Is there really 99% agreement among scientists that AGW is real.?

Question

I've noticed the people making this claim don't reference any polls.

In my experience there is a 90% agreement among people who have objectively analysed the data that significant AGW by CO2 is highly speculative.

Answer 1

scientists are split between speculation and affirmation that global warming is real...

and no matter how much rave there is about global warming and it's effects on our planet, only about half of the leading scientists believe it so..

if we had an overwhelming majority, then we would also have a relatively strong influence on environmental policy within the leading nations of the world.

or at least we would have more protests and opposition against the bush administration, for example, who's only good to fuel the oil industry..

not to mention sept 11 occured b/c of oil..

Answer 2

We're 90% certain that may be the case.  The 5- year moving average shows a steady increase in consensus membership.  Our models indicate, by 2040AD, we'll be 140% certain 212% of all scientists will be AGW disciples.  Case closed.  Ha!

Answer 3

LOL at 'no brainer' comment. If AGW is true, who was driving all the SUV's during the MWP??? Or during the Age of Dinosaurs?????

Scientists are not immune to mass hysteria.

Answer 4

With global warming alarm ism alive and well, climatologists are at least 99% sure they will keep their jobs and prosper.

Answer 5

lol........................

Answer 6

I haven't paid any attention to those kinds of claims.  99% among scientists in general, or among climate scientists?  Although the best approach in tackling this is to draw from many fields of expertise, it is the analysis provided by learned men and women in the field of climate science that truly interests me.

Ben, I know you're a skeptic and that's fine, I'm not here to convert anybody, just to give them sites and sometimes information that they can investigate on their own.  I dropped off of this site for months and began to track who was doing what out there to deal with this issue, which some feel is an impending calamity.

What I found was impressive.  Scientists.  Faculty. Students.  Non-profits.  Educators.  I have been digging hard these last few weeks, since my deadline for writing on this is coming due.  Yet I keep finding great new sites.

Some of the data is too technical for my brain to absorb, but many sites are very accessible and have some great links.  These tend to be the sites I'm drawn to.  Since your question focuses on scientists, the sites I've included reflect this, I hope.  You can find other sites I've offered by looking an answers I've provided in the past few weeks.

I invite you to check out some or all of the sites I've listed below.  

The science is there.  The consensus is not 100% across the board.  But an awful lot of scientists have come to accept the concept of global climate change in the last 10 years.  That is in large part due to the volume of evidence that's been collected and improved models.

Answer 7

NO!

here is a list

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientists_...

Also try this link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Gl...

Science by majority is NOT science!

They burned people as witches because the majority believed they were!!!!Geez!

Answer 8

I think that it is 99% of the scientists that attend Al Gore rallies. Dietary scientists, hospitality scientists, geological scientists, sports scientists, marine scientists, and many other types, and every once in a while a climatologist might even show up.

Answer 9

20% of the people agree that 90% of the scientists are at least 50% behind the idea that humanity has caused 75% of the AGW seen by 60% of the world's population, taking into account that the survey has a 10% error and that 87% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

Answer 10

I emailed an individual who has a PHD in climatology and his credentials were impressive.  He has studied the data and his conclusion have lead him believe that the policy being adopted to combat this are not only going to hurt the poor they will not change the result what so ever. How do I know because he took the time to respond to my inquiry.  The sad thing is there are better ways to encourage alternative energy, and more efficient vehicles then this scare tactic being bestowed upon humanity.

Answer 11

If you add the adjective "harmful" AGW or significant, the number drops well below 50 per cent and really who cares if humans are responsible for a little warming if it is not generally harmful.

Answer 12

The green house gas is not there how can it cause GW???

Answer 13

Yep.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_...

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/fu...

EVERY major scientific organization has issued an official statement that this is real, and mostly caused by us.  The National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Institute of Physics, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Association, etc.

"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."

NASA's Gavin Schmidt

"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

This may not be enough for everyone, but it's more than enough for 99% of the leaders of countries all around the world.  They don't want to deal with global warming, but they know they HAVE to.

EDIT - Galileo is an excellent example.  Once he got the data (phases of Venus) there was a scientific consensus that the Earth revolved around the Sun.  It was ignorant "skeptics" who persecuted Galileo.

Answer 14

You guys are beating a dead horse at this point.

edit

Captain Bear, I think the odds are about the same as is usual  with dead horses.

Answer 15

Tuba, maybe the dead horse will come back to life.

Answer 16

In my experience, there is a 97.349% agreement between those who have objectively analyzed the data that significant global warming by carbon dioxide emissions is most likely occurring.

So much for our experience. And so much for pulling numbers out of our a***s.

Answer 17

Not even close.  There is little agreement on the cause, extent or consequences of global warming.  Dissent has increased over the past few years following the exposure of fraudulent data used in some of the claims made by GW alarmists, especially the infamous "hockey stick" computer model that always produced the same results even when random temperature numbers were entered into it.

At any rate, the scientific method is not a matter of consensus, it is about producing results that can be tested by other scientists, something that is completely missing from the GW debate.  In the case of the theory of man-made global warming, the onus is on those who advance the hypothesis to prove it and so far they have failed to do so.  Those who advance the notion that a "consensus" exists are playijng on the ignorance of the general public- it's like claiming that if enough people who call themselves "scientists" say the moon is made of green cheese then it must be true.

If you want to see what happens when "consensus" is the standard in scientific matters, read about what happened to Gallileo when he disagreed with the consensus about the nature of the solar system.