Which is the best policy for climate change, that of deniers or believers?

.

The evidence doesn't indicate 'world-wide unfathomable fortune that society cannot bear'.

The evidence doesn't point to severe climate change as being 'unlikely'.

you have two choices.


1. You do nothing and mankind goes extinct
2. You do something and you pay dearly to do it, but mankind's extinction is thwarted.

Note, we must think in terms of the extreme because the extreme is possible and definitely not 'unlikely' and it is possible because 97% of climate scientists say so.

Which of the two is the wisest path?

 

Religion is based on faith. Science is based on evidence. So, the comparison is considerably less than rational.

 

We should do whatever will reverse galloping climate change which poses an existential threat to the survival of mankind.

Climate change is not a left or right thing, it is ****ing reality and it is happening NOW.

WTFU.

 

Show me this survey where they surveyed scientists and 97% believed in AGW.

 

Nobody knows that for sure.

Can't argue with that.

I hope it will last long enough to find a safe and permanent solution to our energy problems. From what I've read it'll dry up in this century, that seems like a pretty good incentive to figure things out. I think it'll probably be nuclear, gargantuan power plants surrounded by hundreds of acres of buffer zones in the middle of nowhere, say, one for each time zone.

 

Verheggen et al., 2014
In 2014, Bart Verheggen of the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency surveyed 1,868 climate scientists. They found that, consistent with other research, the level of agreement on anthropogenic causation correlated with expertise - 90% of those surveyed with more than 10 peer-reviewed papers related to climate (just under half of survey respondents) explicitly agreed that greenhouse gases was the main cause of global warming.[3] They included researchers on mitigation and adaptation in their surveys in addition to physical climate scientists, leading to a slightly lower level of consensus compared to previous studies.[4]

Powell, 2013
James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium,[5] analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 (<0.2%) rejected anthropogenic global warming.[6][7][8][9] This was a follow-up to an analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[10][11][12]

John Cook et al., 2013
Cook et al. examined 11,944 abstracts from the peer-reviewed scientific literature from 1991–2011 that matched the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'.[13] They found that, while 66.4% of them expressed no position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), of those that did, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are contributing to global warming. They also invited authors to rate their own papers and found that, while 35.5% rated their paper as expressing no position on AGW, 97.2% of the rest endorsed the consensus. In both cases the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position was marginally increasing over time. They concluded that the number of papers actually rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.[13]

In their discussion of the results, the authors said that the large proportion of abstracts that state no position on AGW is as expected in a consensus situation, as anticipated in a chapter published in 2007,[14] adding that "the fundamental science of AGW is no longer controversial among the publishing science community and the remaining debate in the field has moved on to other topics."[13]

A 2016 study entitled Learning from mistakes in climate research examined the quality of the 3% of peer-reviewed papers discovered by this work to reject the consensus view. They discovered that "replication reveals a number of methodological flaws, and a pattern of common mistakes emerges that is not visible when looking at single isolated cases".[15]

Farnsworth and Lichter, 2011
In an October 2011 paper published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, researchers from George Mason University analyzed the results of a survey of 998 scientists working in academia, government, and industry. The scientists polled were members of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) or the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and listed in the 23rd edition of American Men and Women of Science, a biographical reference work on leading American scientists, and 489 returned completed questionnaires. Of those who replied, 97% agreed that global temperatures have risen over the past century. 84% agreed that "human-induced greenhouse warming is now occurring," 5% disagreed, and 12% didn't know.[16][17]

When asked what they regard as "the likely effects of global climate change in the next 50 to 100 years," on a scale of 1 to 10, from Trivial to Catastrophic: 13% of respondents replied 1 to 3 (trivial/mild), 44% replied 4 to 7 (moderate), 41% replied 8 to 10 (severe/catastrophic), and 2% didn't know.[17]

Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2010


By Cook 2011 based on Doran 2009 and Anderegg 2010 studies. 97–98% of the most published climate researchers say humans are very likely causing most global warming.[18] In another study 97.4% of publishing specialists in climate change say that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.[19]
Anderegg et al., in a 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS), reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers, based on authorship of scientific assessment reports and membership on multisignatory statements about anthropogenic climate change. The number of climate-relevant publications authored or coauthored by each researcher was used to define their 'expertise', and the number of citations for each of the researcher's four highest-cited papers was used to define their 'prominence'. Removing researchers who had authored fewer than 20 climate publications reduced the database to 908 researchers but did not materially alter the results. The authors of the paper say that their database of researchers "is not comprehensive nor designed to be representative of the entire climate science community," but say that since they drew the researchers from the most high-profile reports and public statements, it is likely that it represents the "strongest and most credentialed" researchers both 'convinced by the evidence' (CE) and 'unconvinced by the evidence' (UE) on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change.[18][20]

Anderegg et al. drew the following two conclusions:

(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) 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.[18]

 

No. Show me an actual survey. That is where they actually ask a thousand or two scientists about their opinion on AGW.

As I have stated previously, I believe that man has contributed to global warming. The issues are now much, what can be done about it and the ability to forecast it.. On those questions there is far from any kind consensus.

 

No, a fair amount of global warming advocacy by scientists is based on faith and belief.

 

Science is not a democratic process.

 

No one says it is. In fact, science is a dictatorship, and the dictator is evidence and it's proper evaluation.

 

Says who?

 

If you were really sincere about finding the surveys and examining them, given that they are published, you'd have them by now. .

But, one website has done all the work for you, all you have to do is peruse the site.

www.skepticalscience.com

If you are short on time, there is a video about the '97%' debate often cited by climate change believes, and allegedly debunked by deniers:

 

I looked at them. In not a single one of them did they actually do a survey of scientists. They examined scientific papers.

 

https://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/affirmative-signers-on-climate-since-Dec-2009.html

 

Says who, you?

Anyone can say anything, and apparently, you have done precisely that.

Good for you.

Science is about evidence, and scientists go where the evidence leads, that's the nature of science.

Over five thousand scientists worldwide defend the integrity of climate science
https://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/affirmative-signers-on-climate-since-Dec-2009.html

 

Not by "banning" them.

 

Do you how they do a survey? They randomly choose scientists out of all them in whatever field they are sampling.. They don't pick them because they have published papers or count published papers. None of these were done that way.

 

I'm sure some scientists advocate to stop global warming because their religion tells them that saving lives is a good thing. Other than that, what does this sentence even mean?

 

It's a scientific study, not an opinion poll. I'm not sure what you're expecting, but the study examined published work and peer review. That's a valid way to examine scientific study. Calling up scientists randomly and asking them what they think about climate change would be foolish and worthless.

 

They claim 97%. They are the one who made it a poll.

 

Scientists are about publishing papers, not answering the telephone.

Quoting ChiCowboy

In the remote chance you do see the light on the above......


Why are 97% of all studies done on climate change by climate change scientist supporting AGW?

If climate change scientists of any sizeable portion had contradicting information had integrity, surely they would publish against the idea?

Well, they do, but it isn't a sizeable number of scientists, only amounts to 3% of the total.

 

These 5000 scientists support AGW.

https://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/affirmative-signers-on-climate-since-Dec-2009.html

Letter by 255 scientists of the National Academy of Science critical of the attacks on climate change science
https://pacinst.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2013/02/climate_statement3.pdf


Letter by 400 Scientists of Europe critical of climate change deniers
http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr...-scientifiques-signent-contre-claude-allegre/

 

Here's an alternative. Instead of going from one extreme to the other we take the middle ground? Work towards cleaner technology without trying to shut down every bit of technology that puts CO2 into the air. IE: as cleaner technology comes to fruition we gradually end older technology. The world isn't going to end in 12 years or whatever.

 

Then they should not have used the 97%. It was done only to convince a gullible public.

First of all, some of the scientists who wrote the papers indicated that they were not that convinced that it was a settled science. When they use that method, they are by its very nature picking and choosing which papers to consider.
They have tried to palm off a non-scientific method as being scientific.

If it was such a settled science with near universal agreement, such methods should not be necessary.

How many scientists are there total? Then you can come up with percent.

 

Again, nobody knows that for sure. The consensus of 5000 scientists may seem like a lot but it is only 5000, it's estimated that 40% of the climate science community dismiss it and of the remaining 60% there there is a lot of disagreement and skepticism. So there is actually no true consensus. I don't think a definitive answer will come even in this century or the next. The technology needed to collect data may currently be inadequate and then there is the amount of time that's needed to pass to ensure proper sampling. Right now even the very best information is still just a guess but many people wrongly assume that it is a fact. I think the more responsible thing to do is to assume the worst and act accordingly, much better to be pre-emptive and proactive. What we've learned about air and water quality since the 1970s is such that by the end of the 20th century the quality of both was better than it was in 1899. Climate is a much larger issue and much more time and research is necessary to study it to make informed decisions about what we need to do.