Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.


Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe

Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...

New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts


The 97% consensus on global warming

What the science says...

Select a level... Basic Intermediate Advanced

97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.

Climate Myth...

There is no consensus

"[...] And I'll mention that the stat on the 97% of - of scientists is based on one discredited study." (Ted Cruz)

At a glance

What is consensus? In science, it's when the vast majority of specialists agree about a basic principle. Thus, astronomers agree that the Earth orbits around the Sun. Biologists accept that tadpoles hatch out from frog-spawn and grow into adult frogs. Almost all geologists agree that plate tectonics is real and you'd be hard-placed to find a doctor who thinks smoking is harmless.

In each above case, something has been so thoroughly looked into that those who specialise in its study have stopped arguing about its basic explanation. Nevertheless, the above examples were all once argued about, often passionately. That's how progress works.

The reaching of scientific consensus is the product of an often lengthy time-line. It starts with something being observed and ends with it being fully explained. Let's look at a classic and highly relevant example.

In the late 1700s, the Earth-Sun distance was calculated. The value obtained was 149 million kilometres. That's incredibly close to modern measurements. It got French physicist Joseph Fourier thinking. He innocently asked, in the 1820s, something along these lines:

"Why is Planet Earth such a warm place? It should be an ice-ball at this distance from the Sun."

Such fundamental questions about our home planet are as attractive to inquisitive scientists as ripened fruit is to wasps. Fourier's initial query set in motion a process of research. Within a few decades, that research had experimentally shown that carbon dioxide has heat-trapping properties.

Through the twentieth century the effort intensified, particularly during the Cold War. At that time there was great interest in the behaviour of infra-red (IR) radiation in the atmosphere. Why? Because heat-seeking missiles home in on jet exhausts which are IR hotspots. Their invention involved understanding what makes IR tick.

That research led to the publication of a landmark 1956 paper by Gilbert Plass. The paper's title was, “The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change”. It explained in detail how CO2 traps heat in our atmosphere. Note in passing that Plass used the term "Climatic Change" all the way back then. That's contrary to the deniers' frequent claim that it is used nowadays because of a recent and motivated change in terminology.

From observation to explanation, this is a classic illustration of the scientific method at work. Fourier gets people thinking, experiments are designed and performed. In time, a hypothesis emerges. That is a proposed explanation. It is made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

Once a hypothesis is proposed, it becomes subject to rigorous testing within the relevant specialist science groups. Testing ensures that incorrect hypotheses fall by the wayside, because they don't stand up to scrutiny. But some survive such interrogation. As their supporting evidence mounts up over time, they eventually graduate to become theories.

Theories are valid explanations for things that are supported by an expert consensus of specialists. Gravity, jet aviation, electronics, you name it, all are based on solid theories. They are known to work because they have stood the test of time and prolonged scientific inquiry.

In climate science today, there is overwhelming (greater than 97%) expert consensus that CO2 traps heat and adding it to the atmosphere warms the planet. Whatever claims are made to the contrary, that principle has been established for almost seventy years, since the publication of that 1956 landmark paper.

Expert consensus is a powerful thing. None of us have the time or ability to learn about everything/ That's why we frequently defer to experts, such as consulting doctors when we’re ill.

The public often underestimate the degree of expert consensus that our vast greenhouse gas emissions trap heat and warm the planet. That is because alongside information, we have misinformation. Certain sections of the mass-media are as happy to trot out the latter as the former. We saw a very similar problem during the COVID-19 pandemic and it cost many lives.

For those who want to learn more, a much longer detailed account of the history of climate science is available on this website.

Please use this form to provide feedback about this new "At a glance" section. Read a more technical version below or dig deeper via the tabs above!

Further details

We know full well that we don’t have the time or capacity to learn about everything, so we frequently defer to the conclusions of experts. Without experienced people using their expertise to perform many vital tasks – and without new people constantly entering such occupations – society would quickly disintegrate.

The same is true of climate change: we defer to the expert consensus of climate scientists. Indeed, public perception of the scientific consensus with regard to global warming has been found to be an important gateway into other enlightened climate-related attitudes - including policy support. 

Nine consensus studies

Let's take a look at summaries of the key studies, featured in the graphic above, into the degree of consensus. These have been based on analyses of large samples of peer-reviewed climate science literature or surveys of climate and Earth scientists. These studies are available online through e.g. Google Scholar. That slightly different methodologies reached very similar conclusions is a strong indicator that those conclusions are robust.

Oreskes 2004

In this pioneering paper, a survey was conducted into all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change', published between 1993 and 2003. The work showed that not a single paper, out of the 928 examined, rejected the consensus position that global warming is man-made. 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way.

Doran & Zimmerman 2009

A survey of 3,146 Earth scientists asked the question, "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what was most interesting was the type of response 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 actively-publishing climatologists responded yes. As the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures. The paper concludes:

"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely non-existent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists."

Anderegg et al. 2010

This study of 1,372 climate science researchers found that (i) 97–98% of the researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC) as outlined by the IPCC and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers. 

Cook et al. 2013

A Skeptical Science-based analysis of over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' and 'global warming', published between 1991 and 2011, found that over 97% of the papers taking a position on the subject agreed with the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of the project, the scientist authors were emailed and rated over 2,000 of their own papers. Once again, over 97% of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming agreed that humans are causing it.

Verheggen et al. 2014

Results were presented from a survey held among 1868 scientists studying various aspects of climate change, including physical climate, climate impacts, and mitigation. The survey was at the time unique in its size, broadness and level of detail. Consistent with other research, it was found that as the level of expertise in climate science grew, so too did the level of agreement on anthropogenic causation. 90% of respondents with more than 10 climate-related peer-reviewed publications (about half of all respondents), explicitly agreed with anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs) being the dominant driver of recent global warming. The respondents’ quantitative estimate of the GHG contribution appeared to strongly depend on their judgement or knowledge of the cooling effect of aerosols.

Stenhouse et al. 2014

In a survey of all 1,854 American Meteorological Society members with known e-mail addresses, achieving a 26.3% response rate, perceived scientific consensus was the strongest predictor of views on global warming, followed by political ideology, climate science expertise, and perceived organisational conflict.

Carlton et al 2015

Commenting that the extent to which non-climate scientists are skeptical of climate science had not so far been studied via direct survey, the authors did just that. They undertook a survey of biophysical scientists across disciplines at universities in the Big 10 Conference. Most respondents (93.6%) stated that mean temperatures have risen. Of the subset that agreed temperatures had risen, the following question was then asked of them: "do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" The affirmative response to that query was 96.66%.

Cook et al. 2016

In 2015, authors of the above studies joined forces to co-author a paper, “Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming”. Two key conclusions from the paper are as follows:

(i) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, somewhere between 90% and 100% of climate scientists agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists. (ii) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.

Lynas et al. 2021

In this paper, from a dataset of 88,125 climate-related peer-reviewed papers published since 2012, these authors examined a randomly-selected subset of 3000 such publications. They also used a second sample-weighted approach that was specifically biased with keywords to help identify any sceptical papers in the whole dataset. Twenty-eight sceptical papers were identified within the original dataset using that approach, as evidenced by abstracts that were rated as implicitly or explicitly sceptical of human-caused global warming. It was concluded that the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change, expressed as a proportion of the total publications, exceeds 99% in the peer reviewed scientific literature.

Myers et al. 2021

This study revisited the 2009 consensus among geoscientists, while exploring different ways to define expertise and the level of agreement among them. The authors sent 10,929 invitations to participate in the survey, receiving 2,780 responses. In addition, the number of scientific publications by these self-identified experts in the field of climate change research was quantified and compared to their survey response on questions about climate change. Perhaps not surprisingly, the study found that agreement on anthropogenic global warming was high at 91% to 100% and generally increases with expertise. Out of a group of 153 independently confirmed climate experts, 98.7% of those scientists agreed that the Earth is warming mostly because of human activities such as burning fossil fuels. Among the subset with the highest level of expertise, these being independently-confirmed climate experts who each published 20+ peer-reviewed papers on climate change between 2015 and 2019, there was 100% agreement.

Public Polls and Consensus

Opinion polls are not absolute in the same way as uncontestable scientific evidence but they nevertheless usefully indicate in which way public thinking is heading. So let's look at a couple taken 13 years apart. A 15-nation World Public Opinion Poll in 2009 PDF), with 13,518 respondents, asked, among other questions, “Is it your impression that among scientists, most think the problem is urgent and enough is known to take action?” Out of all responses, just 51% agreed with that. Worse, in six countries only a minority agreed: United States (38%), Russia (23%), Indonesia (33%), Japan (43%), India (48%), and Mexico (48%). Conversely, the two highest “agree” scores were among Vietnamese (69%) and Bangladeshis (70%) - perhaps unsurprisingly.

The two other options people had to choose from were that “views are pretty evenly divided” (24% of total respondents), or “most think the problem is not urgent, and not enough is known to take action“ (15%). American and Japanese respondents scored most highly on “views are pretty evenly divided” (43 and 44% respectively).

How such a pervasive misperception arose, regarding the expert consensus on climate change, is no accident. Regular readers of this website's resources will know that instead, it was another product of deliberate misinformation campaigning by individuals and organizations in the United States and other nations around the world. These are people who campaign against action to reduce carbon emissions because it suits their paymasters if we continue to burn as much as possible. 

Step forward to 2022 and the situation has perhaps improved, but there's still some way to go. A recent poll, Public Perceptions on Climate change (PDF), was conducted by the Policy Institute, based at King's College London, UK. It quizzed samples of just over 2,000 people from each of six countries (UK, Ireland, Norway, Poland, Italy and Germany). The survey asked the question: “To the best of your knowledge, what percentage of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening?” The following averages were returned: the UK sample thought 65%, the average of the whole survey was 68% and the highest was Ireland at 71%. Clearly, although public perception of expert consensus is growing, there's still plenty of room for strategies to communicate the reality and to shield people from the constant drip-feed of misinformation.

Expert and Public Consensus

Finally, let's consider the differences between expert and public consensus. Expert consensus is reached among those who have studied complex problems and know how to collect and work with data, to identify what constitutes evidence and evaluate it. This is demanding work requiring specific skill-sets and areas of expertise, preparation for which requires years of study and training. 

Public consensus, in contrast, tends to occur only when something is blindingly obvious. For example, a serial misinformer would struggle if they tried running a campaign denying the existence of owls. Everyone already knows that of course there are owls. There is public consensus because we see and hear owls, for real or on the TV or radio. But complex issues are more prone to the antics of misinformers. We saw examples of misinformation during the COVID pandemic, in some cases with lethal outcomes when misinformed people failed to take the risks seriously. There's a strong parallel with climate change: it is imperative we accept the expert consensus and not kick the can down the road until the realisation it is real becomes universal – but utterly inescapable.

Update May 1, 2024: Corrected a typo in the publication year for Plass (1956) in the at-a-glance section.

Last updated on 26 May 2023 by John Mason. View Archives

Printable Version  |  Offline PDF Version  |  Link to this page

Argument Feedback

Please use this form to let us know about suggested updates to this rebuttal.

Related Arguments

Further reading

Richard Black at the BBC investigates whether there is a bias against skepticism in the scientific community.

More on what we're talking about when we say "scientific consensus,"  in an essay founded on Denial101x and scientific literature: Scientific Consensus isn’t a “Part” of the Scientific Method: it’s a Consequence of it. (or via

Further viewing

The "Climate Denial Crock of the Week" video series examines the list of "32,000 leading skeptical scientists."

Naomi Oreskes gives a thorough presentation of the development of our scientific understanding of anthropogenic global warming:

Lead author John Cook explains the 2016 "Consensus on consensus" paper.

Here is a video summary of the various studies quantifying the scientific consensus on human-caused global warming, as well as the misinformation campaigns casting doubt on the consensus.


Many thanks to Joe Crouch for his efforts in tracking down scientific organizations endorsing the consensus as well as links to their public statements.


On 21 Jan 2012, we revised 'the skeptic argument' with a minor quote formatting correction.


Prev  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next

Comments 301 to 325 out of 908:

  1. Neo: "Would you please list just one study that is accepted by the consensus that contradicts AGW." Sure. Angstrom 1900. Of course, it has since been proven wrong... but it was accepted at the time. You won't find any recent 'accepted studies' which contradict AGW because AGW is an observed reality. It would be like having studies showing that water always runs uphill. Even 'skeptic' scientists like Richard Muller and Roy Spencer acknowledge that AGW is happening... they just question how much the total impact will be and/or the best way to handle it. That you think AGW is somehow in question, despite the fact that even 'skeptic' scientists will no longer make that claim, shows just how little you really know about the subject.
  2. Neo, I should clarify that I am interpreting "accepted" as "accepted as a reasonably scientifically sound study". Not a study that is "accepted as a theory that offers an alternative explanation to the warming". Mods, sorry for the double post.
  3. #287: My point was that the church had the consensus and they vigorously defended it to the detriment of science. Further, perhaps my analogy was a little too subtle, but to some, AGW has become its own religion. It has to be taken on faith. That's the problem with your analogy, Neo: "but to some." Upon what basis do you establish the value of a statement? For scientists, it's the science. For anyone who enjoys real, direct power, it may be whatever helps maintain and enhance that power. You, apparently, do not argue from science but rather from the representation of science in popular media. In other words, you rely on others for your understanding. If this is not true, bring on the attacks against the science. They are welcome. If it is true, it seems hypocritical to come to a place like this and use the ideas of others to blindly bludgeon at what those others think is false. At the very least, you end up being a sort of puppet--a being completely in the control of someone absent. I'd rather discuss the situation with the person pulling the strings. As others have suggested, take your arguments to the appropriate threads and engage in open-minded discussion. Who won't respect that kind of move? If you're not willing--willing--to learn, then expect to be ignored or ridiculed.
  4. Neo @297 said Further, perhaps my analogy was a little too subtle, but to some, AGW has become its own religion. It has to be taken on faith. If AGW has become a religion to some then it is taken on faith (by them), but that doesn't imply that it has to be, nor that it is by other people who accept AGW on more rational arguments. Everyone takes some aspect of the world "on trust" from others, the amount of human knowledge is too vast for any other way of living. Most people find quantum mechanics strange or counter-intuitive but all accept it on "faith" when they have an MRI scan. I wonder why you do not feel that quantum mechanics has also "become its own religion" - after all it is 30 years younger than Climate Change, and some scientists did not like it: Einstein: Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the "old one." I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice. If you dislike the idea of taking AGW "on trust" but wish to delve deeper, then I would echo the others who have responded; this website is a great resource for those with an open mind and genuine skepticism to evaluate the science behind AGW
  5. A general response to Neo Anderson @ 297, if you're still reading this thread: I'll forgo adding to what the others have ably dealt with and focus on this: "Further, perhaps my analogy was a little too subtle, but to some, AGW has become its own religion. It has to be taken on faith." Science is the focus on what is seen, measurable and testable. Climate Science, using the Scientific Method, looks at weather conditions averaged over a period of time. Faith, on the other hand, looks beyond the seen to the unseen, past the measurable to the immeasurable and puts the untestable to the test. So, given that climate change is an accepted fact, where does that leave those who would have us debate even the existence of gravity? For it is those in Denial that are most in demonstration of faith when it comes to matters of climate science, climate change and its human attribution. For they deny what is seen, measured and tested. Subtle, I am not. But undeniably faithful, The Yooper
  6. 308 Daniel, 297 Neo... "AGW has become its own religion. It has to be taken on faith." I do think this is a fascinating accusation and one people often use - and not just for AGW. My partner is an atheistic (normally people say non-confessional) theologian. To be clear, theology in the modern academic world is the study of religion, not the construct of dogma. I've had a chance to delve into the subject and discuss with other theologians as well; and never do they define a religion as being anything to do with taking anything of faith. Further, I have a reasonable background in philosophy and the history and philosophy of science - and it's pretty clear that there is no sharp boundary between the epistemology of science, religion or just about any realm of human knowledge. They are all social constructs of knowledge, use evidence and reason to varying degrees and in varying ways, individuals have to take some knowledge on trust or authority, other knowledge through traditional experience, other through sophisticated experimentation etc. etc. Clearly and obviously the methodologies of science can differ to those of religion, or history, or the construct of a shopping list, or deciding who to marry. No one, these days, can draw clear distinctions between realms of knowledge based on epistemology and methodology alone. Various scholars do have their favorite "essential" attribute for science/religion, but there is no consensus - theology being, in it's own way a science. I shan't go into those, suffice to say that - in the professional world - it's a brave person who points the finger and says "that is/isn't a religion" over and above those which are commonly designated as such. ... A brave person or, indeed, an foolish one.
  7. Bruce Frykman @310, having studied both theology and science, I can confidently tell you that your theology is not better than your science - which is deplorable. In neither field does simple declaration make something true. In theology, the source of truth is a 'revelation' from a divine source, which is closely studies to determine which theological view most closely conforms to it. If a theological theory does not conform to the revelation, it is thereby refuted. In science, the only 'revelation' is observation. Scientists have the advantage over theologians in that they can multiply observation by experiment; thus quickly determining which of even subtly different theories are true. Modern scientists have a further advantage of a centuries old tradition in this practice, and a very competitive framework in which reputations are made by showing somebody else has made a mistake. In that environment, the natural conclusion when a theory commands a consensus is that the theory cannot be shown to be a mistake, and that no rival theory can claim the same virtue. We all, including you, acknowledge this in our everyday lives. We believe the Earth orbits the sun even though most of us could not tell us why that is true. We believe Newton's laws of motion even though our everyday appearance appears to contradict that, because there is a scientific consensus behind the theories. We believe that man walked on the moon. Well most of us do. Some of us would rather develop conspiracy theories than either accept the scientific consensus or seriously examine the claims of the scientists. In most areas, we call the people who won't accept the science kooks, and ignore them. In climate science we have their opinions thrust daily in our face by an industry funded PR campaign. Of course, we accept the consensus view of science because we know (and I have checked) that it is based on observation, not simple declaration. In that it contrasts sharply with the views of the kooks deniers who base their objections on simple assertion. As to how the deniers are to be dealt with? My hope is that we will persuade the world of the truth as soon as possible. In that case, the deniers will simply be dealt with by derision.
  8. Wouldn't it be more honest to say that 97% of all people who make a career out of the idea that man's behavior must conform to that required by the same politicians who fund their careers. What are the career prospects for deniers within the EPA? Are their any job openings for research leading to the concept that were are spending to much treasure studying climate?
    Response: [muoncounter] Please lose the ideological bias if you want to be taken seriously. Unless you can substantiate the statement in your first paragraph, it must be considered purely an opinion; it is also a borderline accusation (which violates the Comment Policy).
  9. 311 Frykman - Do you have any evidence for that or is it just speculation or just a hollow - and rather over done, by now - polemic? In my limited experience of folks working in relevant disciplines is that they are interested in things like climate, ice caps, satellites, etc. And apply their academic interests to what ever is interesting. it's not a great career choice - little money, few academic positions etc. same as most sciences. But if you have evidence to back up your thoughts, lets have them... ... that or a retraction; if you're man enough.
  10. RE: "lose the ideological bias" I apologize, please strike the word "honest" from 311 and substitute the word "accurate"
    Response: [muoncounter] No difference. A fact-free argument is usually the hallmark of a troll. Please peddle that soap elsewhere; no one's buying it here.
  11. Bruce Frykman - That word substitution does not change the core of your post: that scientists are conforming to political opinion/pressure rather than doing honest science. I consider it (although I'm not a moderator) well outside the limits of the Comments Policy. Most of the political pressure in the US over the last decade or so has been to deny anthropogenic global warming, not to promote it. And yet the science has continued, and the evidence is even more solid now than a decade ago. Unless you have evidence of such political kow-towing, you are making wholly unsupported accusations. It's obnoxious, outside the comments policy of this site - and utterly unconvincing.
  12. Bruce Frykman, if you have anything at all to back-up your accusations, why don't you show it. Any links to evidence or facts at all ? Or do you only have your own personal and ideological prejudices and bias ? If you have no evidence, I'm sure you'll be man enough to come back and admit it...
  13. RE: Les - 312 "Do you have any evidence for that [politicization or careerism as a driver of climate science] or is it just speculation or just a hollow - and rather over done, by now - polemic? This is a target rich environment; I have proposed that the political authorities who fund climate science do not countenance appeals for funds to examine the proposition that human freedom is deleterious of the earth's climate. My primary support of this is the near certain fact that any such funding is either minuscule or non-existent. I look forward to your refutation of my proposition. If you would like just one tangible example of political control of climate science, I would refer you to Dr Chis Landsea's resignation from the IPCC after politically appointed authorities put his name to the proposition that man's activities modulated both the frequency and severity of Atlantic hurricanes. Dr Landsea found no evidence to support such a claim, so his name was in fact fraudulently attributed to a proposition he would never have supported. This was not simply a mistake which would have been forgivable; when Dr Landsea asked the IPCC to redact the error they would not. We thus at least have some evidence that at one time at least some members of the IPCC were both honest and trustworthy to the extent they would not tolerate fraud committed in their name. I believe Dr Landsea is now classified by IPCC supporters as "a denier" Space and time prohibits me from listing the hundreds of similar assaults on integrity by the political process supporting AGW science.
  14. Bruce Frykman - "Space and time prohibits me from listing the hundreds of similar assaults on integrity by the political process supporting AGW science." Space and time? Or lack of actual content? Landsea didn't provide evidence regarding his claims as far as I can tell; if you have any, please provide it. As to your other assertions - no evidence presented means just that, nothing to take seriously. Assertions without evidence can and will be dismissed without evidence.
    Response: [DB] Fixed text.
  15. RE: KR - 314 RE: "That word substitution does not change the core of your post: that scientists are conforming to political opinion/pressure rather than doing honest science." ( -Innuendo into character snipped- ) ( -Innuendo into character snipped- ) I do hope that you will take this opportunity to disabuse me of my impressions in this regard. ( -Ideological/political statements snipped- ) RE: "I consider it (although I'm not a moderator) well outside the limits of the Comments Policy." ( -Moderation complaints and ideological statements snipped- ) Tom Curtis - 310 "I can confidently tell you that your [my] theology is not better than your [my] science - which is deplorable." ( -Moderation complaints and ideological statements snipped- ) RE: KR at 14:37 PM on 13 April, 2011 "Space and time? Or lack of actual content?" The former, space and time. RE: "Landsea didn't provide evidence regarding his claims as far as I can tell;" Do you have evidence that Dr Landsea didn't have evidence? Silly argumentation isn't it. Please read Dr Landsea's letter of resignation and tell me why Dr Landsea needs to provide you more proof of what he said is what he said. Oh, finally is Dr Landsea now a "kook" or a "denier?"
    Response: [DB] Adherence to the Comments Policy is NOT optional. Further perambulations, both off-topic and ideological, will cause comments to be summarily deleted.
  16. Bruce. Bizarre I am sorry. In science you only get advancement and recognition by doing something different. If you found replacement for current theory of climate that got human's off the hook, then a noble prize awaits you. You also seem to have the mistaken idea that funding is for "pro" and not "anti". In fact funding is for finding out what we dont know and the funders of science (unlike SPPI, Koch, Cato etc) are indifferent to what the outcome of the research is. Your assumptions sir are flawed.
  17. Bruce, When you are sick, I presume you go to a doctor. Why not simply consult a bright engineer friend who reads about medicine as a hobby? After all, doctors are paid to heal illness; there are clear monetary pressures at play. They also possess the same "human weaknesses that the rest of us do." Why then should anyone bother listening to doctors at all? This is not a question of "are scientists perfect", it is a choice between opposing viewpoints. You can choose to listen to a) political pundits / bloggers / industry spokesman or b) scientists. Instead of telling us why we should not choose option b, how about you explain why you think option a is the more rational choice?
  18. RE: # scaddenp at 15:17 PM on 13 April, 2011 RE: "If you found replacement for current theory of climate that got human's off the hook, then a noble prize awaits e of you." The assumption you are making is that politically funded science is presumed to be of noble purpose. ( -Snip- ) RE: "You also seem to have the mistaken idea that funding is for "pro" and not "anti". In fact funding is for finding out what we dont know and the funders of science (unlike SPPI, Koch, Cato etc) are indifferent to what the outcome of the research is." ( -Snip- ) RE: "Your assumptions sir are flawed." This is simply cheap characterization lacking any proof.....Sir.
    Response: [DB] Political/ideological statements A-R-E-N-O-T-O-K. Discussion of the science = OK. Be advised: Last warning. Sir.
  19. Bruce >"My primary support of this is the near certain fact that any such funding is either minuscule or non-existent. I look forward to your refutation of my proposition." >"Oh, finally is Dr Landsea now a "kook" or a "denier?"" Oops, I think you just scored an own goal. Your argument was that skeptics are pressured out or unfunded by the government, but then you went and posted a link that shows a) Landsea is still in the employ of the government and b) listing the extensive research Landsea has been able to perform since since his IPCC resignation letter. What point are you trying to make again? If your argument is specifically about the IPCC, then please take it to one of the multiple IPCC threads listed here. This thread is about general consensus among climate scientists.
  20. 316 Frykman "My primary support of this is the near certain fact that any such funding is either minuscule or non-existent. I look forward to your refutation of my proposition." Ammeter time in argumentation, I see. Make a vague statement that something ill defined doesn't exist and ask for it to be refuted? You will really have to raise your game if you want to engage here. To help you do that I suggest you look at a certain Mr. PoopDrecks list of "anti-AGW publications". The reason to do this is that what you'll find is that the whole idea is totally meaningless in reality. The reality of the practice of science is no one has ever had a grant or got a job to prove or disprove AGW. Working scientist - which I'd hazard you have absolutely no experience of - get jobs and grants (public funding, at least) to go measure things, do analysis, build models; which reflect and improve our understanding of reality - another thing I'd hazard you are a stranger to. If you find a public funded grant which sets out to prove or disprove an ideology - that would be a bad thing and should be queried. That's been tried here and there - see, for example, Cucinelli V Mann - and, to date, has failed. The failure of such law suites is, so far as it goes, a legal refutation of your proposition. However, none of that applies to private funding, as for example the funding of the Koch brothers - which is targeted specifically at people who promise, although may fail, to disprove AGW. I've no doubt that's a waste of typing. And, unless you take advice and raise your game; you won't get much more.
  21. Bruce Frykman @323, the correct suposition when a debater breaks up his opponents sentences line by line, or into even smaller fragments, as you do, is tht the debater is dishonest, and cannot rebut their opponent when the sentences are taken in context. This impression is reinforced when they treat metaphor as literal utterances. I have no time for such fools, and hence not time for you. I will only comment that if you are going to push conspiracy theories of science (as you are), then at least be honest enough to call it what it is. If scientists are deliberately not reporting adverse results, and discuss together how to avoid the adverse results coming to light as you maintain, then they are involved in a conspiracy.
  22. Well Bruce @326, at least you seem to be in agreement with the main topic of this thread; there is scientific consensus on global warming. It is the orthodox position and if you are going to challenge it I suggest providing evidence.
  23. RE: les - 323 "Ammeter time in argumentation, I see. Make a vague statement that something ill defined doesn't exist and ask for it to be refuted? You will really have to raise your game if you want to engage here." Let us see if this one meets your profile: If "we" [excludes the power elite].... don't break "our" [your] "addiction to fossil fuels" [access to free energy markets], then "n years from now" [after we are all dead] the earth will experience a "feverish" temperature rise that "may" [or equally may not] be .6 C above "natural variability" [that we cannot hope to quantify]. Now "deniers" have never been able to disprove this wonderful scientific theory. Therefore AGW science is "settled" Help, the coulombs are melting my computer.
    Response: [muoncounter] Still have yet to see any actual evidence on any of these points. Forget the ammeter, worry about the credibility meter.
  24. This is index number 329
    Response: [Dikran Marsupial] There has been some deleting of posts that contravene the comments policy, but some replies to those comments may still be present. Please can we all re-start the discussion in a more moderate impersonal tone, and try to keep on-topic.
  25. (mods, I'd suggest deleting my 329 now as it really makes no sense as you deleted my re-response to 327!) my re-response only said - in short - I don't see how 327 substantiates the claims in 316 as it contains no evidence of corrupt public grant allocation or corrupt recruitment to publicly funded research positions...
    Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Cheers, that re-statement simplifies matters considerably! Any responses please note the first item of the comments policy. Unsubstantiated accusations of corruption are not acceptable.

Prev  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next

Post a Comment

Political, off-topic or ad hominem comments will be deleted. Comments Policy...

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.

Link to this page

The Consensus Project Website


(free to republish)

© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us