[Sivad]

That graph shows 5.5% skeptical, 7% agreed and 88% certain

No it doesn't. And what the hell is "7% agreed"?

TABLE D.1 Language Adopted by the IPCC to Describe Confidence About Facts or the Likelihood of an Outcome

Terminology for Describing Confidence About Facts

Very high confidence - At least 9 out of 10 chance of being correct

High confidence - About 8 out of 10 chance

Medium confidence - About 5 out of 10 chance

Low confidence - About 2 out of 10 chance

Very low confidence - Less than 1 out of 10 chance


SOURCE: IPCC (2007a).

So only 73% have high to very high confidence, 21% have medium to medium high confidence, and 5.5% have medium low to very low confidence. That's not a consensus and it's certainly not "settled science".

[noemon]

That is quite hilarious interpretation once again. As PC said if you are going to put adjectives on numbers at least have the decency and honesty to be symmetrical.

If 1-3 count as noes for a total of 5.5% then 5-7 count as yesses and that is 88% of scientists -according to your own source and your own logic- agree that AGW is real. That is quite settled right there.

And medium to high confidence is not on your side either.

[Sivad]

And medium to high confidence is not on your side either.

Yes it absolutely is on my side, 30 - 50 percent doubt is hardly settled science. You don't have science on your side, you have a subjective estimate based on inconclusive evidence.
And to make a case for catastrophic climate change you need more than "most"(> 50%) of the warming to be anthropogenic, you need it to be almost entirely anthropogenic(at least 80%). I'm like at a 4 myself on that question, a 50% probability of half the warming being due to human activity is extremely skeptical compared to the over-hyped alarmism coming from the hysterical doomers.

[noemon]

According to your own source and your own interpretation 98% of Climate Scientists definitely agree that Climate Change is happening right now and 88% of the same Climate scientists definitely agree that the causes are anthropogenic, 6.8% are neutral(according to the study's own definition) and 5.5% disagree.

Figure 1. (v006) How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?

not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very much


Figure 2. (v007) How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, the result of anthropogenic causes?



Your obfuscation is cute but this is not questionable in any way form or manner.

[Sivad]

According to your own source and your own interpretation 98% of Climate Scientists definitely agree that Climate Change is happening right now and 88% of the same Climate scientists definitely agree that the causes are anthropogenic, 6.8% are neutral(according to the study's own definition) and 5.5% disagree.


Your obfuscation is cute but this is not questionable in any way form or manner.

I'm not the one pretending it's a simple agree/disagree statement. According to that graph about 14% of climate scientists are 70% confident that >50% of the warming is anthropogenic, 7% are 55% confident that >50% is anthropogenic, and about 5% are 40%(or less) that more than half is anthropogenic. Based on that there is no way you can claim there's a consensus and with that much doubt the science is definitely not "settled".

John Humphrys: You don't sound - if I can use this word - apocalyptic. I mean, you're not saying "If we don't do these things, we're going to go to hell in a handbasket, we're going to fry, in a few years".

Ralph Cicerone: Well, there are people who are saying those things -

John Humphrys: But not you.

Ralph Cicerone: No. I don't think it's useful, I don't think it gets us anywhere, and we don't have that kind of evidence.


Ralph Cicerone, atmospheric scientist and administrator. From 1998 to 2005, he was the chancellor of the University of California, Irvine. From 2005 to 2016, he was the president of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). He was a "renowned authority" on climate change and atmospheric chemistry.

[Pants-of-dog]

No it doesn't. And what the hell is "7% agreed"?

TABLE D.1 Language Adopted by the IPCC to Describe Confidence About Facts or the Likelihood of an Outcome

Terminology for Describing Confidence About Facts

Very high confidence - At least 9 out of 10 chance of being correct

High confidence - About 8 out of 10 chance

Medium confidence - About 5 out of 10 chance

Low confidence - About 2 out of 10 chance

Very low confidence - Less than 1 out of 10 chance


SOURCE: IPCC (2007a).

So only 73% have high to very high confidence, 21% have medium to medium high confidence, and 5.5% have medium low to very low confidence. That's not a consensus and it's certainly not "settled science".

Please quote from the text of the study you cited that shows that the study you cited also uses this scale. Thanks.

From page 30 of the PDF, which is page 44 of the PDF:

Figure 21. (v013) Since 1850, it is estimated that the world has warmed by 0.5 - 0.7 degrees C. Approximately what percent would you attribute to human causes?
1 = 0% 2 = 1%-25% 3 = 26%-50% 4 = 51%-75% 5 = 76-100%

48.21% answered 5.
35.95% answered 4.

So 84.16% think that the increase in temperature since 1850 is mostly or entirely caused by human impact.

[Sivad]

From page 30 of the PDF, which is page 44 of the PDF:

Figure 21. (v013) Since 1850, it is estimated that the world has warmed by 0.5 - 0.7 degrees C. Approximately what percent would you attribute to human causes?
1 = 0% 2 = 1%-25% 3 = 26%-50% 4 = 51%-75% 5 = 76-100%

48.21% answered 5.
35.95% answered 4.

So 84.16% think that the increase in temperature since 1850 is mostly or entirely caused by human impact.

No, that's incorrect, because 27% have only at most 70% confidence that more than half the warming is anthropogenic. And the fact that 16% of climate scientists think it's less than 50% is just devastating for both the consensus claim and the "settled science" bullshit. There is no consensus on catastrophic climate change, the science hasn't been settled at all, and certainly not in favor of CAGW.

That graph is actually a big problem for you because in order for warming to be a major cause for concern you need virtually all of it to be anthropogenic, if it's less than 80% then it goes from a potential catastrophe that's cause for alarm to a manageable problem that doesn't require any real drastic mitigation measures. Anything under 80% would mean the IPCC warming projections are way too high.

[Pants-of-dog]

No, that's incorrect, because 27% have only at most 70% confidence that more than half the warming is anthropogenic.

These percentages of confidence that you are pulling out of nowhere are irrelevant.

And the fact that 16% of climate scientists think it's less than 50% is just devastating for both the consensus claim and the "settled science" bullshit. There is no consensus on catastrophic climate change, the science hasn't been settled at all, and certainly not in favor of CAGW.

It seems settled to me. It looks like you are looking for any opportunity to see a lack of confidence because you really really really want there to be no consensus. The evidence disagrees with you.

That graph is actually a big problem for you because in order for warming to be a major cause for concern you need virtually all of it to be anthropogenic, if it's less than 80% then it goes from a potential catastrophe that's cause for alarm to a manageable problem that doesn't require any real drastic mitigation measures. Anything under 80% would mean the IPCC warming projections are way too high.

No, this is not a problem. And global warming can still be a significant problem even if the causes are not necessarily anthropogenic.

[noemon]

I'm not the one pretending it's a simple agree/disagree statement. According to that graph about 14% of climate scientists are 70% confident that >50% of the warming is anthropogenic, 7% are 55% confident that >50% is anthropogenic, and about 5% are 40%(or less) that more than half is anthropogenic. Based on that there is no way you can claim there's a consensus and with that much doubt the science is definitely not "settled".

Based on that graph, 88% of Climate Scientists agree that Climate Change is Anthropogenic.

There is no consensus on catastrophic climate change

There is a very clear consensus that Climate Change is happening and that it is largely Anthropogenic in nature. Even when the human impact on climate change is attributed by some climate scientists to be 20% that is still extremely large in the grand scheme of things. If ants had the ability to cause a 20% rise on the temperature of humans, we would all die of fever instantly. Anything over 50% is catastrophic and anything over 75% is in fact a cause for Red Alert; 85% of climate scientists already attribute humanity with such figures, according to your own source.

[Sivad]

These percentages of confidence that you are pulling out of nowhere are irrelevant.

If this was a community with intellectual standards you'd be asked to leave for saying something that studid. The question is explicitly asking for a quantification of their level of confidence on a scale of 1 - 7. Five is roughly 70% of 7, so I'm definitely not pulling the percentages "out of nowhere", I'm pulling the percentages from the values given by the scientists.

It seems settled to me.

It looks like you are looking for any opportunity to see...

No that's what you're doing, what I'm doing is going by the stated opinions of the experts.

No, this is not a problem.

It's a huge problem for the alarmists, that's why they're always insisting that the warming is entirely anthropogenic. You'd know that if you even had a basic knowledge of the science.

And global warming can still be a significant problem even if the causes are not necessarily anthropogenic.

It would still be a problem but nothing that would justify the kind of extreme energy rationing and repressive technocratic governance the globalists are calling for.

[Sivad]

Structure of scientific opinion on climate change

A 2011 paper from George Mason University published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, “The Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change,” collected the opinions of scientists in the earth, space, atmospheric, oceanic or hydrological sciences. The 489 survey respondents — representing nearly half of all those eligible according to the survey’s specific standards — work in academia, government or industry, and are members of prominent professional organizations.

The study’s key findings include:

97% of the 489 scientists surveyed agreed that that global temperatures have risen over the past century. Moreover, 84% agreed that “human-induced greenhouse warming” is now occurring.” Only 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global warming.
“There was greater debate over the likelihood of substantial warming in the near future, with 56% seeing at least a 50-50 chance that temperatures will rise” 2 degrees Celsius over the next 50 to 100 years.
“When [survey participants were] asked to rate the effects on a ten-point scale from trivial (1) to catastrophic (10), the mean response was 6.6, with 41% seeing great danger (ratings of 8-10), 44% moderate danger (4-7), and 13% little danger.”
Though the expectation might be that scientists involved in industry would be more likely to have doubts about the validity of climate change, a statistical breakdown of the survey results showed that there was “no independent effect of industry employment on scientific attitudes toward climate change.”
However, “scientists in academia were more likely than those in government or business to believe that global temperatures are likely to rise substantially in the future, and that the consequences will be particularly severe.”

https://journalistsresource.org/studies ... ate-change




Major Findings

Scientists agree that humans cause global warming
Ninety-seven percent of the climate scientists surveyed believe “global average temperatures have increased” during the past century.

Eighty-four percent say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; the rest are unsure.

Scientists still debate the dangers
A slight majority (54%) believe the warming measured over the last 100 years is not “within the range of natural temperature fluctuation.” 46% believe the warming measured over the last 100 years is “within the range of natural temperature fluctuation.”


A slight majority (56%) see at least a 50-50 chance that global temperatures will rise two degrees Celsius or more during the next 50 to 100 years. (The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change cites this increase as the point beyond which additional warming would produce major environmental disruptions.)

Based on current trends, 41% of scientists believe global climate change will pose a very great danger to the earth in the next 50 to 100 years, compared to 13% who see relatively little danger. Another 44% rate climate change as moderately dangerous.

Seventy percent see climate change as very difficult to manage over the next 50 to 100 years, compared to only 5% who see it as not very difficult to manage. Another 23% see moderate difficulty in managing these changes.

A need to know more
Overall, only 5% describe the study of global climate change as a “fully mature” science, but 51% describe it as “fairly mature,” while 40% see it as still an “emerging” science. However, over two out of three (69%) believe there is at least a 50-50 chance that the debate over the role of human activity in global warming will be settled in the next 10 to 20 years.

Only 29% express a “great deal of confidence” that scientists understand the size and extent of anthropogenic [human] sources of greenhouse gases,” and only 32% are confident about our understanding of the archeological climate evidence.

https://web.archive.org/web/20100111104 ... 23_08.html

[noemon]

Sivad originally posted a study conducted by asking Climate scientists from all over the world and that study produced very worrying figures of 97% agreeing that Climate Change is happening right now, 88% agreeing that it's happening due to Human Causes and 88% also agreeing that the Human Impact on Climate Change is actually enormous and now that this has become obvious he has gone and brought a study:

The 2007 study was conducted by mail within the United States by Harris Interactive.

The same US that the entire civilised world is laughing at when it comes to gas guzzling and big oil corporate manipulation.

[Sivad]

very worrying figures of 97% agreeing that Climate Change is happening right now

That's not "very worrying", climate change is not the same as catastrophic anthropogenic climate change. The question is how much is due to human activity and how much is natural variation, conflating the two is totally dishonest.

88% agreeing that it's happening due to Human Causes and 88% also agreeing that the Human Impact on Climate Change is actually enormous

Yeah, that's not even wrong. And I have a hard time believing you're just confused, this a deliberate misrepresentation.

[noemon]

Totally dishonest is separating the 2 sentences in a ridiculous attempt to misrepresent what I said and accuse me of such a "conflation".

I am not confused at all, you seem to be extremely confused of what kind of impact is actually enormous:

There is a very clear consensus that Climate Change is happening and that it is largely Anthropogenic in nature. Even when the human impact on climate change is attributed by some climate scientists to be 20% that is still extremely large in the grand scheme of things. If ants had the ability to cause a 20% rise on the temperature of humans, we would all die of fever instantly. Anything over 50% is catastrophic and anything over 75% is in fact a cause for Red Alert; 85% of climate scientists already attribute humanity with such figures, according to your own source.

[Pants-of-dog]

If this was a community with intellectual standards you'd be asked to leave for saying something that studid. The question is explicitly asking for a quantification of their level of confidence on a scale of 1 - 7. Five is roughly 70% of 7, so I'm definitely not pulling the percentages "out of nowhere", I'm pulling the percentages from the values given by the scientists.

No. The graph discussing how much of the warming is due to anthropogenic causes makes no discussion of confidence. That is something you are simply projecting onto it.

Even your survey shows that majority of climatologists believe ACC theory is accurate.

No that's what you're doing, what I'm doing is going by the stated opinions of the experts.

I do not care if there is a consensus at all.

It's a huge problem for the alarmists, that's why they're always insisting that the warming is entirely anthropogenic.

It would still be a problem but nothing that would justify the kind of extreme energy rationing and repressive technocratic governance the globalists are calling for.

My point is that a rapid increase in average global temperatures is dangerous in certain ways, and that this is true no matter what is causing the temperature increase.

You have made a strawman with your claim about how alarmists need it to be anthropogenic.

And your conspiracy theories are as irrelevant as your strawman.