The most prominent and authoritative climate change scientists tend to believe in man-made global warming, according to a survey.
The study found that an overwhelming 98 percent of researchers as a whole think that human beings are altering the climate. And those who don't, it says, tend to be those who have published less and are less well-regarded by their peers.
The paper, published in PNAS, surveyed the work of 1,372 climate researchers. The team found that nearly all published climate scientists agree that human activity is driving climate change.
This is consistent with similar surveys last year and in 2004, says Brenda Ekwurzel, a climate scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).
"The biggest wildcard is how much we'll change the future climate, largely due to uncertainty about how much more carbon dioxide we will dump into the atmosphere," she says. "It's up to policymakers to act, knowing that heat-trapping emissions from burning fossil fuels are the biggest lever acting on the climate."
Over the last few years, the news media have been giving more prominence to contrarian points of view than they deserve, says the UCS.
"Unfortunately, some oil- and coal-industry-funded groups and ideologues are still feeding the public a steady diet of misinformation about climate change," Ekwurzel said.
"Americans need to know that their health, their communities and their overall quality of life are all at risk from unchecked climate change. Fortunately, these baseless attacks on science have not stopped governments and businesses from beginning to think about how best to respond to climate change."
The study is likely to provoke more mud-slinging. John Christy, of the University of Alabama, told the Daily Telegraph that he and other climate skeptics were simply being 'blacklisted' for having a controversial point of view.
But this doesn't hold water, says Climate Science Watch. "Those who propagate the phony argument that there are two 'sides' – an IPCC side and a 'skeptic' side – with comparable overall climate science expertise and credibility and deserving of comparable consideration – are doing a public disservice and should be called out on it," it says.
That's it? They 'tend' to believe? Surely this study found belief in AGW to more than just a tendancy amoung climate researchers. Climalologists had better be more convinced than this after all of the climate scare stories we've been force-fed.
Emma
A recent example happened last week. CNet got punk'd by multiple climate change deniers who turned their forum into a link farm to Drudge and drove a two year old story into the 'most popular' list, including front page links, for most of a week. They finally took it down when I pointed out what was happening.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10789_3-9917347-57.html
It was a dumb story the first time around, but by adding paid posters to the mix you get instant culture war...just add personal attacks mixed with junk science.
It took saviours many years to realised that fire is just a word for “to-purify” as they try to “save” trees, their stumps and high klasse accumulations. The reality behind climate saviours & co. is not that change will not arrive but that it should not arrive their way. The reality is that humanity has very little say in the matter until they have settled that little requisite matter of change within each individual for when enough are in true communication with “the problem”, The Problem will then change - much like cancer remissions, say. And this is not some airy-fairy, lovey-dovey, greeny, tree-stumpy rights wishful thinking, it is how The Problem works.
So, the fear of [its] greed is that some climate change will end sump’fink and they wished to reverse it. To keep the feeling of Love at bay through analysing/projecting this and that [whilst remembering that the heart is placed on the left and the liver on the right and security-insecurity is placed in the centre, the sternum beating when one’s existence is threathened]. The Love which expects is not Love but accumulation. Worshipping one’s greatness/being a saviour means trying to own/master others and aren’t they so seriously deeply responsible that only a Prize will quench.
The reason all will have to “go” is because of progress for when one is not really progressing, a change just might spur things on. For those stuck within their reversibles, that’s how to get that baby smooth complexion again - honest. Being within a circular effort, oka the beginning and the ending, there is nowhere to really go other than “up”.
Remember... Just say,"No!" to drugs (unless they are prescribed by your doctor/psychiatrist).
Apparently "physics" is not green. "Physics" is some kind of phallocentric patriarchal institution created to thwart the dreams of the Good Liberals.
Why should we let "physics" get in the way of a good doomster scare?