You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
-Short Attention Span Theater-
Surveyed scientists agree global warming is real
2009-01-20
Human-induced global warming is real, according to a recent U.S. survey based on the opinions of 3,146 scientists. However there remains divisions between climatologists and scientists from other areas of earth sciences as to the extent of human responsibility.

Against a backdrop of harsh winter weather across much of North America and Europe, the concept of rising global temperatures might seem incongruous.

However the results of the investigation conducted at the end of 2008 reveal that vast majority of the Earth scientists surveyed agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.

The study released today was conducted by academics from the University of Illinois, who used an online questionnaire of nine questions. The scientists approached were listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.

Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.

Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement.

"The petroleum geologist response is not too surprising, but the meteorologists' is very interesting," said Peter Doran associate professor of earth and environmental sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and one of the survey's authors.

"Most members of the public think meteorologists know climate, but most of them actually study very short-term phenomenon."

However, Doran was not surprised by the near-unanimous agreement by climatologists.

"They're the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it.

"The debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes," said Doran.
Of course.
Posted by:gorb

#15  Actually OP, it's worse than that.

Mankind's contribution to the global output of CO2 every year is less than 1/3 of 1%.

Then, when you factor in the fact that CO2 isn't a poison, it's a nutrient, well the whole thing starts to get pretty silly. There are far more plants consuming CO2 than there are people creating it, even counting Al Gore and his $4,000 a month electric bill.
Posted by: DLR   2009-01-20 23:58  

#14  The survey says 3146 "scientists" participated in the survey. How many were actually scientists that had any degree of understanding of macroclimatology? My bet would be 2-3 AT MOST. SEPP gave a list of 10,000 scientists, including more than 2200 climatologists and atmospheric physicists, who had signed a petition claiming anthropogenic global warming was a hoax. Theories based on the solar cycle, sunspot activity, and the electromagnetic fields of the Earth and the Sun have proven significantly more reliable in predicting surface temperatures, and capable of explaining past warmings and coolings, which have existed as long as the Earth has. Those "scientists" who have tied their careers to manmade global warming are beginning to realize that they've climbed out on a very rotten limb, and others are rapidly sawing through it. Fred Singer said it best: "how can manmade global warming be real when it's based upon increases to atmospheric carbon dioxide? Man's contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide accounts for 2% of all CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 accounts for about 4% of all greenhouse gasses. It's not feasible that 2% of 4% of ANYTHING could totally dominate the earth's atmospheric physics, as manmade global warming claimants insist."
Posted by: Old Patriot   2009-01-20 18:02  

#13  the take-home message is, the more you profit from know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it.

fixed it for ya.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2009-01-20 13:49  

#12  One key question they left out is this:
How much of global warming (if it exists) is due to human activity and how much to other processes?

Man may very well be A cause, but not THE cause, or perhaps not even a primary cause, and still generate the answers they got. (Though I do buy the grant whore hypothesis too.)
Posted by: Glenmore   2009-01-20 13:12  

#11  Chicken Little is certainly an appropriate image for this story.
Posted by: Iblis   2009-01-20 12:21  

#10  New guy coming in. Gotta grease the grant money skids palms.

There, fixed it for you tu.
Posted by: AlanC   2009-01-20 12:06  

#9  New guy coming in. Gotta grease the grant money skids.
Posted by: tu3031   2009-01-20 10:06  

#8  They didn't ask the key question which is,

"Have temperatures risen enough that we should worry about them, now or in the future."
Posted by: phil_b   2009-01-20 09:34  

#7  Importantly, even if you distinguish between weather and climate, climate data is almost exclusively provided by three source providers: NASA and its subsidiary GISS, and NOAA. And all three are not just agenda driven, but reliant on each others data. An inc*stuous relationship.

A superb example of this is the infamous "Mann hockey stick" fraud, which repeatedly uses the meme of, "supported by a dozen independent studies". Not so independent after all, if you check out the authors of the studies:

Briffa et al [2001] with coauthor Jones
Jones et al [1998] with coauthor Briffa
Jones and Mann [2004]
Mann and Jones [2004]
Mann, Bradley and Hughes [1998, 1999]
Bradley and Jones [1993]
Hughes and Diaz [1994]
Bradley, Hughes and Diaz [2003]

The bottom line is that a small cabal is responsible for self-supporting data. 'A' creates a study that is confirmed by 'B'. 'B' creates a study that is confirmed by 'A' and 'C'. Then 'B' and 'C' creates a study confirmed by 'A'.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2009-01-20 09:32  

#6  If Global warming is real, why is it so goddamned cold?
Posted by: bigjim-ky   2009-01-20 09:11  

#5  Study from Univ of Ill- CHICAGO == stuff the ballot box..
Posted by: Tom- Pa   2009-01-20 08:49  

#4  Human-induced global warming is real, according to a recent U.S. survey based on the opinions of 3,146 scientists. However there remains divisions between climatologists and scientists from other areas of earth sciences as to the extent of human responsibility.

As meaningful as asking proctologist his 'expert' opinion on a particular brain surgery protocol.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2009-01-20 08:44  

#3  I wonder.... how many climatologists existed prior to Global Warming.

Would they even exist without Global Warming?
Posted by: CrazyFool   2009-01-20 08:40  

#2  "I agree. Can I have my grant, now?"

/grant whores
Posted by: Frank G   2009-01-20 08:03  

#1  The debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the funding process and the warm feelings that it endows.
Posted by: Spike Uniter   2009-01-20 07:47  

00:00