97% of scientists believe climate change is caused by humans, study finds

[Pterodactylus]

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/15/bill...ium=socialflow

Oh Sarah Palin. You never disappoint. Says Bill Nye is as much of a scientist as she is, and that teaching kids climate change is man made is dangerous.

What do you expect from a moron? I mean, she believes in talking snakes, and probably struggles with basic geometry.

[ringpriest]

What do you expect from a moron? I mean, she believes in talking snakes, and probably struggles with basic geometry.

Palin is not the problem, she's just a symptom - the problem is that she's given any credibility, by anyone, at all; that indicates a very dangerous level of ignorance and dysfunction in our society. At this point, it's basically down to hoping that the US either crashes or has a revolution before drag the world down with us.

[Endus]

Could we stop with the "believes in flying snakes" and "republicans R dum" stuff? Most religious people don't deny scientific fact. And science isn't (or at least, shouldn't be) a partisan issue. It isn't helping; it feeds the "us vs them" nonsense some people are trying to push, when the reality is that "us" is everyone.

[Kujako]

Could we stop with the "believes in flying snakes" and "republicans R dum" stuff? Most religious people don't deny scientific fact. And science isn't (or at least, shouldn't be) a partisan issue. It isn't helping; it feeds the "us vs them" nonsense some people are trying to push, when the reality is that "us" is everyone.

The problem is that polling shows a large percentage of republicans are climate change deniers. Witness the whole snow ball in congress thing, etc.

[Fasc]

The problem is that polling shows a large percentage of republicans are climate change deniers. Witness the whole snow ball in congress thing, etc.

The entire title of "climate change denier" is a complete non-starter. I can fully acknowledge human driven changes to the environment, both locally and globally, while still remaining skeptical as to the extent of that impact and the viability of reversing that course. Some would label me as healthily skeptic, many others would happily chunk me in with a predetermined label of "denier" that has qualities like "Thinks Jesus told him so" and "Thinks the climate is 100% static" and so forth.

As I already put above, I'm not even all that interested in the modeling process and its accuracy because the default answer is "We are close, but we're improving and new things might show up" as it is with ANY modeling process. I'm interested in why I should even care.

[Endus]

The problem is that polling shows a large percentage of republicans are climate change deniers. Witness the whole snow ball in congress thing, etc.

Yes, but take issue with their counterfactual opinon on the issue, rather than their being Republican.

I have huge issues with climate change deniers (obviously), but that's not political, at least, not for me. And if they're making it political, you only feed into that by attacking them over their political allegiance.

- - - Updated - - -

The entire title of "climate change denier" is a complete non-starter. I can fully acknowledge human driven changes to the environment, both locally and globally, while still remaining skeptical as to the extent of that impact and the viability of reversing that course. Some would label me as healthily skeptic, many others would happily chunk me in with a predetermined label of "denier" that has qualities like "Thinks Jesus told him so" and "Thinks the climate is 100% static" and so forth.

As I already put above, I'm not even all that interested in the modeling process and its accuracy because the default answer is "We are close, but we're improving and new things might show up" as it is with ANY modeling process. I'm interested in why I should even care.

Because investing money today into infrastructure that won't survive the next 50 years due to predictable changes in the local climate is a fiscally and scientifically untenable position to take. That's where we're at. Pay now, to offset the impacts, or pay later, when those impacts leads to catastrophic damage that could have otherwise been avoided, as in NYC during Sandy.

[Fasc]

Because investing money today into infrastructure that won't survive the next 50 years due to predictable changes in the local climate is a fiscally and scientifically untenable position to take. That's where we're at. Pay now, to offset the impacts, or pay later, when those impacts leads to catastrophic damage that could have otherwise been avoided, as in NYC during Sandy.

Fair enough; however, this has proven difficult even in areas with known historical flooding/hurricanes/storms/etc like what we saw in New Orleans and the current lack of infrastructure and readiness on the majority of the west coast should the Cascadia ever give way (and models predict it should and at anytime). Further, dialing back emissions doesn't negate the possibilities of cataclysmic events. So again... why should I care?

EDIT: Put another way, I see no reason for NYC and other areas to NOT beef up what they have in order to weather worst-case scenarios of coastal events because with or without big pushes to adjust our fossil fuel issues, we could still see "The Big One" decimate a city like that. This feels like sound advice regardless of climate change severity.

[Pterodactylus]

Could we stop with the "believes in flying snakes" and "republicans R dum" stuff? Most religious people don't deny scientific fact. And science isn't (or at least, shouldn't be) a partisan issue. It isn't helping; it feeds the "us vs them" nonsense some people are trying to push, when the reality is that "us" is everyone.

Well, I brought up talking snakes - not flying snakes. And Sarah Palin's stupidity is independent of her being an R. But, alas, you are right.

[ezgeze]

Do you have some stats to backup that bullshit? No? Didn't think so.

I provided stats earlier, not going to repost it.

[Uoyredrum]

The amount of climate change deniers on this site is incredible. I'm actually at a loss for words.

[RaoBurning]

The amount of climate change deniers on this site is incredible. I'm actually at a loss for words.

What's better is that this is at least the 4th or 5th thread on the topic, just since I've been paying attention. It's largely all the same people continuing to be wrong for all the same reasons, and the same people pointing out, ever patiently, the folly of their ways. Some sort of PRATT-masochism, I guess.

Though it's not all for naught. I have a vague memory of at least one person becoming better educated by the efforts herein.

There's even a bingo card. Might keep that handy for the next thread.

[Hooked]

The amount of climate change deniers on this site is incredible. I'm actually at a loss for words.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” - Joseph Goebbels

[Adam Jensen]

Oh but I do... that's why I think they're either idiots or charlatans.

Then tell us this magical science that you know that debunks AGW?

[alexw]

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” - Joseph Goebbels

Yeah but the lie that humans are not changing the climate is losing its hold. It used to be that most people did not accept this part of reality as real, but that number has been steadily shrinking, so what Goebbels says, in this case decades of fossil fuel industry funded propaganda, can be overcome.

[Adam Jensen]

No but most drug dealers and felons are from the US political left. The truth hurts.

WTF is your point? That the "left" is evil and the "right" is good? Seriously? Is this what we're resorting to? A bullshit and false "good vs evil" dichotomy?

[Spectral]

Surveys like this may technically qualify as "social science", but they're used across pretty much all fields; it's a pretty standard practice, regardless of your field of specialization.

My mistake - I read the OP as there having been some new study done. I didn't realize this was the same half-assed meta-analysis from three years ago that people cite anytime they're looking for a good argument from authority. One doesn't have to go any farther than the abstract to realize that the headline 97% number isn't really a legitimate punchline:

We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.

In what world is it cool to ask the authors, have 35% of them tell you, "my paper doesn't relate to that" and to conclude that 97% agree? I guess the one where it's a better punchline than saying that most people that express a position agree.

As for her being a chemist, climate science brings in scientists and practitioners from all fields with relevance, and chemistry is absolutely relevant to climate activity. The way that CO2 reacts with other atmospheric gasses? That's chemistry.

As for Dr. Green specifically;

http://www.mtu.edu/chemistry/department/faculty/green/
She's specialized in environmental chemistry with a focus on climate change in particular. She's exactly the kind of specialist you're disputing that she is. Maybe next time at least check her bio?

My mistake. Now that I look at her publication record, I see that she used to actually do some science that was at least somewhat related to climate. It's been awhile, but it's not totally outside her areas of expertise.

It's not that the conclusions CAN'T be wrong. It's that every piece of the literally millions (if not billions) of data points all point to those conclusions, with none contradicting them, and no competing theories that provide any comparable explanation, despite tens of thousands of scientists working in this field. <snip>

This is a pretty implausible claim. Are you really saying that there aren't any papers at all that are outside of the general consensus or seem a bit wonky? If that's the case, it'd actually be a lot more suspicious than any headline 97% number.

[Hooked]

WTF is your point? That the "left" is evil and the "right" is good? Seriously? Is this what we're resorting to? A bullshit and false "good vs evil" dichotomy?

That's what I believe and so do millions of others.

[Spectral]

Those are the ones working for foundations financed by oil, coal and whatnot lobby groups, and their entire job consists of trying to cast doubt of the validity of the findings.

This is pretty unlikely. You don't think there are any legitimate academic researchers that express any deviance from the general consensus?

[Thepersona]

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” - Joseph Goebbels

so, you're talking about the global warming denial, right?
and how believing that nothing is happening (while a ton of evidence points otherwise), makes you feel smug and safe, that nothing has to be done, i'm correct?

This is pretty unlikely. You don't think there are any legitimate academic researchers that express any deviance from the general consensus?

no, there aren't. or well, there could be, but evidence points them to conclusions consistent to AGW. most of the current science is being done as what are the exact consequences (mass extintions, wars, famine, droughts) for each action we take (or dont take)
predictions change between 1C of warming and 6C (and 6C is brutal)

[Spectral]

Actually that 3% is probably the sum total of the scientific profession that are ideologically republican/conservative, so are aligning on this based on their political preferences. To be a scientist requires that you be very open minded and very questioning of everything, while your typical republican is very closed minded and unquestioning, which is why there are so few republican-scientists. To be both requires a kind of mental schizophrenia that few people are or capable of being. Out of the couple dozen the research scientists I have got to know (being a PhD scientist myself) only 2-3 were ideologically conservative.

Personally, I never found the lock-step political conformity of my science coworkers to be something to be particularly proud of. When the only socially acceptable positions are left, far left, and really far left, you're probably going to wind up missing out on some decent people that aren't keen on being around those that express contempt for them.