Since none of the scientists in question have put forward a “CAGW hypothesis”, that’s OK, then.
You admit it’s entirely your made-up term, and then scratch your head as to why the literature terminology isn’t matching your strawman? That’s disingenuous.
Oh National Post. So priceless. That trendline looks like an approximated spline that someone “accidentally” pinned at the x-axis on the right hand side. Note that this regression does NOT appear in the source data or literature, as far as I can find.
Oh, and by the way, it would appear that Richard Lindzen is a member of the American Meteorological Society.
So by your argument, he is one of the 500,000+ scientists who accept that there is strong evidence for CAGW, right?
There are 500,000 climate scientists in the US.
There are probably 1,000,000 climate scientists globally.
A majority of all climate scientists (50%+) appear to agree that the current science supports anthropogenic climate change. 50% of 1,000,000 climate scientists worldwide is 500,000.
Now while I will agree that 500,000 and 500,000 are the same number, they quite specifically do not refer to the same groups of people, just the same as if I have two apples and two oranges, the shared numeral does not mean that an apple is the same thing as an orange.
So yes, Mr. Lindzen probably is one of the 500,000 American climate scientists. Being an American climate scientists, however, has nothing to do with whether he is one of the member of the 500,000+ supporters of anthropogenic climate change worldwide. As said, groups of the same quantity are not necessarily the same group irregardless of how much they might overlap.
Well, I don’t understand your argument.
You seem to be arguing that
(1) There are at least a million climate scientists in the world
(2) All of those climate scientists are members of the organizations listed in your wiki link.
(3) Those organizations have unequivocally endorsed the CAGW Hypothesis
(4) Therefore, for each organization, at least half of the members must accept the CAGW hypothesis.
(5) Therefore, at least 500,000 climate scientists – a majority – accept the CAGW Hypothesis.
Is that right? Or have I misunderstood you?
clap Very good.
Don’t forget that random surveys of them have come to the same result as well.
And true, they might not all be members of some science group (though I would be surprised if they are not a member of at least one), but this would be a fairly random selection at any rate.
It’s because when you’ve been around awhile, you get more cynical and see a pattern.
Back in the 70’s we were entering a new ice age. This was scary stuff (and it IS scary…if we enter an ice age, we are screwed). What were the solutions proposed to avert disaster?
Conservation. Clean up pollution. Stop dumping gasses and shit into the atmosphere. So…when global warming comes around and people say we need to do the same thing, it makes you go…HHHHHMMMMMMMMMM. You then start to doubt even the scientists capability to know what is going on and you also start to doubt their neutrality. If cleaning up pollution stops us from going into an Ice Age…then global warming should be stoppable by polluting like crazy.
I was extremely ‘pro science community’ when younger. Now I wonder if they don’t have some bias.
This has been brought up on the site before but the “ice age panic” was apparently a media frenzy more than it had anything to do with science (similar to the thousands of threads you can find on whether the Hadron Collider will implode the planet.) Personally I can’t admit to knowing enough about it to support that statement, but that is what has been said.
Well, besides the fact that the statements of these organizations are anything but unequivocal, the statements themselves do not necessarily reflect the views of a majority of the organizations’ members.
Let me ask you this: Do you believe that a majority of Americans support every last policy and every last pork barrel appropriation engaged in by the federal government?
Cite?
Indeed…A good piece to start is here. The basic moral of the story: In the 1970s, scientists understood enough to know that emission of greenhouse gases would cause warming, emission of sulfate aerosols would cause cooling (although I think there was even some debate about this for a while), and that the eventual natural course for the climate over timescales of thousands to tens of thousands of years would be cooling into another ice age. However, they didn’t know which would dominate…and a National Academy of Sciences report in the mid-1970s concluded that, while there were definite concerns regarding the future course of the climate, we were not yet at the point of being able to predict it…even which direction it would go.
And, at no time was the peer-reviewed literature dominated by those predicting cooling. Even the most dramatic example that I have seen of a prediction of cooling in the peer-reviewed literature (Rasool and Schneider) were clear in their paper (and even moreso in their reply to a comment on their paper) that their work was very preliminary and further study was needed. So, not only was there not a consensus on cooling, but there doesn’t even seem to be a good example of even one “alarmist” paper on cooling in the peer-reviewed literature. (There are a few examples in the popular media or popular books.)
I highlight this because it is a particular strategy employed by those who question AGW (or evolution). It is used both on the level of the actual physical evidence and on the meta-level (as used here) in regards to the evidence that there is a scientific consensus. The error made is going from a single case to the general case. Sure, it is conceivable for one or a few scientific organizations to be hijacked in a particular way by their elected councils (although you would probably then see a real rebellion in the rank-and-file) but it is exceedingly unlikely for this to happen to all the various organizations that have endorsed the IPCC conclusions, which include for example, the academies of science in all of the G8+5 nations, as well as the American Meteorological Society, the American Physical Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
At the level of actual physical evidence, no one study on AGW is ever conclusive. All suffer from problems and limitations. It is the weight of the evidence from all of the studies that is relevant.
When it comes to the big issues, at worst the electorates of any representative government hold the same views as their electors, at best they represent the more sane positions. This is the purpose of representative government and why it works better than democratic government.
I suspect that in terms of smaller items like who gets an office with a window, shady politics enters into just as much as it does the Federal or any other governmental force.
Same exact Wikipedia page. Go back and read post #90.
So even if you are loathe to believe that bodies of climate scientists can accurately represent climate scientists, there is no need to trust that they do.
Umm, does that mean yes or no?
Were you referring to this survey?
Or perhaps this one:
?
I asked sage rat the question for a particular purpose: To test the basis of his apparent claim that 500,000+ climate scientists accept CAGW. Do you agree with his claim or not?
If not, then what exactly are you claiming?
It means that I don’t believe that the treatment of minor and major issues is the same in an elected body. In general, the government employs and listens to the advice of economists when dealing with large issues of economics–or at worst listen to the people who voted them in. Individual legislators will also sneak in pork barrels, which is their way of dealing with minor issues.
So on the major issues, their position will be either learned and respectable, or representative of the people who elected them. I can’t think of any reason that a scientific group’s position on a major scientific theory wouldn’t be in this class.
A scientific body’s equivalent of pork barrels would be things like deciding which person gets an office with a window or who gets to be the keynote speaker at X scientific convention. You painted global warming as being in this category, which I disagree with.
No, but I can’t say that I am particularly worried about the weight of a survey of 48 people who are political appointees.
You might want to review the actual studies:
Comparison of the two surveys by von Storch (PDF)
If you look through Appendix B (which is the bulk of the data) you’ll see that the purpose of the survey was to identify which sections of modeling technology most need work. We’re decades off from having the technology to model the entire world to such an extent that any scientist would be satisfied that improving it would not be a waste of time (if there even can be such a thing.)
Pointing this out doesn’t really say much one way or another about their acceptance of the current evidence for or against climate change.
Compare, for instance, Figure 21 to Figure 24. If you look at 21, you would think that climate models were useless, and yet the same people saying that they are useless are seemingly very confident that climate change is quantifiable and negative (figure 24.)
But so to look at what the majority scientific opinion is on the current overall evidence, inclusive of all methodologies, we should take a gander at figures 24 through 37, particularly 28-31 and especially #34. Your argument is that a majority of scientists don’t feel that the evidence is strong enough. Figure 34 quite expressly says that there is no uncertainty and the evidence is strong.
I am claiming that there is a strong consensus on AGW in the scientific community. I am not partcularly interested in the exact number of people…I actually think that whole estimate of “climate scientists” is rather high but it obviously depends on what you call “climate scientists”…Sage Rat took a broad definition of the term.
I know that you like to score points by nitpicking to death and losing the bigger picture. But I refuse to play along with your silly games.
By the way, as for studies, here is probably the best one that I have found done by what is a reputable polling term, not a conservative think tank. It is not perfect…as they didn’t really limit it to what I would call “climate scientists” despite their use of this term…so, e.g., some of the people they polled from the AMS may be forecast meteorologists more than climate scientists, and I know those folks tend to be more skeptical on AGW than the scientists actually working in the field.
By “AGW,” do you mean the same thing as I do when I say “CAGW”? Or do you mean something else?
i.e., you know that I like to point it out when warmists try to handwave away important details.
i.e. you have no satisfactory response to the arguments I have raised.
Somewhat, yes. Especially since even people among the climate scientists are just as likely to have no connection with studies of global warming (paleoclimatologists, for instance.) My number is based on people who would likely have the qualifications to analyze the quality of the science, not necessarily people who are involved in studying the issue specifically. For that meaning, I think it’s a decent estimate.
I believe he’s pointing out things like throwing away any data written by people with a thesaurus.
Lol. I guess that means “no.” Before we go any further, let’s make sure I understand your new position.
You now concede that that the statements or policies of an organization do not necessarily reflect the view of a majority of the members, but, as long as (1) the organization is democratic; and (2) the statement or policy concerns something which is not “minor,” you maintain that such a statement or policy is always more accurate and superior compared to the view of the majority of the organization’s members.
Do I have you right?