the context of some periodicity. Natural systems rarely show smooth results. How should a curve of global temp look if, due to multiple dynamics in a complex system with both positive and negative feedbacks, temp is rising? IMHO it should look quite jaggy. When you see your enemies the scientists posting perfectly smooth and consistent curves, THAT'S when you should start crying "foul".

GMTom wrote:so the trend is downward, but since it does not fall on your side, it is simply dismissed as statistically insignificant? You can post all sorts of claims yet they simply are not true.

FFS! 'Statistically insignificant' is not simply used to dismiss it because it's not what they want to see. It's used because the trend is so small that it falls well within the margin of error. It's a mathematical term. The questioner knows about it, because he uses the word 'significant' when he asks the questions. The answerer explains it, because he talks about the 95% confidence level. In B, he confirms that a +0.12 trend per decade increase measured over 14 years is not statistically significant. In C, he also says that a -0.12 trend per decade measured over 7 year is not significant. The same value (and over a shorter period of measurement) is not going to be any more significant.

You accuse a scientist of dishonesty, and only dismissing a trend as insignificant because it is negative, and yet in the very same @#$! quote you can plainly see that a positive trend of the same amount is also not significant. There is a difference between the two, which is that one is measured over a period 2 times as long as the other, meaning that the test of significance is harsher for the 7-year one.

But still, that quote is not saying the same thing that you have (repeatedly) said - that 'this' decade (whatever that means, and I have been asking you) is cooler than the previous one. It bears out I have said, which is that we've seen a relatively flat period, with not much warming, if any.

To establish your assertion, you would need to show that there's a ten year period that is clearly earlier and warmer than the one you say we're now in.

GMTom wrote:and Ricky, your piranah story is cute but does nothing for your position. You claim (over and over) there is zero debate, ZERO. I said you could claim "little" but you did not accept that, you claimed they were wrong and not real scientists insisting your zero was correct. I called you on it and you again asserted you were correct, not that MOST agreed or those who disagreed were few, you once again claimed "zero debate" and that was wrong. Now you change to a cute story that has nothing to do with your stated position, if you want the story to be the same, then EVERYONE would claim the same thing with none who disagreed.

Nice try, ...still arrogance supreme!

Actually, you appear to be slightly wrong. You are confusing the small number of climate change scientists who dispute what the causes of warming are, with the zero (give or take a few) who dispute that there has been warming.

Now Ricky has been too definitive, but it's pretty clear that close to 100% agree with both. You get to share a point, at best, because you are both trying to shout each other down with different stats.

And you both seem to be just as far removed from a scientific approach to this as the other. Hence I renew my plea, can you both bugger off to another thread and let the grown-ups talk?

Or will you both for a change do the following:

1) read posts fully before responding
2) not see all opposition (or potential opposition) as a personal affront
3) be careful not to make definitive statements that you cannot back up
4) accept when you have been shown to be incorrect in your definitive statements

(my money is on neither of you doing either, but I gotta try)

Wait a minute, the trend is downward, statistically insignificant since it is so little ...fine, but it's DOWNWARD, despite your claims to the opposite that this last decade has been hotter and your insistence I back up my claim. I do back it up and you find fault with it even though it flies in the face of what you have been posting yourself. Insignificant is fine, the trend is incredibly slight, but it is downward and is most certainly not UP as you suggest. I was not accusing any scientist of dishonesty, I was simply proving your statement incorrect, I suggest you follow your suggestion to 1) read posts fully before responding

And the childish posts are by those who make statements that are false but they fail to admit any error, I guess "close enough" is fine for your "facts" but not for me. Both of you have made claims that have now been proven false yet neither want to admit any error, this is exactly the type of arrogance the alarmists have, you guys have easily proven my point. And Danivon, maybe you should also look at ...4) accept when you have been shown to be incorrect in your definitive statements, why have you not accepted your being wrong? This is your own plea ...does it apply to others only?

oh, Danivon, your statement was:

There is no way that you can claim that the last 10 years were not warmer than the preceding 10. That's what my use of comparisons was about.

...I believe you owe us something???

You claimed the last ten years were warmer, the facts say this is not true!

and I suggest you READ the posts before replying (again) You say Ricky and I share a point? Please read what I stated, I said he can claim most side with him, almost all side with him, very few disagree, He simply can not claim 100% agreement. But he insisted he was correct and you suggest I share the point? I was quite clear and share nothing.

Gentlemen, here's what I said. Cut and Paste from previous page:

However there is no debate within the climate science community of any significance about whether or not warming is occurring.

If Tom wants to believe that 3% of climatologists represents "significant debate" he's just wrong. If you want to claim I've been too "definitive" with this statement Danivon, yoor demonstrating your own inability to clearly discern whats been written.

You have to ask yourself why haven't the 3% or any of the "skeptics" that Tom, keeps linking to gained any traction with their denial assertions? Google any of them, look at what they've provided for evidence for their arguements and google "debunk place name here". Generally you'll find the assertions are made with NO evidence, or they have totally misapplied the known evidence.Or, in a few cases, they've simply made up data that no one else can replcate or find at source....
Climate scientists can't spend a lot of time debunking nuts. So they don't.
But American media allows them full voice to confuse and confound.And there's your problem.

Excuse me, you are now changing your position. You stated there was zero debate, not "Significant" but zero. I did mention you could in fact claim the overwhelming majority but you said no, it was zero. I proved you wrong and you still fail to admit your statement was wrong, that sir is arrogance supreme.

danivon wrote:It bears out I have said, which is that we've seen a relatively flat period, with not much warming, if any.

Excuse me if I take a pause from trying to correct all the mis-this-and-that Tom's offering and talk about something substantive. It's talking about statistical significance that leads me to this matter.

Imagine you'd never heard of global warming or climate change and someone asked you, "How would you go about measuring the temperature of 'the earth' if you wanted to?" My first reaction would be to say, "The whole earth? Everything?" The Earth consists of a lot of quite distinct parts: the oceans, atmosphere, ionosphere, magnetosphere, cryosphere, lithosphere, mantle and two cores, and the biosphere. So let's say my hypothetical taskmaster replied: "No, just stuff related to climate." But according to Wikipediaclimate "encompasses the statistics of temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, rainfall, atmospheric particle count and other meteorological elements." After scratching my head about all that, I'd have to address the question of what's meant by "temperature". Thermodynamics isn't such a simple thing. Thermal energy is just one form energy can take, and energy can change forms. For us, this isn't just a curiosity. Read up on the temperature-phase relationship of iceto see what I mean.

But let's say we work all that stuff out and decide what and how we're going to measure "the earth's temperature". The next issue is technological and economic: how much do we have to spend on what sorts of instruments to measure the things/places we want to measure? The issue after that is statistical: for instance and with hugely false simplification, if "the oceans" are X° and "the atmosphere" is Y°, and that's all we're concerned with, is the temp. of "the earth" the simple average of those two numbers or should we weight them by mass? or volume? And given that our sampling is going to be less than ideal, how do we deal with that?

These are not inconsequential matters and cannot be ignored. Nor can we assume that there's a single correct answer to each question and that the IPCC has found and adopted it. Now at this point Ricky is probably seething and assumes I'm criticizing the IPCC or trying to cast doubt on various assertions or whatever. And Tom is probably cheered and thinking he's found new grounds to do just that. Neither would be correct. What I'm getting at is much more subtle. I'm using Danivon's statement as a jumping-off point; he said, "we've seen a relatively flat period, with not much warming." In the context in which he was writing, there's nothing false here, but I'm going to be utterly literal to make my point. What we've seen isn't a "period" but rather some descriptions which are the result of the massaging of some data that's been generated by some instruments in some places. Do those descriptions accurately and precisely represent "the temperature of the earth?" Almost certainly not, which is not to say that the earth's been warming or cooling or doing something different than those descriptions, but only to say that when we try to quantify something as complex, dynamic, and difficult to measure, at best we can obtain only what I'll call indications.

Global warming - fact? If these indications were all we had to go by, not only would I be skeptical, but I bet most of the folks involved with the IPCC would be. Scientists and statisticians love numbers and instruments, and there are good reasons for that, but direct measurement of "the earth's temperature" using thermometers of one sort or another isn't the only, or perhaps the best, way to go about determining the answer to the fact or fiction question. As detectives, we're going to have to be a little more perceptive, and rely less on direct measurement than we'd perhaps like. What we have to do is ask ourselves, "If the earth were in fact warming by X° on average, what would we see besides thermometers rising? What would the indirect effects be?" The answers here are extremely numerous. The more obvious ones: rising ocean levels and retreating ice. And do we see that? Yes. Even for the last ten years.



to be continued...