<div>It's a matter of exhaustive peer review of the work of scientists who are currently publishing in credible peer reviewed science journals, in a given field of study (in this case, climate science). Scientists can state whatever they want in the media. They can write papers on a given subject that do not go through extensive peer review among the specialists in that field, that then might get quoted as though the results are authoritative. What are the results of a survey of climate scientists recently publishing in credible peer reviewed science journals, regarding anthropogenic climate change? You can find the results lower down...</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Scientists can make a name for themselves as skeptics, despite the claim you hear often that there is a conspiracy to enforce conformity among scientists regarding anthropogenic climate change. And it is well documented that there have been well funded campaigns by Exxon/Mobil and others to spread anti-anthropogenic climate change "science" in the media. In fact, some of the best selling books on climate "science" in recent years have been books from writers with scientific credentials denying that anthropogenic climate change is based on solid science, but is a propaganda campaign of some sort. Michael Crichton, author of "State of Fear, " testified before the US Congress: </div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-senatetestimony.html">http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-senatetestimony.html</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=316580&page=1">http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=316580&page=1</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>However, how well does Crichton's analysis of climate science hold up to peer review?</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Amazing that the author of this book of science fiction on climate change, spoke as though a scientific authority on the subject before the US Congress!</div>
<div> </div>
<div>You can find scientists who will question many of the propositions of science that are regarded as well supported by experimentation and mathematics. Uncertainty and skepticism are healthy indispensable aspects of the scientific method. If no scientists where questioning the consensus among climate scientists who are currently publishing in peer reviewed journals in this field, something would be rotten in Denmark. But is the American Institute of Physics engaged in a conspiracy to deceive the US public? Read about the well understood physics behind CO2 and the greenhouse effect:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm" target="_blank">http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm</a></div>
<div>----------------------------------</div>
<div>Below read about the most current and exhaustive attempt I am aware of, to survey currently publishing climate scientists, regarding if anthropogenic climate change is a scientifically probable proposition. The result: 97% of the specialists responding support anthropogenic climate change. And those who conducted this survey attempted to answer the criticisms of the survey on this issue conducted earlier by Naomi Oreskes, claiming she did not survey all the relevant scientific dissenting opinions. Either these climate scientists are engaged in a global conspiracy to deceive the world, especially considering they come from nations around the planet, they don't know what they are talking about, or their work deserves to be taken seriously:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div>This article from EOS ('<em>Examining the Scientific consensus on Climate Change</em>', <strong>Volume 90</strong>, Number 3, 2009, available to American Geophysical Union members) which is quoted by Realclimate.org lower down and is available to the public at the website first below, claims that only 58 percent of the public in the US thinks that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing the mean global temperature, as opposed to 97% of specialists surveyed. This is a very recent effort to quantify the scientific consensus on the validity of anthropogenic climate change and contrast this consensus with public opinion:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf" target="_blank">http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf</a></div>
<div>------------------------------</div>
<div><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/03/a-potentially-useful-book-lies-damn-lies-science/#more-661" target="_blank">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/03/a-potentially-useful-book-lies-damn-lies-science/#more-661</a></div>
</div>
<div>------------------------------</div>
<div>Naomi Oreskes earlier survey of the scientific consensus regarding anthropogenic climate change:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686">http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686</a></div>
<h2 name="HEADLINE"><font size="-1">BEYOND THE <span>IVORY</span> <span>TOWER</span>:</font><br>The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change</h2>
<div><strong>Naomi <span>Oreskes</span></strong><a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#affiliation"><sup>*</sup></a> </div>
<p><strong>P</strong>olicy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate <span>science</span> is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the <span>science</span> and conclusions on climate change" (<a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref1">1</a>). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the <span>science</span> (<a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref2">2</a>). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.
<p>The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate <span>science</span> as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (<a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref3">3</a>). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (<a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref4">4</a>)].
<p>IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of <span>Science</span>s report, <em>Climate Change <span>Science</span>: An Analysis of Some Key Questions</em>, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (<a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref5">5</a>)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (<a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref5">5</a>)].
<p>Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (<a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref6">6</a>), the American Geophysical Union (<a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref7">7</a>), and the American Association for the Advancement of <span>Science</span> (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (<a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref8">8</a>).
<p>The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (<a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#ref9">9</a>).
<p>The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
<p>Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.
<p>This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of <span>Science</span>s, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.
<p>The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of <span>science</span> teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.
<p>Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is <em></em>a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.
<p><strong><strong>References and Notes</strong></strong><br>
<ol><a name="ref1"></a>
<li>A. C. Revkin, K. Q. Seelye, <em>New York Times</em>, 19 June 2003, A1. <a name="ref2"></a>
<li>S. van den Hove, M. Le Menestrel, H.-C. de Bettignies, <em>Climate Policy </em><strong>2</strong> (1), 3 (2003). <a name="ref3"></a>
<li>See <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm">www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm</a>. <a name="ref4"></a>
<li>J. J. McCarthy <em>et al.</em>, Eds., <em>Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability</em> (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001). <a name="ref5"></a>
<li>National Academy of <span>Science</span>s Committee on the <span>Science</span> of Climate Change, <em>Climate Change <span>Science</span>: An Analysis of Some Key Questions</em> (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2001). <a name="ref6"></a>
<li>American Meteorological Society, <em>Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. </em><strong>84</strong>, 508 (2003). <a name="ref7"></a>
<li>American Geophysical Union, <em>Eos </em><strong>84 </strong>(51), 574 (2003). <a name="ref8"></a>
<li>See <a href="http://www.ourplanet.com/aaas/pages/atmos02.html">www.ourplanet.com/aaas/pages/atmos02.html</a>. <a name="ref9"></a>
<li>The first year for which the database consistently published abstracts was 1993. Some abstracts were deleted from our analysis because, although the authors had put "climate change" in their key words, the paper was not about climate change. <a name="ref10"></a>
<li>This essay is excerpted from the 2004 George Sarton Memorial Lecture, "Consensus in <span>science</span>: How do we know we're not wrong," presented at the AAAS meeting on 13 February 2004. I am grateful to AAAS and the History of <span>Science</span> Society for their support of this lectureship; to my research assistants S. Luis and G. Law; and to D. C. Agnew, K. Belitz, J. R. Fleming, M. T. Greene, H. Leifert, and R. C. J. Somerville for helpful discussions.
<p>10.1126/<span>science</span>.1103618 </p></li></li></li></li></li></li></li></li></li></li></ol>
<div>------------------------------------------</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Article and discussion on "A Warning From Copenhagen" at website below:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/a-warning-from-copenhagen/#more-690">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/a-warning-from-copenhagen/#more-690</a></div>
<div>------------------------------------------</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett</div>
<div><br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 6/29/09, <b class="gmail_sendername">Jo Campbell</b> <<a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">The number of scientists who accept global warming is overwhelming, not tens like you acknowledge. If your list is supposed to make a point, then why wouldn't the other list make an even stronger point?<br>
<br>Joe Campbell
<div><span class="e" id="q_1222c7a828e065d1_1"><br><br></span></div></blockquote></div></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p></p>