What do Scientists have to say about AGW, and where is the majority of scientists that don't agree?

Well all the stops seem to be out on this one

Grovesmuck has more links than you could poke a stick at and comments like this "The American senate has a list of 500 prominent scientists that disagree with AGW" it would seem he doesn't read his own links as it states 400 not 500 but then it is from Senator Inhofe. Then theres the OISM yet again, all this proves is the lengths denier groups will go to to through up smoke and mirror, although they seem to be not very good at it as this petition has been ripped to shreds on numerous occasions from fictional entries, to people being on the petition and not knowing it, to the first version which was attempted to be passed of as an official NAS document, it wasn't.

I work in a group that studies both climate and Antarctica ~120 scientists few of those I have spoken to have even heard of this petition and the couple that had, thought it was a joke.

If you want to see what scientists really think go to the many real science websites you will see no mention of OISM, Heartland etc.

You will find lots of information on the cause and effect of GW though

The scientists where I hang out virtually all believe in AGW. Of course, that's to be expected because guys like Keeling and Revelle did their work here. There are a handful of top-notch scientists scattered around that either don't believe it or have some doubts, though, two that come to mind are William Gray and Roger Pielke. They've both been associated with Colorado State, but I think that's more coincidence than anything else.

Personally, I believe in it, it's hard not to when you see so much evidence for it. As for my science background, I have taken more classes on physical science than anyone I've ever met--I always think it's funny when the non-believers try to say that climate scientists have too narrow a background (or are too young!). I'm hoping to finish a dual Ph.D. in Earth Science (specialization in Climate Science) and Physics in the next 1.5-2 years. I have a B.S. and M.S. in Physics, with about the equivalent of a bachelor's in math and geology and a master's in atmospheric science. Along the way I've worked as a Research Scientist, Electronic Design Engineer, and Technical Writer/Editor.

I know it's a disappointment to Boatman that my degree won't be in climatology, but that's mostly a different field. I did take a course in it 29 years ago though.

I know of one survey of scientists to see who believed in global warming (BRAY AND von STORCH), the result was 40% believed in AGW in 1996 (44% disagreed) and 58% in 2003 (29% disagreed), though extent at which they believe man effects global warming varies from small to significent.

Also see in sources below a survey of IPCC authors and reviewers which shows a majority in favour of AGW 83-90% (not suprising), though dispapointingly only 54 of 345 scientists (that form the "consensus") involved in the IPCC process replied so no concensus can be proven either way, the others may have bitten their lip and kept quiet at risk of being shunned for all we know.

Interestingly, of those that replied, many disagreed over the fact that warming is a bad thing.

There are many scientists that contests the AGW hypothesis and many who keep quiet through fear of attack or as their funding / job depends on it. The American senate has a list of 500 prominent scientists that disagree with AGW, the Manhattan Declaration also has several hundred signatures and there is a long list of scientists that contest Kyoto.

There are also many peer reviewed papers that contradict AGW, probably in the range of 50 or more that I know of.

Many lead authors and reviewers of the IPCC have spoken out about concerns over how political the process and how weak the evidence for AGW is.

So it’s clear there is no consensus, what’s more there are many times more scientists that speak out against AGW than the “consensus” of 62 reviewers and 5 scientists that endorsed the entire chapter 9 of the IPCC science report. I dont know if theres more scientists for or against but I think there is definetly no consensus!

Edit:

Antarctic ice, the senate document was 400 at that point in time, they apparently now have a database of over 500 as new scientists have switched sides. Whatever senator put it together does change the fact that many highly qualified scientists doubt AGW. Now thats smoke and mirrors, trying to discredit the list because of one person being involved.

This is just United States organizations...

National Academy of Sciences (2,100 members)

http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change...

American Geophysical Union (50,000 members)

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/positions/climat...

The Geological Society of America (21,000 members)

http://www.geosociety.org/positions/pos10_climate....

American Physical Society (46,000 members)

http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm

There is no majority of scientists that disagree. The majority of scientists agree that Global warming is happening and even most of the few skeptics are forced to agree. Scientist also agree that it is caused by us releasing too much CO2 into the atmosphere. Other theories such as sun spots have been disproven. The intergovenmental panel on climate change which has exhustively looked at all research on the issue agrees.

Personally I've got a master's degree in physics, and agree with the scientific consensus on AGW. For anyone who disputes the consensus, I illustrated it in the 'Consensus' section in the link below.

http://greenhome.huddler.com/wiki/global-warming-s...

Jim is actually correct that more geologists doubt AGW than most other relevant scientific fields. This is because geologists study the history of climate change, and often don't seem to realize the difference between those naturally-caused changes and the current human-cased changes. All they see are the changes themselves, and they don't analyze the causes, so they don't see anything particularly unusual. Though most geologists (even petroleum geologists, whose jobs depend on us continuing to burn fossil fuels) agree with the AGW consensus as well.

This is also why AGW proponents cite sources like NASA, NOAA, Hadley Centre, Science, Nature, IPCC, etc., while deniers cite Anthony Watts, surfacestations.org, junkscience.com, the Heartland Institute, newsbusters, etc. It's quite clear which side the science is on.

I'm a scientist (graduate degree, 20+ years experience), but you shouldn't listen to me. Listen to the National Academy of Sciences. 1600 of the nation's best scientists, elected by their peers. Being elected to the Academy is like winning the Oscar in science.

"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to begin taking steps to prepare for climate change and to slow it. Human actions over the next few decades will have a major influence on the magnitude and rate of future warming. Large, disruptive changes are much more likely if greenhouse gases are allowed to continue building up in the atmosphere at their present rate. However, reducing greenhouse gas emissions will require strong national and international commitments, technological innovation, and human willpower."

http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change...

Scientists who buy into the global warming doomsday scenario have sold their credibility and are nothing but political propagandists. The fact that they are reined in by the leftist commissars if they stray from the party line should give you a clue that it is political and NOT scientific.

There are thousands of scientists on both sides. I tend to believe the skeptics as their data is backed up by real world facts, not computer models (which always seem wrong).

And as for America, there is a reason everyone wants to come here. It Rocks!

I'm in my third year of college, majoring in biology. It is a scientific fact that greenhouse gasses steepen the curve that the natural warming cycles of the earth follow. This makes it harder for ecosystems to adapt to the changing temperatures. As to how drastically the curve is being influenced by our greenhouse gas emissions, I don't have enough data or expertise to accurately answer that question.