Thanks for that. I wasn’t aware of the Anderegg survey.Yes, one...

First 60 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
jantimot

30,924 Posts.

174

17/09/19

14:34

Post #: 40452470
Share

Originally posted by Sidonicus1: ↑

Oreskes 2004 and PeiserA survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004). 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way (focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis).

Doran 2009Subsequent research has confirmed this result. A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what are most interesting are responses compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes. As the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures.

Anderegg 2010This overwhelming consensus among climate experts is confirmed by an independent study that surveys all climate scientists who have publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting the consensus. They find between 97% to 98% of climate experts support the consensus (Anderegg 2010). Moreover, they examine the number of publications by each scientist as a measure of expertise in climate science. They find the average number of publications by unconvinced scientists (eg - skeptics) is around half the number by scientists convinced by the evidence. Not only is there a vast difference in the number of convinced versus unconvinced scientists, there is also a considerable gap in expertise between the two groups.

And there are others. Most interesting for mine is the greater the expertise, the greater the consensus. Your sited example is literally data taken from 1 tree is it not? 1 tree????

Expand

Thanks for that. I wasn’t aware of the Anderegg survey.

Yes, one tree. One black swan was all that it took to disprove the statement that all swans are white. Northern hemisphere trees are used liberally to prove that the MWP occurred there. Southern hemisphere trees are ignored.
3 Upvote

Reply