What percentage of serious climatology experts do *not* believe in AGW?

Question

I have long been searching for a number, even an estimation. I would like to be able to solidly tell people.

Answer 1

The number of scientist who do not submit to the concept of AGW is about 40%

Any other number is just a guess.

Answer 2

I know you are asking about "global waming".  What does the "A" in AGW stand for?

Answer 3

Absolute faith in AGW is like a religion.  It requires no proof and demands no doubt.

I don't know why anyone would believe that there is a 100% chance that AGW is the main mechanism for warming in the second half of the twentieth century.  Not many real scientists are prepared to go to that extreme.

Polls vary on the subject quite a lot, but there seems to be a discernable percentage of doubters in the field.  

There are some polls of scientists in Wikipedia.

Answer 4

It is not known what percentage of climate experts do not believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).  Certainly, the pro-AGW crowd would like for us to believe that vitually all experts agree (safety in numbers), and that AGW is fact.....but the truth of the matter is that not all experts agree and AGW is NOT fact!  Don't allow the AGW Club to stop you from researching and challenging what is now known to be a lot of 'Bad Science'.  

Keep in mind that there are experts out there who do not want to shake the boat or risk their jobs by going public with their disagreement.  The AGW alarmists have done a good job of undermining open discussion of the topic with their mass-media campaigns and mis-leading.....even deceitful television and movie productions.  They are counting on being successful via the old adage:  "If you repeat a lie often enough, people will eventually believe it to be truth".

Please don't fall for their tactics.

A place to begin regarding the bad data being used to develop AGW 'science' is:

www.surfacestations.org

Answer 5

It is impossible to know the percentage because the number of skeptical climatologists is growing all the time.  Even the Washington Post has reported on this.

Some of the best climatologists are skeptical, including Roger Pielke (an ISI most cited researcher) and Richard Lindzen (famous researcher from MIT), Roy Spencer, John Christy, Reid Bryson and many others.

A series of peer-reviewed studies were published in 2007 showing that AGW will not be catastrophic.  Roy Spencer and his team published on a negative feedback over the tropics, which they identified as the "Infrared Iris Effect" hypothesized by Lindzen.  Stephen Schwartz from Brookhaven National Lab published a new estimate of climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 and found it to be one-third of the IPCC estimate.  Petr Chylek of Los Alamos National Lab published a study on the cooling impact of aerosols and found them to be much less than previously thought, which also confirms that CO2 does not cause as much warming as previously thought.  

If you wish to know more about skeptical climatologists, a number of them are mentioned in a wikipedia article.  The list is not comprehensive, but has at least one quote on why they are skeptical.

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

EDIT - Below Ken has a link to a web page that is doubtful of Lindzen's hypothesis.  It should be noted that the opinions expressed here predate the peer-reviewed paper by Spencer, which was published in 2007.

Answer 6

From Ben O's link

"With the July 2007 release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate."

I think that puts it quite well

An exact percentage is not known, as I doubt anyone really has the time or resources spare to find out.

Nevertheless - Its certainly small

Answer 7

None. Anthropogenic global warming is established fact. There is no debate. The debate--among real scientists and eduated people--was over a decade ago. What the so-called  "skeptics" ahve to say is irrelevant--they are not scientists.

Nor is it a "numbers" game where the percentage of people "on one side or the other" is important--that DOES NOT MATTER. Science is not like politics. The verdict--in science--is based on data and analysis, not on opinions and ideology, as in politics.  And once the facts are in--there is no more debate and opinions are irrelevant.

Answer 8

It's really hard to give a figure.  It was quite high in the 90s, but it has been going steadily down since then.  I have never actually seen a reputable scientist in this field state with certainty that there is any question about AGW, although they disagree about the magnitude.  So I would be willing to say it's basically zero.

Answer 9

A lot more than AGW believers want you to believe. Two German environmental scientists, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey.  Bray is a research scientist at the GKSS Institute of Coastal Research in Geesthacht, Germany. Von Storch is a climatology professor at the University of Hamburg and director of the Institute of Coastal Research. More than 530 climate scientists from 27 different countries    provided numerical answers.  All responses were anonymous.

“do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly

the result of anthropogenic (man made) causes?” Slightly more than half (55.8 percent) of climate scientists surveyed agreed, 14.2 percent were unsure, and 30 percent disagreed.

Answer 10

Publicly espousing disbelief is very detrimental to someone's career.   Embracing it opens doors for opportunity and grants.  So if I were in that business, I would see a lot more upside in believing.

I have always believed that most of us are ethically challenged.  When the Y2K hysteria hit us, I know of many a computer professional who was confident that nothing catastrophic would happen with the systems s/he was involved with, but nevertheless wildly waved the Y2K flag because money suddenly became available for procuring new systems that could never have been otherwise justified.

In pre-Katrina times, if an engineer asked for $x for levee maintenance, he would have been drowned by the bureaucrats because there's no crisis.  Post-Katrina, $x times 100 was no problem.  

Back to your question, if you have an area of expertise, isn't it to your interest that everyone feels that that area is in a state of crisis?

Answer 11

I'd love to see where Jello got that 40% from, even if they aren't climatologists.  I'm quite sure it was a number extracted from a particular o*****e well below the neck.

Answer 12

There is no valid polling that has been done on this issue.  

Richard Lindzen of MIT would be considered one.  He does acknowledge warming is happening and humans are a part of it, but he's bothered by a lot of misinformation going around and is skeptical of the predicted extent of the warming.  

He himself hypothesized (2001) a so-called iris-effect (cloud changes caused by AGW would actually produce a balancing cooling effect) that would cut the CO2 doubling effect to just 1C global warming (vs. the 2 - 5 many models estimate).  But when two teams tried to duplicate his work, then came up with different results.  So his theory was never accepted by the climate science community.