# What percentage of scientists actually support anthropogenic global warming? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 19, 2018, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-percentage-of-scientists-actually-support-anthropogenic-global-warming/821594 "2018-09-19T19:00:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2018, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-percentage-of-scientists-actually-support-anthropogenic-global-warming/821594/41 "2018-09-22T22:07:52Z")
Appropriate cite in this thread of Mann. Mann’s absurd discredited “hockey stick,” even though it was promulgated by a self-declared Nobel Prize winner who will sue you and lose if you say otherwise, who will sue you and lose if you submit peer-reviewed alternative scientific examinations–sue, mind you–or citing it without even noting that a mountain of evidence from non-conspiracy non-crazy non-Republicans, including the evidence brought out (partly in court, which adds irony to Mann’s patent venality)–is evidence of absurdly arbitrary data gathering and graph forcing, and is perhaps the most egregious case of the wreckage of public discourse with scientists, most especially such a flawed one as Mann. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2018, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-percentage-of-scientists-actually-support-anthropogenic-global-warming/821594/42 "2018-09-22T22:15:01Z")
^^^ **Leo** , I can’t tell if there is supposed to be a serious point here or not, or if this is some kind of incomprehensible attempt at sarcasm. If there is a serious point, could you please state it in plain English so I can respond to it. ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2018, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-percentage-of-scientists-actually-support-anthropogenic-global-warming/821594/43 "2018-09-23T00:50:33Z")
Mann has published papers which are academically fraudulent and have been shown to be so by many sources. Mann has sued in court those who challenge his scientific findings, rather than rebut them or answer outstanding questions in the normal avenues of scientific discourse. He does not respond to the discrete scientific evidence brought to the scientific community relative to his methodology and conclusions. His hockey stick has been shown to be as close to scientific fraud as near possible. It is barely, barely not fraudulent once the details his cherry picked data is factored in. However, the data is arbitrary both as to source date and statistical validity which makes it useless. And it is fraudulent, in fact, because those data sources were not presented, and then the famous graphical representation is on a bizarrely modified axis. Your cite (I believe it was, but it didnt’/doesn’t matter) I considered worthwhile because it’s _the_ favorite cite of laymen (like myself) who claim to undertand scientific validity but don’t (not like myself). The fact that he is a venal prick, and has initiated a law suit against a magazine and the author of an article _about his hockey stick, no less_ has cost the defendants huge amounts of money, and despite each loss Mann pursues another avenue to restore what’s left of his name for the few supporters he has by perpetuating his claims. His actions against a publisher and author are contemptible for a scientist, and more important, for any citizen. Which is why the array of amicus curiae of the defendant is the largest and somewhat oddest and impressive group likely scene in a 1st Amendment case. And I repeat, one where the matter, is the plaintiff’s desire to have a judge or jury rule in favor of his scientific results. The best part of the whole lawsuit deal is he always claimed he was a Nobel Laureate, and added that in his suit to back himself up, and everyone got a good laugh when the court was informed otherwise by Stockholm. So, my saying in my originating has post that “citing Mann” is a worthwhile addition to this thread is not sarcasm. Whoever cited him has announced, to the benefit of the OP topic, one of the issues that must be considered when even attempting to answer the discrete question asked in the subject header. I, for one, have no interest in pursuing further here the case of that little boil on science and society. More information is readily available. But not accessed or assimilated, however, by the legions of politically driven people who take great strength in wielding their “Nobel Prize Winner’s Memorable Icon.” ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2018, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-percentage-of-scientists-actually-support-anthropogenic-global-warming/821594/44 "2018-09-23T01:44:04Z")
> [@Leo\_Bloom](#): > > Mann has published papers which are academically fraudulent and have been shown to be so by many sources. Hmmm. Could you give a citation of a specific paper by Mann that you consider “academically fraudulent”, along with a cite for the claim that it has been “shown to be so”? > [@Leo Bloom](#): > > Mann has sued in court those who challenge his scientific findings, rather than rebut them or answer outstanding questions in the normal avenues of scientific discourse. Again, could you give a cite so we can be sure what lawsuit(s) you’re talking about? I’m aware only of Mann’s defamation lawsuit against the Competitive Enterprise Institute and _National Review_ for blog allegations calling him “fraudulent”, which of course is not the same thing as “challenging his scientific findings”. > [@Leo Bloom](#): > > His hockey stick has been shown to be as close to scientific fraud as near possible. It is barely, barely not fraudulent once the details his cherry picked data is factored in. However, the data is arbitrary both as to source date and statistical validity which makes it useless. And it is fraudulent, in fact, because those data sources were not presented, and then the famous graphical representation is on a bizarrely modified axis. Cite for a source of this criticism, describing in detail (preferably in a peer-reviewed scientific publication) the claims of “near” fraud? > [@Leo Bloom](#): > > The fact that he is a venal prick, and has initiated a law suit against a magazine and the author of an article _about his hockey stick, no less_ has cost the defendants huge amounts of money, and despite each loss Mann pursues another avenue to restore what’s left of his name for the few supporters he has by perpetuating his claims. 😕 Cite for the alleged “loss”? AFAICT Mann’s defamation lawsuit is still ongoing as of this writing, despite numerous failed attempts by the defendants to get it dismissed. > [@Leo Bloom](#): > > His actions against a publisher and author are contemptible for a scientist, and more important, for any citizen. Which is why the array of amicus curiae of the defendant is the largest and somewhat oddest and impressive group likely scene in a 1st Amendment case. 😕 again. AFAICT, the amicus brief is arguing that the accusations of fraud against Mann aren’t actionable because they’re constitutionally protected under the First Amendment as expressions of _opinion_. Which is not exactly a ringing endorsement of their scientific merit as “challenges to his scientific findings”. > [@Leo Bloom](#): > > The best part of the whole lawsuit deal is he always claimed he was a Nobel Laureate, and added that in his suit to back himself up, and everyone got a good laugh when the court was informed otherwise by Stockholm. Triple 😕. Mann is a contributor to the IPCC reports on climate change for which the IPCC was awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize jointly with Al Gore, and was individually acknowledged (along with each of the other contributing scientists) by the IPCC as a joint honoree. So if Al Gore counts as a “Nobel Laureate”, then arguably Mann and all the other IPCC contributors do too. Are you suggesting that Mann has falsely claimed Nobel Laureate status in some other context? > [@Leo Bloom](#): > > I, for one, have no interest in pursuing further here the case of that little boil on science and society. More information is readily available. :dubious: Hmmmm. Does that mean I’m not going to get those cites I asked for? Because when I went looking for “readily available” information on the subject, what I came up with suggested the above queries about your assertions. So it would be a kindness on your part to point out where the information you’re actually talking about is in fact “readily available”. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2018, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-percentage-of-scientists-actually-support-anthropogenic-global-warming/821594/45 "2018-09-23T01:46:51Z")
> [@Leo\_Bloom](#): > > Mann has sued in court those who challenge his scientific findings, rather than rebut them or answer outstanding questions in the normal avenues of scientific discourse. Ah, I suppose writing “Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science” is “normal scientific discourse.” ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2018, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-percentage-of-scientists-actually-support-anthropogenic-global-warming/821594/46 "2018-09-23T05:28:33Z")
> [@Leo\_Bloom](#): > > Mann has published papers which are academically fraudulent and have been shown to be so by many sources … I asked for clarification because I genuinely didn’t know whether you were serious. I guess you are, but what you’ve posted is stream-of-consciousness bullshit that is so absurd as to not be worth responding to. I see that **Kimstu** has already asked you to substantiate it. I’ll ask you for a cite for the above. I already know that any cite you could provide for any of it would be entirely disreputable, but I’ll ask anyway just for fun to see what you come up with. For the information of those with a serious interest in this aspect of the science, the attacks against Michael Mann, one of the world’s foremost climate scientists, are generally associated with the publication in 1998 of a 1000-year temperature reconstruction that showed a dramatic “hockey stick” spike in global temperatures in the post-industrial era, followed by an expanded reconstruction published in 1999, both with Mann as lead author and with Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes as collaborators, papers now often referred to in the literature as MBH98 and MBH99. These were landmark advances in paleoclimatology and would normally have been uncontroversially acknowledged as major contributions to climate science, except that the clear evidence that there was something very unusual happening in the modern climate prompted a vicious reaction from the denialist camp, and an ensuing drama of baseless personal attacks against Mann, the kind we’ve just seen in **Leo** ’s post. The earliest of these was probably a paper by the McIntyre and McKitrick pair I mentioned earlier, one of them a statistician and the other a former mining engineer, both fervent climate change deniers and neither of them with any knowledge of climate science. They managed to get a flawed paper published in _Nature_, but after they and their paper were discredited they pretty much resorted to blogging. The attacks against the paper were based on two main factors, Mann’s use of a statistical technique called decentered principal component analysis (PCA), and questioning the validity of some of the temperature proxies that were used, particularly the tree ring proxies from bristlecone pines. The short version of it all is this. Congress got involved when Sherwood Boehlert, chairman of the Committee on Science, asked the National Academy of Sciences to investigate the overall question of the 2000-year temperature record, partly in response to all the ruckus that had been raised particularly when Texas oilman and Congressman Joe Barton (R, Texas) – who had been openly hostile to climate science and personally threatening to climate scientists like Mann – had commissioned his own report criticizing Mann’s paper. The result of all the ruckus was a powerful vindication of Michael Mann and his work in the subsequent years which greatly elevated his stature in the scientific community, and he is now regarded as one of the leading climate scientists in the world today. The first major development was the release of the National Academy assessment of his work. The report, released in 2006, was produced by the National Research Council of the National Academy and titled _Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years_ (ISBN: 0-309-66264-8, National Academies Press, 2006). With regard to the use of decentered PCA, the report stated that “_reconstructions performed without using principal component analysis are qualitatively similar to the original curves presented by Mann et al._” Having essentially vindicated all of Mann’s conclusions, they also noted that he was among the first to describe reconstructions with an uncertainty envelope (although they expressed the view that MBH98 probably underestimated the uncertainties). The following year, an important paper – [Wahl and Ammann (2007)](http://www.rap.ucar.edu/projects/rc4a/millennium/refs/Wahl_ClimChange2007.pdf) [PDF] – further vindicated Mann’s results. They showed, among many other things, that criticisms of the variability modes that may have been influenced by PCA were baseless because Mann’s results still stood regardless. They also showed that the bristlecone proxies had not substantially influenced the data, and indeed Mann himself presented reconstructions with and without tree ring chronologies of any kind, and showed that results were substantially the same and post-industrial warmth unprecedented in at least 1300 years. Since then, many other groups using many other proxy sets have shown the same, and there have been dozens of long-term paleoclimate temperature reconstructions since as early as 2007, with the release of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. The entire Chapter 6 of the Fourth Assessment Report deals with paleoclimate temperature reconstructions, and offers a very thorough and frank analysis of the subject, including the areas of uncertainty and where there is debate and lack of consensus, and again fully exonerates Michael Mann and his pioneering work. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2018, 8:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-percentage-of-scientists-actually-support-anthropogenic-global-warming/821594/47 "2018-09-23T08:19:58Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > There are almost no reasons to buy organic foods. The biggest reason, in my observation, is because they are a superior good. That’s reason enough for many people. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2018, 8:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-percentage-of-scientists-actually-support-anthropogenic-global-warming/821594/48 "2018-09-23T08:41:58Z")
> [@Leo\_Bloom](#): > > Mann has published papers which are academically fraudulent and have been shown to be so by many sources. Cite 4 reputable scientific papers by 4 different authors that “show” this, please. Four being the traditional threshold for “many”. > [@](#): > > Mann has sued in court those who challenge his scientific findings, rather than rebut them or answer outstanding questions in the normal avenues of scientific discourse. No, Mann’s sued those who \*libeled \*him. > [@](#): > > His hockey stick has been shown to be as close to scientific fraud as near possible. The NAS says different. > [@](#): > > The fact that he is a venal prick Is that your \*scientific \*assessment? Yes, he \*was \* a bit of an idiot about the Nobel thing. But he certainly isn’t \*still \*calling himself a laureate (I’m taking you at your word that he used to) and, more importantly, it has exactly the intersection of fuck and all to do with the scientific validity of his work. > [@](#): > > despite each loss Which losses would those be? All I’ve seen are how the increasingly desperate attempts to get the lawsuit dismissed have been slapped down. Hard. > [@](#): > > I, for one, have no interest in pursuing further here the case of that little boil on science and society. Just going to drop your\* ad hominem\* turd in the GQ punchpowl and dash, eh? ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2018, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-percentage-of-scientists-actually-support-anthropogenic-global-warming/821594/49 "2018-09-23T13:13:03Z")
> [@Leo\_Bloom](#): > > More information is readily available. And yet not provided. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2018, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-percentage-of-scientists-actually-support-anthropogenic-global-warming/821594/50 "2018-09-23T17:53:51Z")
> [@Leo\_Bloom](#): > > Mann has published papers which are academically fraudulent and have been shown to be so by many sources. > > Mann has sued in court those who challenge his scientific findings, rather than rebut them or answer outstanding questions in the normal avenues of scientific discourse. > > He does not respond to the discrete scientific evidence brought to the scientific community relative to his methodology and conclusions. > > His hockey stick has been shown to be as close to scientific fraud as near possible. It is barely, barely not fraudulent once the details his cherry picked data is factored in. However, the data is arbitrary both as to source date and statistical validity which makes it useless. And it is fraudulent, in fact, because those data sources were not presented, and then the famous graphical representation is on a bizarrely modified axis. > > Your cite (I believe it was, but it didnt’/doesn’t matter) I considered worthwhile because it’s _the_ favorite cite of laymen (like myself) who claim to undertand scientific validity but don’t (not like myself). [snip] Others replied well to those “points”, but I will report on how the ones pushing contrarian information out there are the ones committing the actual fraud. For example, Mann did publish proper research, he did respond to discrete evidence, his data was not arbitrary, and the critics already where criticized themselves as **wolfpup** noted already. [http://www.rap.ucar.edu/projects/rc4a/millennium/refs/Wahl\_ClimChange2007.pdf](http://www.rap.ucar.edu/projects/rc4a/millennium/refs/Wahl_ClimChange2007.pdf) (PDF file) > [@](#): > > Eugene R. Wahl > > Caspar M. Ammann > Received: 11 May 2005 / Accepted: 1 March 2006 / Published online: 31 August 2007 > > Abstract: The Mann et al. (1998) Northern Hemisphere annual temperature reconstruction over 1400–1980 is examined in light of recent criticisms concerning the nature and processing of included climate proxy data. A systematic sequence of analyses is presented that examine issues concerning the proxy evidence, utilizing both indirect analyses via exclusion of proxies and processing steps subject to criticism, and direct analyses of principal component (PC) processing methods in question. Altogether new reconstructions over 1400–1980 are developed in both the indirect and direct analyses, which demonstrate that the Mann et al. reconstruction is robust against the proxy-based criticisms addressed. > > In particular, reconstructed hemispheric temperatures are demonstrated to be largely unaffected by the use or non-use of PCs to summarize proxy evidence from the data-rich North American region. > > When proxy PCs are employed, neither the time period used to “center” the data before PC calculation nor the way the PC calculations are performed significantly affects the results, as long as the full extent of the climate information actually in the proxy data is represented by the PC time series. Clear convergence of the resulting climate reconstructions is a strong indicator for achieving this criterion. Also, recent “corrections” to the Mann et al. reconstruction that suggest 15th century temperatures could have been as high as those of the late-20th century are shown to be without statistical and climatological merit. > > Our examination does suggest that a slight modification to the original Mann et al. reconstruction is justifiable for the first half of the 15th century (∼+0.05–0.10◦), which leaves entirely unaltered the primary conclusion of Mann et al. (as well as many other reconstructions) that both the 20th century upward trend and high late-20th century hemispheric surface temperatures are anomalous over at least the last 600 years. IOW: normal avenues of scientific discourse already did vindicate Mann’s conclusions, by this time one has to declare sources like McIntyre and McKitrick, Fred Singer, Willie Soon, Roy Spencer, groups like the AEI, most of the influential American conservatives and virtually all other famous contrarians that show up on TV (and not in avenues of scientific discourse) to be demagogues for continuing to mislead others. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2018, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-percentage-of-scientists-actually-support-anthropogenic-global-warming/821594/51 "2018-09-23T19:17:31Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > [snip] > > Others replied well to those “points”, but I will report on how the ones pushing contrarian information out there are the ones committing the actual fraud. For example, Mann did publish proper research, he did respond to discrete evidence, his data **was** not arbitrary, and the critics already where criticized themselves as **wolfpup** noted already. > > [http://www.rap.ucar.edu/projects/rc4a/millennium/refs/Wahl\_ClimChange2007.pdf](http://www.rap.ucar.edu/projects/rc4a/millennium/refs/Wahl_ClimChange2007.pdf) (PDF file) > IOW: normal avenues of scientific discourse already did vindicate Mann’s conclusions, by this time one has to declare sources like McIntyre and McKitrick, Fred Singer, Willie Soon, Roy Spencer, groups like the AEI, most of the influential American conservatives and virtually all other famous contrarians that show up on TV (and not in avenues of scientific discourse) to be demagogues for continuing to mislead others. Ahem. “His data **WERE** not arbitrary.” Thus are you refuted. Anthropogenic Global Climate Change has been proven a hoax. Let the rejoicing begin throughout the land. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2018, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-percentage-of-scientists-actually-support-anthropogenic-global-warming/821594/52 "2018-09-23T19:26:58Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > There are almost no reasons to buy organic foods. > [@MrDibble](#): > > The biggest reason, in my observation, is because **they are a superior good.** That’s reason enough for many people. Could I trouble you to provide some data upon which I might base an analysis of the emphasized assertion? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2018, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-percentage-of-scientists-actually-support-anthropogenic-global-warming/821594/53 "2018-09-23T21:39:11Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Ahem. > > “His data **WERE** not arbitrary.” > > Thus are you refuted. > > Anthropogenic Global Climate Change has been proven a hoax. Let the rejoicing begin throughout the land. > > :dubious: You know, I was going to thank you a lot for the correction, but there is a surprising catch: > **[Data are or data is? The singular v plural debate](https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/jul/16/data-plural-singular)** > > Is it singular or plural? It's a word we use every day here on the Datablog - but are we getting it completely wrong? > [@](#): > > For what it’s worth, I can confidently say that this will probably be the only time I ever write the word “datum” in a Datablog post. Data as a plural term may be the proper usage but language evolves and we want to write in terms that everyone understands - and that don’t seem ridiculous. > > So, over to Guardian style guru David Marsh, who makes the rules in these parts about language use. He says: > > > [@](#): > > > > It’s like agenda, a Latin plural that is now almost universally used as a singular. Technically the singular is datum/agendum, but we feel it sounds increasingly hyper-correct, old-fashioned and pompous to say “the data are”. > > And the Guardian style guide expresses it like this: > > > [@](#): > > > > Data takes a singular verb (like agenda), though strictly a plural; no one ever uses “agendum” or “datum” So, in today’s agendum, I have to give you a mild thanks. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2018, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-percentage-of-scientists-actually-support-anthropogenic-global-warming/821594/54 "2018-09-23T22:23:16Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Could I trouble you to provide some data upon which I might base an analysis of the emphasized assertion? Only if you confirm that you know what a superior good is. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2018, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-percentage-of-scientists-actually-support-anthropogenic-global-warming/821594/55 "2018-09-24T03:52:40Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > What scientists believe is actually very important because scientists need to be advisors to policymakers on what actions to take and why they need to be taken. This role of science has been seen as essential to public policy since some dude named Abraham Lincoln authorized the formation of the National Academy of Sciences in 1863, but it has never been as important as it is now, not even when the government put its faith in science for the NASA missions or the Manhattan Project. But this role is difficult to fulfill when half of Congress is still arguing that climate change is a hoax perpetrated either by the Chinese or by a conspiracy of alarmist grant-seeking climate scientists. Well, yes, but it goes back to my point - that a scientist may have very good technical knowledge of his field - biology, climate, physics, or engineering - but unless they have related learning and study things carefully, their knowledge of other fields is only slightly better than the guy in the corner coffee shop. (As, IIRC, Linus Pauling proved with vitamin C; or consider the cold fusion debate). Nobel laureates have been misled into eugenics or IQ debates just as much as anyone else.; perhaps worse, as some have the blindness born of arrogance. This is something the politicians certainly need to keep in mind when selecting advisors. Climate change science on both sides is full of denial and band-wagon know-nothings, perhaps as much represented by educated people as know-nots. There is a general feeling that anyone who disputes the tenets of the climate change faith will not get grants or honest peer reviews. This is unfortunate, because it shows honest evaluation has been replaced by dogma; and the true limits and progress of climate change needs careful analysis to determine what is really happening. Headline-grabbing cries of doom need to be balanced with serious analysis. Plus, Mother Nature is far more capricious than mere mortals. The next ice age could start tomorrow or in 5,000 years. The current much less active sunspot cycle(s) could herald a new Little ice Age, or it could be a blip. The stupidity with which we treat our planet could mean we cancel out any of these effects should they actually occur. Who knows? At the rate we are going, time will tell. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2018, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-percentage-of-scientists-actually-support-anthropogenic-global-warming/821594/56 "2018-09-24T04:28:55Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > Climate change science on both sides is full of denial and band-wagon know-nothings, perhaps as much represented by educated people as know-nots. There is a general feeling that anyone who disputes the tenets of the climate change faith will not get grants or honest peer reviews. This is unfortunate, because it shows honest evaluation has been replaced by dogma; and the true limits and progress of climate change needs careful analysis to determine what is really happening. Headline-grabbing cries of doom need to be balanced with serious analysis. [Got you covered on that one, science writer Peter Hadfield already took on people that indeed do not know what they are talking about](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZzwRwFDXw0), but the reality is that the apparent “dogma” of the 50-60’s was shown to be wrong. Yes, wrong, but not as contrarians think, sorry to burst many bubbles. 🙂 You see, back then it was “known” for many years that CO2 was a warming gas, but that nature was doing a good job of taking off the megatons of CO2 humans were adding to the atmosphere and that the way CO2 contained heat was understood properly. > **[The Discovery of Global Warming](https://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm)** > > A hypertext history of how scientists came to (partly) understand what people are doing to cause climate change. An abridged web version of Spencer R. Weart's book presented by the American Institute of Physics. What happened then in the 50-60s was that scientists like Plass and others showed then and later that, no, nature was not taking the extra human released CO2 from the atmosphere so effectively, and that how the atmosphere absorbed the heat coming from the sun was not really know properly until then. So double oops, and then (only after indeed dropping a dogma such as thinking that nature or god was going to save us) we got the prediction that most scientists reported: that we were likely to expect in the near future an increase in CO2 that was going to warm the planet as it was know for ages. The difference is that from the 50’s on it was discovered that the natural sinks of CO2 were not as effective as thought, and how the heat actually reacted to CO2 in different layers of the atmosphere were not doing enough to prevent higher levels of increase in heat. > [@md2000](#): > > Plus, Mother Nature is far more capricious than mere mortals. The next ice age could start tomorrow or in 5,000 years. Not likely at all: > **[Human emissions just cancelled the next ice age. Here's why we should care.](https://www.edf.org/blog/2016/02/11/human-emissions-just-cancelled-next-ice-age-heres-why-we-should-care)** > > Humans have now so profoundly altered the future of the Earth that we’re affecting the lives of thousands of generations ahead of us. > [@md2000](#): > > The current much less active sunspot cycle(s) could herald a new Little ice Age, or it could be a blip. Already looked at, not enough to counter the warming and the worst is that we could be in a worse increase in heat if the sun spot activity was a normal one. > **[Explainer: Why the sun is not responsible for recent climate change - Carbon...](https://www.carbonbrief.org/why-the-sun-is-not-responsible-for-recent-climate-change/)** > > With a total solar eclipse sweeping across North America, everyone is suddenly paying attention to the sun, but does solar activity cause climate change? > [@md2000](#): > > The stupidity with which we treat our planet could mean we cancel out any of these effects should they actually occur. Who knows? At the rate we are going, time will tell. Well, I defer to the scientists, they know what the evidence says for a long time already, no faith or dogma needed. > **[Opinion | The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic (Published 2012)](https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html)** > > The average land temperature on earth has risen 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years — essentially all of it caused by human emission of greenhouses gases. > [@](#): > > CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause. > > My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2018, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-percentage-of-scientists-actually-support-anthropogenic-global-warming/821594/57 "2018-09-24T05:32:05Z")
Well, see, this is what I mean. The study you link to claiming that the ice age has been postponed is one study. Plus, it also explains new (?) the causes for the ice age, which to some extent is still debatable. Are CO2 levels a driver or effect of ice ages? I have no doubt whatever we have already done to the world climate has profound effects, and most likely has cancelled the next ice age for the next few hundred years to millennia, but - the climate is vastly unpredictable, and millennia-long trends even more so. Everything beyond the fact that we have truly screwed up the earth is somewhat debatable. There’s room for plenty more studies, some pro- some con- before we can be sure how reliable this sort of data is. The sunspot article simply mentions that global warming is related to CO2 levels not sun output. I don’t think I’ve seen anything solid explaining how the various sunspot cycles - Maunder minimum, Sporer, Oort, Wolff - cause cool climate; and the current low activity sunspot cycle came as a complete surprise to scientists. The short answer is - we know a lot less than we think; but I’ll agree with you that that is no reason to ignore the obvious problems we are creating. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2018, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-percentage-of-scientists-actually-support-anthropogenic-global-warming/821594/58 "2018-09-24T06:34:34Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > Well, yes, but it goes back to my point - that a scientist may have very good technical knowledge of his field - biology, climate, physics, or engineering - but unless they have related learning and study things carefully, their knowledge of other fields is only slightly better than the guy in the corner coffee shop. (As, IIRC, Linus Pauling proved with vitamin C; or consider the cold fusion debate). Nobel laureates have been misled into eugenics or IQ debates just as much as anyone else.; perhaps worse, as some have the blindness born of arrogance. This is something the politicians certainly need to keep in mind when selecting advisors. “Knowledge of other fields” is irrelevant, as the purpose of organizations like the National Academies and the IPCC (for example) is to bring the best expertise in the relevant areas to bear in advising policymakers. To this end, both organizations have historically enlisted the input of experts from a broad array of disciplines. While clearly on matters of climate science one will tend to solicit the input of practicing climate scientists with pertinent areas of specialization, in related areas like impacts and mitigation the IPCC lead and contributing authors have been experts from a broad array of other fields, like biology and economics. Thus I don’t really see the point of your criticism. Besides, not that it matters, but in my experience scientists tend to have better critical thinking skills than the average person and a better appreciation for the scientific method. > [@md2000](#): > > Climate change science on both sides is full of denial and band-wagon know-nothings, perhaps as much represented by educated people as know-nots. There is a general feeling that anyone who disputes the tenets of the climate change faith will not get grants or honest peer reviews. This is unfortunate, because it shows honest evaluation has been replaced by dogma; and the true limits and progress of climate change needs careful analysis to determine what is really happening. Headline-grabbing cries of doom need to be balanced with serious analysis. That simply isn’t true. The flagrant climate change denier Willie Soon has no problem being employed by the Harvard-Smithsonian and attracting external grants (much of it from the oil and coal industry), and neither did his denialist colleague Sallie Baliunas, now retired. Richard Lindzen had no problem attracting grants, and was employed by no less prestigious an institution than MIT. Roy Spencer, another flagrant denialist and libertarian ideologue, continues to be employed as a research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville where he also runs the satellite radiometric temperature sensing center. There are many others. And shortly after Mann et al. published the landmark paper on temperature reconstructions in 1998, the deniers McIntyre and McKitrick were able to publish a criticism of it in the prestigious journal _Nature_, despite neither of them having any background in climate science. The idea that deniers are being “silenced” is a very common meme in denialist circles that I see all the time, and aside from being an empty argument I suspect it arises from the climate deniers’ perception that their favorite players are frequently ridiculed and deprived of a platform in the best journals. But to the extent that they are, it’s because their research is so awful, their data and methods so appallingly bad in an effort to twist them into preconceived conclusions. That’s where the dogma is, not in evidence-based science. > [@md2000](#): > > Plus, Mother Nature is far more capricious than mere mortals. The next ice age could start tomorrow or in 5,000 years. The current much less active sunspot cycle(s) could herald a new Little ice Age, or it could be a blip. The stupidity with which we treat our planet could mean we cancel out any of these effects should they actually occur. Who knows? At the rate we are going, time will tell. No, it couldn’t. For more than a million years, glaciation cycles have always been associated with low CO2 levels with a remarkable degree of precision and consistency, with levels falling to about 180 ppm at the peak of each ice age, and then rising again to between 280 and 300 ppm (never higher) at the peak of interglacials. Please explain how we’re going to get an ice age when CO2 levels are presently at over 400 ppm and rising so fast that we may hit 800 ppm by the end of the century. We’re in an entirely new climate regime that has never been seen in the history of the species _homo sapiens_, or indeed ever before. It’s not just an age of anthropogenic global warming, but a new regime that many are calling the Anthropocene – the Climate of Man – that may have permanently displaced the Holocene. To the extent that your “who knows?” comment is correct, who knows, indeed, just how badly we’ve disrupted the climate system. Time will tell whether we’re on track to destroying the entire thermohaline circulation and precipitating runaway melt of the polar ice cover. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2018, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-percentage-of-scientists-actually-support-anthropogenic-global-warming/821594/59 "2018-09-24T14:23:51Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > … > To the extent that your “who knows?” comment is correct, who knows, indeed, just how badly we’ve disrupted the climate system. Time will tell whether we’re on track to destroying the entire thermohaline circulation and precipitating runaway melt of the polar ice cover. As I said - there’s only one way to find out, and we’re about to find out. The real question is - how bad will it be? What will be the final climate patterns? Will excess heat result in excess cloud cover (cyclic negative feedback) and massive rainfalls, regular flooding? Or will the result be positive feed back and a desert world? All the educated guesses in the world are just that - guesses. We have no idea what exactly will happen except that it’s a good bet things will be severely disrupted one way or another. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2018, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-percentage-of-scientists-actually-support-anthropogenic-global-warming/821594/60 "2018-09-24T15:16:34Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > Well, see, this is what I mean. The study you link to claiming that the ice age has been postponed is one study. Nope, there was an early one made in 2013 and was mentioned by Cecil: > **[What effect will global warming have on the next ice age?](https://www.straightdope.com/21344323/what-effect-will-global-warming-have-on-the-next-ice-age)** > [@](#): > > Modern humans managed to survive the last ice age, but the experience was brutal. The epicanthic eye folds, flatter facial features, and compact bodies typical of today’s east Asians are thought to be the result of having been trapped behind the glaciers. Unprotected eyes, prominent noses, and long limbs were an invitation to frostbite and death. > > The entirety of what we now think of as civilization was created during the current interglacial — in the grand scheme, an astonishingly short period of time. The thought that this hospitable era was drawing to a close gave scientists of the time the willies. Yeah, we’d gotten through it before, and we’d get through it again. But cheezit, at what cost — back to the caves? > > Thanks to global warming (yay!), we can now put this grim prospect behind us. In a 2013 report, the National Climate Assessment and Development Advisory Committee, convened by the U.S. Department of Commerce, declared that “humans have so altered the composition of the atmosphere that the next glaciation has now been delayed indefinitely.” > > So fine. We, and not untrammeled nature, now control our destiny. That’s not necessarily good. The study you claimed that it was just “one study” was not that, and I have seen other science groups agreeing with that. > [@md2000](#): > > Plus, it also explains new (?) the causes for the ice age, which to some extent is still debatable. Are CO2 levels a driver or effect of ice ages? It does both. [https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/2014/06/20/how-do-co2-levels-relate-to-ice-ages-and-sea-level/](https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/2014/06/20/how-do-co2-levels-relate-to-ice-ages-and-sea-level/) > [@](#): > > In a recent comment, a reader posted a graphic in which CO2 and sea-level rise appear to be correlated throughout the last 700,000 years. While these two factors do appear to rise and fall together, what drives these two factors over the period of 700,000 years is very different from those over the last 50 – 100 years. As a result, this correlation is not a reliable guide to the cause and effect relationship between CO2 and sea-level rise in recent years. > > Until the Industrial Revolution, melting of snow and ice at the end of cyclical glacial periods was driven by changes in the Earth’s orbit. As snow and ice melted on the planet, the albedo, or reflectivity, of the earth declined, with land and ocean absorbing more heat from the sun (think the reflectivity of cars in a parking lot versus the hot blacktop of the parking lot itself). As the planet slowly warmed, a warmer and better-mixed ocean released CO2 into the atmosphere, which amplified the warming that was already in progress. In all, temperature typically increased by 6°C (11° F) over thousands of years during these interglacial periods, and one third of this increase was a result of the CO2 that outgassed from the ocean once warming began. Therefore, CO2 was not the initial cause of melting ice on the planet. It merely amplified a signal that was already in progress. > > By contrast, as humans burn fossil fuels, we are creating a new driver of snow and ice melt and accompanying sea-level rise. This time, additional CO2 entering the atmosphere is coming from sources of carbon that had previously been sequestered in fuels such as oil and gas. [snip] > [@md2000](#): > > The short answer is - we know a lot less than we think; but I’ll agree with you that that is no reason to ignore the obvious problems we are creating. Uh, not really to that “we know a lot less than we think”, while we don’t know all, we do know enough to know that we have to mitigate the expected effects and to reduce our carbon emissions. [QUOTE] It's true that Earth's a massive jigsaw puzzle, with lots of pieces intricately fitting together. But, Richard Alley argues, we already know enough to see the Big Picture. The missing pieces of scientific understanding - exactly how clouds work, how extreme weather will change with global warming - are important, but we can already see how Earth works. [/QUOTE] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-percentage-of-scientists-actually-support-anthropogenic-global-warming/821594.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-percentage-of-scientists-actually-support-anthropogenic-global-warming/821594.md?page=4)