Most scientists don’t believe AGW is happening (?)
Nope, sorry, I don’t accept the validity of this statement. There may be protestors within various Institutions; and lists of people who dispute the consensus view on Wikipedia; and lists of unscientific people that do not; but…
Wikipedia also contains a great deal of evidence to suggest that the overwhelming majority of scientists of all kinds accept the genuine consensus view that AGW is happening:
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Indeed, the above (very long article) includes reference to the fact that more than 97% of published climate scientists take this view:
See http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html
Furthermore, there is also no EVIDENCE of a massive scientific conspiracy just to keep a few researchers busy. In fact, as George Monbiot has said, “It is hard to convey just how selective you have to be to dismiss the evidence for climate change. You must climb over a mountain of evidence to pick up a crumb: a crumb which then disintegrates in your palm. You must ignore an entire canon of science, the statements of the world’s most eminent scientific institutions, and thousands of papers published in the foremost scientific journals“.
See http://www.monbiot.com/2005/05/10/junk-science/
And as James Hoggan has said: “Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy. There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness“.
See http://www.desmogblog.com/about-climate-cover
And finally, as I have said, “There is simply no evidence for your left-wing conspiracy to over-tax and over-regulate people; so as to make everyone poorer. Whereas, there is a great deal of evidence for a right-wing conspiracy to under-tax and under-regulate industry; so as to make a few people richer…“
So, will people please stop saying things that are not true? No matter how many times you say such things; it will not stop them being false. But it will prevent concerted, effective action being taken on a global scale to address a truly global problem.
“97% of published climate scientists take this view:” … I think that’s about right … an honest answer … but it’s 97% of not very many scientists, is it?
How many climate scientists are there? More than 2,000 you think? I think not
Is there are big list of scientists who agree with climate warming containing more than 1000 names in it?
I had no problem giving you a link with a list of some 30,000 American scientists who deny Global Warming is a reality. http://www.oism.org/pproject/
And that’s just in one country, the global project exists in all countries, there are tens of thousands of real scientists, from all fields, telling you AGW is not right, all conveniently denied by the press, other media and governments, but as a scientist yourself, do you think these people are any less knowledgeable than climate scientists?
And why do thousands of these scientists feel so strongly about this issue that they need to start petitions and so on after every other effort to be heard is rejected by their governments?
So …….
If you really believe in Climate Warming, your job, Martin, is not to convince the population but to convince those thousands of scientists who believe AGW is wrong just as strongly as you believe it is right.
Just remember …
“There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion.”
Thousands of scientists are trying hard to not seed confusion by remaining cool, calm and detached from taking either side of the equation and concentrating solely on the evidence at hand; evidence most of which climate scientists refuse to publish in an understandable and “Reproducible” manner … which is as science should be.
(Me, I don’t give a stuff, my job is to seed confusion and force guys like you to look through the clouds, I think I’m doing a pretty good job of it, considering this blog is referenced from one of my own)
Donald
22 September 2011 at 12:48
As I have said to you over on your blog…
How many “scientists” are there in America? Out of a population of 310 million, can we agree that just 10% (I think it is more than that) are scientists? If so, your petition has been signed by 0.1% of them (it is probably less that that).
You may have read what I said above, but you have not taken on board its implications… Who is it that is trying so hard to deny this consensus and why?
If you had cancer, would you go to a Art Historian to get an accurate prognosis? Why is it that you doubt the experts; and choose to trumpet the views of those who insist the science is not settled (even though they are not studying it)?
Martin_Lack
22 September 2011 at 14:34
This link should interest all those involved in the AGW debate.
http://www.petitionproject.org/purpose_of_petition.php
Donald
22 September 2011 at 13:11
Even if 9,000 people with PhD’s think the moon is made of cheese, that would not make them right; nor mean that I should take any notice of them. Quite a few people with PhD’s think the WTC was brought down by controlled demolition; but that does not mean they are right either. Occam’s Razor applies just as well to AGW as it does to 9/11….
We are back to “the marketplace of ideas“ again, which states that all opinions have equal merit and deserve equal consideration. There is only one problem with this idea; it is wrong.
Try this idea instead: “On the balance of probability it is likely that the majority of relevantly qualified experts know what they are talking about!“
Martin_Lack
22 September 2011 at 14:45
2500 … that is roughly the total number of scientists with any form of authority (and who peer-review their own work) saying the world is warming up … the rest are keeping mum about it too afraid to tell the truth in case they get ostracized at work or lose any chance of promotion they might have.
It’s a disgrace to the thousands of years spent by science to make true knowledge freely available to one and all.
Donald
24 September 2011 at 04:07
Is that a direct quote from the Conspiracy Theorist’s Handbook, or your own paraphrase of it?
Martin_Lack
24 September 2011 at 08:20
What you talking about?
I made that up all on my own
Donald
24 September 2011 at 11:28
[...] to the post Sceptical voices, part two, published on the 23rd. Martin’s blog carried an article about scientific scepticism (outcome being very little) in global warming being caused by man. [...]
Nothing but the truth! « Learning from Dogs
28 September 2011 at 08:02