[www.guardian.co.uk]

"A survey of thousands of peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals has found 97.1% agreed that climate change is caused by human activity.

Authors of the survey, published on Thursday in the journal Environmental Research Letters, said the finding of near unanimity provided a powerful rebuttal to climate contrarians who insist the science of climate change remains unsettled.

The survey considered the work of some 29,000 scientists published in 11,994 academic papers. Of the 4,000-plus papers that took a position on the causes of climate change only 0.7% or 83 of those thousands of academic articles, disputed the scientific consensus that climate change is the result of human activity, with the view of the remaining 2.2% unclear.

The study described the dissent as a "vanishingly small proportion" of published research.

"Our findings prove that there is a strong scientific agreement about the cause of climate change, despite public perceptions to the contrary," said John Cook of the University of Queensland, who led the survey.

Public opinion continues to lag behind the science. Though a majority of Americans accept the climate is changing, just 42% believed human activity was the main driver, in a poll conducted by the Pew Research Centre last October.

"There is a gaping chasm between the actual consensus and the public perception," Cook said in a statement.

The study blamed strenuous lobbying efforts by industry to undermine the science behind climate change for the gap in perception. The resulting confusion has blocked efforts to act on climate change."

Earth Science
97% of Climate Science Papers Agree Global Warming Is Man-made
Posted by Soulskill on Friday May 17, 2013 @10:16AM
from the but-it-was-cold-outside-yesterday dept.
An anonymous reader writes "A meta-study published yesterday looked at over 12,000 peer-reviewed papers on climate science that appeared in journals between 1991 and 2011. The papers were evaluated and categorized by how they implicitly or explicitly endorsed humans as a contributing cause of global warming. The meta-study found that an overwhelming 97.1% of the papers that took a stance endorsed human-cause global warming. They also asked the 1,200 of the scientists involved in the research to self-evaluate their own studies, with nearly identical results. In the interest of transparency, the meta-study results were published in an open access journal, and the researchers set up a website so that anybody can check their results. From the article: '... a memo from communications strategist Frank Luntz leaked in 2002 advised Republicans, "Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate." This campaign has been successful. A 2012 poll from U.S. Pew Research Center found less than half of Americans thought scientists agreed humans were causing global warming. The media has assisted in this public misconception, with most climate stories "balanced" with a "skeptic" perspective. However, this results in making the 2–3% seem like 50%. In trying to achieve "balance," the media has actually created a very unbalanced perception of reality. As a result, people believe scientists are still split about what's causing global warming, and therefore there is not nearly enough public support or motivation to

I know we have surrenderd common sense long ago, But if you have ever taken a flight around the planet you would know how small she is and would know that 12 million barrels of oil a day into our atmosphere is suicide.
We do have the freedumb to put our heads back in the sand.

Global warming folks should hang their heads in shame,
They have caused decades of set backs to address this insanity of death by oil.

the secret is in the hot pepper making the climate hot and melting the ice

riverhousebill Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Earth Science
> 97% of Climate Science Papers Agree Global Warming
> Is Man-made
> Posted by Soulskill on Friday May 17, 2013
> @10:16AM
> from the but-it-was-cold-outside-yesterday dept.
> An anonymous reader writes "A meta-study published
> yesterday looked at over 12,000 peer-reviewed
> papers on climate science that appeared in
> journals between 1991 and 2011. The papers were
> evaluated and categorized by how they implicitly
> or explicitly endorsed humans as a contributing
> cause of global warming. The meta-study found that
> an overwhelming 97.1% of the papers that took a
> stance endorsed human-cause global warming. They
> also asked the 1,200 of the scientists involved in
> the research to self-evaluate their own studies,
> with nearly identical results. In the interest of
> transparency, the meta-study results were
> published in an open access journal, and the
> researchers set up a website so that anybody can
> check their results. From the article: '... a memo
> from communications strategist Frank Luntz leaked
> in 2002 advised Republicans, "Should the public
> come to believe that the scientific issues are
> settled, their views about global warming will
> change accordingly. Therefore, you need to
> continue to make the lack of scientific certainty
> a primary issue in the debate." This campaign has
> been successful. A 2012 poll from U.S. Pew
> Research Center found less than half of Americans
> thought scientists agreed humans were causing
> global warming. The media has assisted in this
> public misconception, with most climate stories
> "balanced" with a "skeptic" perspective. However,
> this results in making the 2–3% seem like 50%.
> In trying to achieve "balance," the media has
> actually created a very unbalanced perception of
> reality. As a result, people believe scientists
> are still split about what's causing global
> warming, and therefore there is not nearly enough
> public support or motivation to
>
> I know we have surrenderd common sense long ago,
> But if you have ever taken a flight around the
> planet you would know how small she is and would
> know that 12 million barrels of oil a day into our
> atmosphere is suicide.
> We do have the freedumb to put our heads back in
> the sand.
>
> Global warming folks should hang their heads in
> shame,
> They have caused decades of set backs to address
> this insanity of death by oil.

Wow, you snuck in another "Man-Made" Global Warming thread on me. I thought we had laid that to rest in the Other Topics board when no-one replied to my global warming post. I love debatng the subject, so I'll go check out my Global Warming file and get back to you.

But just off the top of my head - I guess you didn't get the memo that it's a fact that yes, CO2 has increased, but lo and behold, we haven't gotten the global warming they had been expecting it to bring, so all the alarmists are backing away from the global warming scare-mongering. Except for the died-in-the-wool close-minded deniers - they're still insisting that 'man-made' global warming is for real.

You guys who can't give up the ghost are the real 'deniers' --

The Real Deniers of Climate Change

Foolish doom-criers stand fast despite a chill

[www.washingtontimes.com]

"With each passing year, it is becoming increasingly clear that global warming is not a scientific theory subject to empirical falsification, but a political ideology that has to be fiercely defended against any challenge. It is ironic that skeptics are called “deniers” when every fact that would tend to falsify global warming is immediately explained away by an industry of denial."

*****************

The New Climate Deniers

The world hasn’t warmed since 1998, and those obsessed with “climate change” are ignoring it.

[www.nationalreview.com]

"There are few things sadder than the “climate denier.” He ignores the data and neglects the latest science. His rhetoric and policy proposals are dangerously disconnected from reality. He can’t recalibrate to take account of the latest evidence because, well, he’s a denier.

The new climate deniers are the liberals who, despite their obsession with climate change, have managed to miss the biggest story in climate science, which is that there hasn’t been any global warming for about a decade and a half.

“Over the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar,” The Economist writes. “The world added roughly 100 billion tons of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750.” Yet, no more warming."

Acid oceans DISSOLVING sea life

alert
print

British Antarctic Survey says CO2 the villain behind bad news for tiny snails

By Simon Sharwood, APAC Editor • Get more from this author

Posted in Science, 26th November 2012 02:42 GMT

The shells of tiny sea snails called pteropods, or “sea butterflies”, are dissolving thanks to the acidification of sea water brought about to increasing levels of CO2 in the ocean, according to researchers from the British Antarctic Survey BAS).

A letter in Nature Geoscience titled Extensive dissolution of live pteropods in the Southern Ocean details the research, which according to BAS saw researchers examine “... an area of upwelling, where winds cause cold water to be pushed upwards from the deep to the surface of the ocean.” Such areas are of interest because their waters are “... usually more corrosive to a particular type of calcium carbonate (aragonite) that pteropods use to build their shells.”

A “saturation horizon” of 1000 metres is usually the depth at which ocean water becomes sufficiently corrosive to damage pteropod shells, but the sample taken by researchers came from just 200 metres down reached the same level of acidity.

BAS says “as a result of the additional influence of ocean acidification, this corrosive water severely dissolved the shells of pteropods.”

The paper and BAS go on to point the finger at anthropogenic CO2 as the reason for the extra acidity at 200 metres down.

BAS science cruise leader and a co-author of the paper, Dr Geraint Tarling, says “upwelling sites are natural phenomena that occur throughout the Southern Ocean” but adds his belief that “instances where they bring the ‘saturation horizon’ above 200m will become more frequent as ocean acidification intensifies in the coming years.”

Quite how he can make that prediction isn't made clear, but another co-author, The University of East Anglia's Dr Dorothee Bakker, says “Climate models project a continued intensification in Southern Ocean winds throughout the 21st century if atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to increase. In turn, this will increase wind-driven upwelling and potentially make instances of deep water — which is under-saturated in aragonite – penetrating into the upper ocean more frequent.” That could mean the saturation horizon rising even further in the future.

If that comes to pass, it's potentially bad news for pteropods and the other creatures that depend on their niche in the food chain. Of course there's plenty of room in what's been revealed about this study for sceptics to work with, too. A single upwelling does not a global threat make, and we all know how contentious climate mod




Well Kidraw you are one of the 3 percent left in the scientific world that thinks its not happening.
Kidraw wrote
CO2 has increased, but lo and behold, we haven't gotten the global warming they had been expecting it to bring, so all the alarmists are backing away from the global warming

Explain away Keeling curve data.

KIDRAW im with the 97 percent on this one.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/18/2013 12:25AM by riverhousebill.

Sorry to have to tell you, but it looks like your study on the "97% Consensus" is a fraud, Panchito --

Exposed: Academic Fraud in new Climate Science Consensus Claim

[principia-scientific.org]

"Authors of a new climate science consensus study trumpeted by mainstream media hacks for “proving” that most scientists blame humans for global warming are today being accused of fakery. Uproar ensued just days after publication of a controversial paper, ‘Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature.‘

Experts whose work was cited in the paper by lead author, John Cook (pictured) are aghast that their work has been used to justify far-fetched claims that there exists a "97% consensus" among scientists regarding human-caused global warming. Among those upset scientists cited in the new paper is Dr. Craig Idso. Idso reacted: “That is not an accurate representation of my paper.”

Nonetheless, key authors, John Cook and Dana Nuccitelli, are unashamedly taking the plaudits from pro-green news outlets that are citing their paper as justification for draconian carbon taxation policies. California's KPBS proclaims the study a “survey of the work of almost 30,000 scientists” which has “found 97% of published papers agree human activity is the cause of climate change. “

Mr. Cook, who owns and runs the controversial and confusingly named alarmist blog, Skeptical Science, is Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland, Australia. His paper, appearing in the journal "Environmental Research Letters" has added real irony for its claim that there really is "a striking discrepancy between public perception and reality."

But as more independent analysts look into Cook's claims the less reliable they seem. Another scientist quick to report being misrepresented by the new study is Dr. Nicola Scafetta who spoke of the “ utter dishonesty” at work. While Dr. Nir J. Shaviv of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, when asked whether Cook's study reliably reported his paper, replied “Nope… it is not an accurate representation.”

Now Cook's “97% consensus” study is being met by a backlash from the very heart of European green policy. Once solidly pro-green Germany sees its flagship news magazine, Spiegel Online, quick to throw cold water over Cook's claims.

Nonetheless, in the United States it's climate alarmist business as usual in the Whitehouse. President Barack Obama this week was again turning the heat up. The President's new “Call Out the Climate Change Deniers” website is hard at work trying to sell the myth that opposition to climate alarmism among scientists is “vanishingly small.” Such assertions fly in the face of the fact tens of thousands of American scientists are actively on record as condemnatory of such junk climate. As many correctly point out, you will see that by comparison there is only a miniscule number of climate scientists who have actually put names on record to assert humans are dangerously warming the climate.

Indeed, a U.S. Senate minority report demonstrates that if you contrast and compare the actual number of names of alarmist scientists on the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) versus those named scientists opposing the scam then the skeptics are “12 times the number of U.N. scientists who authored the official IPCC 2007 report."

And the skeptic naysayers are scientists of real pedigree. Among them are some of the world's best. Among them is a past winner of a Nobel Science Prize (unlike that Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the IPCC and Al Gore).

While in another instance, in late 2012, no less than 135 prominent scientists signed the Open Letter to UN Secretary Ban Ki Moon denouncing the climate fraud. Among the signatories are half a dozen linked to Principia Scientific International (PSI). PSI is a rising force in independent climate study and proclaims that carbon dioxide can only have a cooling effect on climate. Joining in opposition to the climate fraud are no less than 49 former NASA astronauts and engineers as well as the 30,000+ American scientists who signed the Oregon Petition."


***********

You might want to use more reliable sources so you don't end up on the wrong side of a fraudulent farce in future, Panchito and rhb.

Here's another article on the non-existent 97% consensus -

"Certainly “97% of scientists” is an impressive-sounding claim. But is it accurate? As we shall see, this supposed near unanimity of science evaporates like H2O over a Bunsen burner as soon as it is subjected to scrutiny."

Global Warming “Consensus”: Cooking the Books

[www.thenewamerican.com]

" “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree:#climate change is real, man-made and dangerous,” President Barack Obama tweeted last Thursday, May 16. (This proves it - we all know he's a liar)

The president was cheering on the media-drawn bandwagon for the latest round of global warming “consensus” puffery. John Cook, an Australian blogger/global warming activist, has President Obama and all the usual climate alarmists in academia, the media, and the Big Green NGOs twitterpated over his latest “research,” which purports to prove that the scientific world is virtually unanimous in declaring that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) — that is, human-caused global warming — is a dire and imminent existential threat.

Certainly “97% of scientists” is an impressive-sounding claim. But is it accurate? As we shall see, this supposed near unanimity of science evaporates like H2O over a Bunsen burner as soon as it is subjected to scrutiny.

“Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature” by John Cook and his team at the Global Change Institute, was published in Environmental Research Letters. Many of the headlines pointing to this study in newspapers, television news broadcasts, and Internet websites led with the same 97 percent claim, same as President Obama. Some of them were a bit more careful than others to qualify that figure based on what the study said, but it would still take a careful reader to recognize that they weren’t saying the same thing as the occupant of the White House.

The story by Rik Myslewski of the British newspaper The Register is a typical example. The Register’s main headline read: “Climate scientists agree: Humans cause global warming.” But sub-headline immediately beneath says: “Of those who have an opinion, over 97% say we're to blame.”

The crucial point here is the qualifying clause, “of those who have an opinion.” In other words, even the highly questionable Cook study doesn’t actually claim, as President Obama does, that “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree.” In fact, when examined closely, one finds that the study says only one-third of the authors of the published research papers they examined expressed an opinion that the Cook team interpreted as either an implicit or explicit endorsement of AGW. So now its 97 percent of one-third of selected scientists in a sampling of research papers. That’s a far cry from the 97 percent of all scientists claimed by President Obama and many of the media stories. And, as we will show below, even this admitted dramatically lower consensus claimed by the study is fraught with problems and falls apart further under examination.

Only 65 (!) Abstracts in Cook Study of 12,000 Strongly Endorse AGW!

On that question there is a wide divergence of opinion in the realist/skeptic community — just as there is also a similarly wide divergence among the AGW believer scientists. Blogger Brandon Shollenberger appears to have been the first to have uncovered the Big Secret of the Cook charade: When stripped down to the bare truth, the actual number of studies in the Cook sampling that can be said to endorse the position that human activity is responsible for most of the experienced global warming is — get ready for this (drum roll …) — sixty-five. Yes, 65, or around half a percent, not 97 percent! And this miniscule number of strong endorsers is actually less than the number of skeptical scientific papers included in the Cook study."

"Special mention should be made of the proper trashing of the Cook AGW propaganda by Spiegel Online, the German flagship news magazine, one of the few exceptions in the Big Media to subject Cook’s claims to critical examination, rather than merely regurgitating and amplifying his talking points.

Speigel reporter Axel Bojanowski hit on a number of key points, including another study by the University of Mainz in Germany that surveyed climate scientists and came up with decidedly different results than Cook. According to the Mainz survey, reports Bojanowski, “Only 59% of the scientists said the ‘climate development of the last 50 years was mostly influenced by man’s activity. One quarter of those surveyed said that human and natural factors played an equal role.’”

Moreover, as Bojanowski notes, scientific skepticism is even far more widespread when it comes to the reliability of the computer models that are being used to predict climate change. “Only 10% said climate models are ‘sufficiently accurate’ and only 15% said that ‘climatic processes are understood enough’ to allow climate to be calculated,” Bojanowski reported."

***********

(Read this part) -

The Media Should Have Been Skeptical

The so-called mainstream media should have been skeptical of the Cook study from the start. John Cook is well known for cooking the books when it comes to climate issues. Cook runs the blog site SkepticalScience, a deceptive misnomer, since he fanatically endorses and practices AGW alarmism and has failed to express the slightest skepticism regarding even the most outlandish catastrophic climate predictions. While not a climate scientist himself, Cook very unscientifically and unprofessionally disparages distinguished climate scientists who are skeptical of claims of catastrophic climate change. He calls the skeptics “deniers” and “denialists.” In 2011, Cook co-authored Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand with Haydn Washington. The “denier” label is a particularly vicious form of character assassination, attempting to link scientific AGW skepticism with Nazi Holocaust denial. The Cook book also claims that the scientists who disagree with AGW alarmism are part of the corrupt “denial industry funded by the fossil fuel companies that literally denies the science, and seeks to confuse the public.” (Does that sound familiar? LOL )

(There are also a lot of other great 'man-made' Global Warming Hoax articles at the end of this one, if you really want to get up to speed.)