96% of Scientists DON'T believe in Global Warming, Intersting point made.

[Nagalfar]

http://www.minnesotansforglobalwarmi...l-warming.html

Did you know that 96% of Scientist DON'T believe in Global Warming? You might be surprised to hear this if all you listen to is the mainstream press. Every time you hear a story on global warming you hear the phrase "almost all scientists agree" or "97% of scientist believe in global warming." Last year a study came out saying 97% of scientists believe in climate change, but almost the exact opposite is true.

The study in question surveyed 1,372 known working climate researchers. and found 97% of them still believe in global warming. I think this pool is tainted because these are scientist who get paid to study "Global Warming" which is a conflict of interest. That's like asking PETA members if they're vegetarian, but regardless we will use their number.

On the other hand the Petition Project has 31,000 scientists who have signed a petition saying that they don't believe in man made global warming.

So let's do the math 97% of 1,372 is 1,330 who still believe in global warming compared to 31,487 who don't. That's only 1 out 24 or 4% of scientists who still believe in global warming.

I think those of us who are on the skeptical side of the debate should use the other side's tactic and repeat this over and over again ad nauseum. 96% of Scientists DON'T believe in Global Warming.

It is worth while to note, asking people who are PAID to study something if they believe in what they are studying?? I do believe those findingss would not be a accurate representation of getting a real feel for the Global Warming "experts". No rational person would choose to end decades of being paid well.

[Streetbull]

Nice thread! Prepare for shtstorm.....

[PaulG]

landed on the moon.jpg

The largest reasons for climate changes are the tectonic crystals depolarizing.

[7rmr]

http://www.minnesotansforglobalwarmi...l-warming.html



So let's do the math 97% of 1,372 is 1,330 who still believe in global warming compared to 31,487 who don't. That's only 1 out 24 or 4% of scientists who still believe in global warming.

This has to be a joke. You're taking two unlike samples, combining them together and then treating the outcome as representative of scientists in general, even when the second sample is in no way representative.

Let me illustrate.

Lets say I asked ten of my friends do you work out and 1 out of 10 of them said they do. Then I went on to this forum and asked how many people work out lets say 99 out of a hundred said they do. By your logic, that means that 91% (100 divided by 110) of people work out.

Edit: This is why people don't take climate change skeptics seriously. If you guys don't even understand basic statistics, how in the hell could you possibly understand something as complicated as global climate change.

[Dr._S._Colbert]

Sweat-drenched humans of the future will look back on threads like these and shake their heads.

[Nagalfar]

This has to be a joke. You're taking two unlike samples, combining them together and then treating the outcome as representative of scientists in general, even when the second sample is in no way representative.

Let me illustrate.

Lets say I asked ten of my friends do you work out and 1 out of 10 of them said they do. Then I went on to this forum and asked how many people work out lets say 99 out of a hundred said they do. By your logic, that means that 91% (100 divided by 110) of people work out.

It is not my logic, the only thing I posted was, I dont think you should be asking people who are paid to study something if they actually believe in it, if they said no, more than likely they would be out of a job.. that is a logical point for most people, while I ahve no doubt, there are plenty would have have no problem with surveying people who are paid to study something, then asked if they believe in what they are studying.. thats crazy..

[rohatt]

wat a load of sh*t

obviously global warming is natural but are these guys fukn stupid? a hundred years of polluting the fck out of the earth and tons of greenhouse gases and emissions cars factories etc have a lot to do with global warming

[stateless]

Skewed nonsense. You have no idea how many scientists believe in global warming, but magically claim to do so via that silly propoganda site. Think critically.

[7rmr]

It is not my logic, the only thing I posted was, I dont think you should be asking people who are paid to study something if they actually believe in it, if they said no, more than likely they would be out of a job.. that is a logical point for most people, while I ahve no doubt, there are plenty would have have no problem with surveying people who are paid to study something, then asked if they believe in what they are studying.. thats crazy..

So, really, what you are saying is we shouldn't be asking experts for their opinions. Its just like at CERN recently. All those scientists have lived in a world where nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. And then, in one experiment something does travel faster than the speed of light. So what do they do, they hide their findings so that no one will ever see them.

Oh no wait, they actually published the findings online and asked the global scientific community to help them figure out what they observed. The best thing someone can do for their scientific career is be the first to discover something. Believe it or not, scientists don't sit around trying to confirm everyone elses findings. As someone who has worked in a clinical research laboratory, I can tell you, all we wanted to do was find something new.

[Harbinger]

96% of Scientists also don't believe in god...

[7rmr]

OP, I should also point out that the fact that you read that website and agreed with their use of statistics suggests you're a bit of an idiot.

Edit: Or, at the very least, you have no idea how science, or math for that matter, works.

[ejeyol]

What I think most people get confused about is whether global warming is man-made or is just naturally occuring.

I assume those 96% of scientists believe that global warming is not so much a result of what humans have done, but what the earth naturally does. Yes, human civilation releases green house gases, but that is small potatoes compared to how much green house gases are released from volanoes.

Global warming can't be denied. Science shows that the earth obviously is warming. But scientists agree that humans have had only a little to do with it.

(this is my understanding)

[Rune]

The math failure in this thread... I don't even know where to begin.

[7rmr]

The math failure in this thread... I don't even know where to begin.

Holly christ, i thought I was the only one who understood statistics here.

[tnel00]

Scientists don't understand how to conduct a proper sample...neither 97% nor 4% believe in global warming because both sample universes are biased. The underlying point of the op's post however is correct, you can not ask someones who's livelihood is dependent on a certain theory whether or not they believe in said theory. The vast majority of scientists who are studying global warming entered their field because of their own personal beliefs on the subject. Its doubtful there are more than a few who are studying global warming with the intent to disprove the theory

[Nagalfar]

OP, I should also point out that the fact that you read that website and agreed with their use of statistics suggests you're a bit of an idiot.

Edit: Or, at the very least, you have no idea how science, or math for that matter, works.

Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections

* Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society said in a 2011 email exchange with a journalist: "First, the computer models are very good at solving the equations of fluid dynamics but very bad at describing the real world. The real world is full of things like clouds and vegetation and soil and dust which the models describe very poorly. Second, we do not know whether the recent changes in climate are on balance doing more harm than good. The strongest warming is in cold places like Greenland. More people die from cold in winter than die from heat in summer. Third, there are many other causes of climate change besides human activities, as we know from studying the past. Fourth, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is strongly coupled with other carbon reservoirs in the biosphere, vegetation and top-soil, which are as large or larger. It is misleading to consider only the atmosphere and ocean, as the climate models do, and ignore the other reservoirs. Fifth, the biological effects of CO2 in the atmosphere are beneficial, both to food crops and to natural vegetation. The biological effects are better known and probably more important than the climatic effects. Sixth, summing up the other five reasons, the climate of the earth is an immensely complicated system and nobody is close to understanding it."[7]
* Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences has made his views clear in several newspaper articles:"We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 �C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But – and I cannot stress this enough – we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future.".[8] "[T]here has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas – albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed."[9][10]
* Nils-Axel M�rner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University and former Chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003) said in 2005 evidence given to a select committee: "In conclusion, observational data do not support the sea level rise scenario. On the contrary, they seriously contradict it. Therefore we should free the world from the condemnation of becoming extensively flooded in the near future."[11]
* Garth Paltridge, Visiting Fellow ANU and retired Chief Research Scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired Director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre said in his 2009 book: "There are good and straightforward scientific reasons to believe that the burning of fossil fuel and consequent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide will lead to an increase in the average temperature of the world above that which would otherwise be the case. Whether the increase will be large enough to be noticeable is still an unanswered question."[12]
* Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London said in a 2007 opinion piece: "It is claimed, on the basis of computer models, that this should lead to 1.1 - 6.4 C warming. What is rarely noted is that we are already three-quarters of the way into this in terms of radiative forcing, but we have only witnessed a 0.6 (+/-0.2) C rise, and there is no reason to suppose that all of this is due to humans."[13]
* Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute said in a 2009 essay: "The blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate 'realistic' simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic."[14]

Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes

# Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences said in a 2007 news agency interview: "Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy – almost throughout the last century – growth in its intensity."[17]
# Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics said in a 2002 lecture for The Heritage Foundation: "Most of the increase in the air's concentration of greenhouse gases from human activities--over 80 percent--occurred after the 1940s. That means that the strong early 20th century warming must be largely, if not entirely, natural."[18]"The coincident changes in the sun's changing energy output and temperature records on earth tend to argue that the sun has driven a major portion of the 20th century temperature change."[18] "[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air."[19][not in citation given]
# Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa said in a 2004 newspaper letter:"That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation – which has a cooling effect. ... We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle."[20]
# Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland said in a 2006 newspaper article: "There is evidence of global warming. ... But warming does not confirm that carbon dioxide is causing it. Climate is always warming or cooling. There are natural variability theories of warming. To support the argument that carbon dioxide is causing it, the evidence would have to distinguish between human-caused and natural warming. This has not been done."[21]
# David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester was reported to have said in a 2007 paper in the International Journal of Climatology: "The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming."[22]
# Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University said in a 2006 presentation to the Geological Society of America: "Glaciers advanced from about 1890–1920, retreated rapidly from ~1925 to ~1945, readvanced from ~1945 to ~1977, and have been retreating since the present warm cycle began in 1977. ... Because the warming periods in these oscillations occurred well before atmospheric CO2 began to rise rapidly in the 1940s, they could not have been caused by increased atmospheric CO2, and global warming since 1900 could well have happened without any effect of CO2. If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035, then warm about 0.5�C from ~2035 to ~2065, and cool slightly until 2100."[23]
# William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University said in a 2006 newspaper interview: "I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people."[24]
# William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University said in a 2006 newspaper interview: "All the evidence I see is that the current warming of the climate is just like past warmings. In fact, it's not as much as past warmings yet, and it probably has little to do with carbon dioxide, just like past warmings had little to do with carbon dioxide"[25]
# William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology wrote in a 2004 article and book: "There has been a real climate change over the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries that can be attributed to natural phenomena. Natural variability of the climate system has been underestimated by IPCC and has, to now, dominated human influences."[26]
# David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware wrote in a 2006 article for the National Center for Policy Analysis: "About half of the warming during the 20th century occurred prior to the 1940s, and natural variability accounts for all or nearly all of the warming."[27]

[Nagalfar]

# Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa said in 2005: Global warming "is the biggest scientific hoax being perpetrated on humanity. There is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities. The atmosphere hasn’t changed much in 280 million years, and there have always been cycles of warming and cooling. The Cretaceous period was the warmest on earth. You could have grown tomatoes at the North Pole"[28]
# Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada said in a 2007 newspaper article: "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"[29][30]
# Ian Plimer, Professor emeritus of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide said in a 2002 television debate: "Natural climate changes occur unrelated to carbon dioxide contents. We've had many, many times in the recent past where we've rapidly gone into a greenhouse and the carbon dioxide content has been far, far lower than the current carbon dioxide content... It looks as if carbon dioxide actually follows climate change rather than drives it".[31]
# Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University said in a 2010 article originally written for the Italian magazine La Chimica e l’Industria (Chemistry and Industry): "At least 60% of the warming of the Earth observed since 1970 appears to be induced by natural cycles which are present in the solar system. A climatic stabilization or cooling until 2030–2040 is forecast by the phenomenological model."[32][33]
# Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo said in a 2007 presentation to the 9th International Symposium on Mining in the Arctic: "The IPCC's temperature curve (the so-called 'hockey stick' curve) must be in error, because the Medieval warm period (the "Climate Optimum") and the Little Ice Age both are absent from their curve, on which the IPCC bases its future projections and recommended mitigation. All measurements of solar luminosity and 14C isotopes show that there is at present an increasing solar radiation which gives a warmer climate (Willson, R.C & Hudson, H.S. 1991: The Sun's luminosity over a complete solar cycle. Nature 351, 42-44; and Coffey, H.E., Erwin, E.H. & Hanchett, C.D.: Solar databases for global change models. www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/solarda3.html). Warmer climate was previously perceived as an optimum climate and not catastrophic. ... On a wet basis the Earth's atmosphere consists by mass of ~73.5% nitrogen, ~22.5% oxygen, ~2.7% water, and ~1.25% argon. CO2 in air is in minimal amount, ~0.05% by mass, and with minimal capacity (~2%) to influence the "Greenhouse Effect" compared to water vapor"[34]
# Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem said in a 2006 online essay: "[T]he truth is probably somewhere in between [the common view and that of skeptics], with natural causes probably being more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more dominant over the next century. ... [A]bout 2/3's (give or take a third or so) of the warming [over the past century] should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes."[35]
# Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia said in a 2005 award acceptance speech: "The greenhouse effect is real. However, the effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect."[36] Also in a 2006 television program: “It’s not automatically true that warming is bad, I happen to believe that warming is good, and so do many economists.”[37]
# Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics was reported to have said in a 2003 paper for Energy & Environment: "there's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed."[38]
# Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville said in 2008 testimony to a US Senate committee: "I predict that in the coming years, there will be a growing realization among the global warming research community that most of the climate change we have observed is natural, and that mankind’s role is relatively minor".[39]
# Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center said in a 2007 paper for Astronomy & Geophysics: "The case for anthropogenic climate change during the 20th century rests primarily on the fact that concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases increased and so did global temperatures. Attempts to show that certain details in the climatic record confirm the greenhouse forcing (e.g. Mitchell et al. 2001) have been less than conclusive. By contrast, the hypothesis that changes in cloudiness obedient to cosmic rays help to force climate change predicts a distinctive signal that is in fact very easily observed, as an exception that proves the rule." [40]
# Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa said in a paper published in Geoscience Candada in 2005: "At this stage, two scenarios of potential human impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model that advocates the leading role of greenhouse gases, particularly of CO2, and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as the principal climate driver. The two scenarios are likely not even mutually exclusive, but a prioritization may result in different relative impact. Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but time will be the final judge."[41]

[awax]

Finding the degree to which each scientist believes 'global warming' has and will continue to affect our planet would be difficult to calculate to say the least. That would give us a better understanding of the general scientific opinion. Since 'climate change' is a highly monetized subject, we will not likely ever be given an honest answer to this.

I agree with the OP that the original statistic is biased, but so is the second (because those scientists actively signed a petition, but were not randomly selected). So there will be heated arguments, but most will continue to believe what they wanted to believe upon entering the thread.

[Nagalfar]

Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences

* Ivar Giaever, Nobel Laureate in physics and professor emeritus at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute: "In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period."[50][51][52]
* Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change:"The rising CO2 content of the air should boost global plant productivity dramatically, enabling humanity to increase food, fiber and timber production and thereby continue to feed, clothe, and provide shelter for their still-increasing numbers ... this atmospheric CO2-derived blessing is as sure as death and taxes." (May 2007)[53]
* Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University:"[W]arming has been shown to positively impact human health, while atmospheric CO2 enrichment has been shown to enhance the health-promoting properties of the food we eat, as well as stimulate the production of more of it. ... [W]e have nothing to fear from increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and global warming." (2003)[54] "If strong positive feedbacks existed, the Earth would likely exhibit a radically unstable climate, significantly different from what has characterized the planet over the eons."[55] The warming of the last hundred years is seen to be basically a recovery from the global chill of the Little Ice Age, which was a several-hundred-year period of significantly cooler temperatures than those of the present that persisted until the end of the nineteenth century."[55]
* Patrick Michaels, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia:"Scientists know quite precisely how much the planet will warm in the foreseeable future, a modest three-quarters of a degree (Celsius), plus or minus a mere quarter-degree ... a modest warming is a likely benefit... human warming will be strongest and most obvious in very cold and dry air, such as in Siberia and northwestern North America in the dead of winter." (October 16, 2003)[56]

[Nagalfar]

How many are needed, and why are none of these people being refuted.. and are these guys no talent bums??

[TheStender]

I LOLd at the name of the site.

[kel_varnsen]

that petition project has been exposed as nonsensical and fraudulent numerous times. only an idiot would take it seriously.

[GermanBB]

because the scientist is going to see this unique climate change as a shift in a continuum rather than a simple rise in temperature. while it seems to be getting statistically warmer in some areas, other areas are having small decreases in temperature. the major pattern affecting the US is that the great plains climate is slowly shifting towards the northeast.

skewed question gets interesting results.

it's almost always more complex that we think it is... we have discoveries, that's the progress of science... and scientists tend to be more aware of that.

[Beeewbs]

If you're a scientist and you don't believe in man influenced global warming, you're an idiot. If you're a scientist and you don't believe in global warming at all, you're clinically brain dead.

What a stupid thread with a stupid source.

[Dave22reborn]

Because this weather we're all having in Jan. is totally normal.

[b.spencer]

How many are needed, and why are none of these people being refuted.. and are these guys no talent bums??

Actually, if you read the quotes you posted, almost all of them acknowledge that mean global temperatures have risen and are rising. That is global warming. Some of them are arguing that man has little impact on it and that it is predominantly a natural phenomenon, but even your critics of global warming state the planet is warming in the statements you posted.

[r0gue6]

Because this weather we're all having in Jan. is totally normal.

nah brah, I have to use my air conditioner in my car all year long, That's normal!

[Johnny Rotten]

If you're a scientist and you don't believe in man influenced global warming, you're an idiot. If you're a scientist and you don't believe in global warming at all, you're clinically brain dead.

What a stupid thread with a stupid source.

The entire profession is based on questioning what is believed by the masses to be true. You're a ****ing idiot for not understanding the purpose of studying the sciences.

[Nistange]

Wut.

That is horrible logic on OP quote. You can't take two studies and then mix them together, then claim 96% of scientists don't believe in global warming.

[TH3SHR3DD3R]