The climate consensus visualized, part 2
Jon Cook brings us a new visualization of the climate consensus.
Climate Change: Is the Science "Settled"?
Stephen Schneider describes the issue better than most.
The world is poorer now that he is gone. He will be missed.
Deniers are doing all conservatives a disservice
Deep Climate has uncovered some good climate reporting in the steaming pile that is the National Post. The article, written by Jonathan Kay, examines the claim that there exists a growing number of scientists who question the scientific consensus on global warming, and concludes that it is nonsense:
Have you heard about the “growing number” of eminent scientists who reject the theory that man-made greenhouse gases are increasing the earth’s temperature? It’s one of those factoids that, for years, has been casually dropped into the opening paragraphs of conservative manifestos against climate-change treaties and legislation.
Fine-sounding rhetoric — but all of it nonsense. In a new article published in the Proceedings of the Natural Academy of Sciences, a group of scholars from Stanford University, the University of Toronto and elsewhere provide a statistical breakdown of the opinions of the world’s most prominent climate experts. Their conclusion: The group that is skeptical of the evidence of man-made global warming “comprises only 2% of the top 50 climate researchers as ranked by expertise (number of climate publications), 3% of researchers in the top 100, and 2.5% of the top 200, excluding researchers present in both groups … This result closely agrees with expert surveys, indicating that [about] 97% of self-identified actively publishing climate scientists agree with the tenets of [man-made global warming].”
Climate Change and National Security; Part 2
Climate Change and National Security
Those accepting the science of global warming have more credibility and prominence than those who remain unconvinced [UPDATED]
A study Published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences confirms what people who have been paying attention already know:
97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.
Furthermore, researchers with fewer than 20 climate publications comprise ≈80% the UE group, as opposed to less than 10% of the CE group. This indicates that the bulk of UE researchers on the most prominent multisignatory statements about climate change have not published extensively in the peer-reviewed climate literature.
the expertise and prominence, two integral components of overall expert credibility, of climate researchers convinced by the evidence of [anthropogenic climate change] vastly overshadows that of the climate change skeptics and contrarians.
This is unsurprising, and is based on the work done by Jim Prall, who has been building a list of climate authors and the number of times they have been cited.
Predictably, given that this paper shows that deniers really are on the fringe, the paper has been criticized. But those critics have missed the point, and in many cases have been so over the top that they highlight the absurdity (and lack of decency) of the deniers.
Climate Crock Sacks Hack Attack: The Wrap
Peter Sinclair’s latest video:
Quote of the day
In my experience, with regard to AGW the policy consequences of our current state of scientific knowledge and data, the risk spectrum, are unusually clear. The debates y’all are engaged in are particularly heated because the outputs of contemporary climate and geosciences are extraordinarily consequential for human civilization, not because the science itself is imbued with unusually significant uncertainties (and certainly not fraud). –Anonymous U.S. state government on water-related issues (likely in the West)
A climate Team B?
Recently a ‘Team B’, to analyze climate science was proposed by William Happer of the Marshall Institute, it was largely ignored, probably because Happer isn’t taken seriously by anyone, but it gained some prominence when it was endorsed by Judith Curry, she does command some respect even if of late she has shown off her naivete. Team B is presumably is a reference to the ‘Team B’ that provided analysis of the Soviet threat independent of the CIA and which got everything mostly wrong.
The ‘Team B’ approach is interesting because initially it makes logical sense. As the beginning of the NIPCC (which is nothing more than denialst tripe) states “Before facing major surgery, wouldn’t you want a second opinion?”. The answer is of course yes, one would want a second opinion. In regards to climate change, one wouldn’t want to embark on difficult GHG reduction polices without a second opinion.
But we already have a second opinion, and a third, and a fourth… In fact we have thousands of independent opinions, as climate scientists from all over the world have overwhelmingly agreed that our GHG emissions have cased the climate to warm.
And if that wasn’t enough the recently released report from the US National Academy of Sciences should more than qualify as a Team B. And if one wants more:
US National Academy of Sciences re-confirms that humans are responsible for climate change
There really isn’t anything new here. Just the fact that, despite what deniers and the media have been saying, the consensus that human greenhouse gas emissions are causing the climate to warm is getting stronger all the time.
However there is a great summary of why we know that it is our GHG emissions, and not something else that is warming the climate.
