is the debate over Agw dead?

First, have any of those adult men on the checklist left the "AGW bandwagon"? From the few names that I know, i think of probably maximum of those clowns (no offense to clowns) by no skill have been on the AGW bandwagon, so they're hardly an occasion of scientists changing their minds. additionally, you have 134 names out of somewhat thousands of hundreds of scientists. we are actually not precisely overwhelmed by way of the numbers. the conventional of the checklist is incredibly shoddy, too. Calling human beings like Joe Bastardi or Anthony Watts scientists is somewhat stretching the terminology, as some distance i'm in contact. Then I see Fred Singer's call--it is largely having a paid liar on the checklist With those styles of human beings on the checklist it is not suggestions-blowing that there are in effortless terms 134--i does no longer prefer my call coated with a catalogue of "scientists" like those adult men. EDIT: I save listening to human beings dispute the ninety seven% quantity, yet no person ever produces any data to the choice. If it is incorrect, why do no longer they tutor the data? i think of there have been 2 separate surveys that produced a quantity like that. Frankly, I continuously concept that ninety seven% sounded intense (it is troublesome to get ninety seven% of human beings to agree on something), yet from the scientists i know and characteristic talked to, i'm valuable the quantity is amazingly intense--over ninety%, for valuable. i do no longer see hundreds of climate scientists names on lists disputing it, the two--what I do see are the comparable handful of names listed repeatedly returned on the denier lists. EDIT for Gary F: precisely, there are actually not one yet 2 separate surveys that have generated relating to the comparable quantity. If the quantity isn't superb (and prefer I mentioned, it particularly is a somewhat intense quantity), then the place is the data that it is not superb? they might by no skill factor to a survey that contradicts it--they only whinge relating to the survey approaches.

I haven't looked at your link (I don't click on links without descriptions), but the great majority of scientists have known that AGW is real for a long time, so in that sense the debate is dead. There is still lots to be learned from scientific studies, though.

Another reason I would not trust your link is because you have lied about me personally in the past.

EDIT for Eric C: So, is it also "group think" to believe the world is round? That it orbits the sun? That quantum mechanics is a useful description of nature? That human thought primarily occurs in the brain and not the foot? That atoms consist of protons, neutrons and electrons? That nuclear fission can release prodigious amounts of energy?

Scientists believe in AGW because there are vast amounts of theoretical, numerical and observational evidence that support it. The "debate" that you talk about is brought about because people that are uneducated in science can't tell the difference between real scientific debate and fake controversy created by people like Fred Seitz and Fred Singer when they tell you things like "there is no evidence that cigarette smoking causes cancer" or "we can create a missile shield that will protect us from attacks by the Soviet Union" or "there's no evidence for anthropogenic global warming."

Another EDIT: I don't get this attitude of deniers like Eric that having a strong negative cloud feedback (that evidence is lacking for) would be a good thing. It might keep temperatures from rising, but it is still CLIMATE CHANGE. Frankly, I don't want to be increasing the cloud cover on Earth by 10 or 20% either--you're just asking for other problems. [There are these things called plants, that depend upon sunlight...]

Eric C

Your link is to an article about the medical field, not climatology.

"Especially when there is so much uncertainty in the data that the climate sensitivity is overstated "

What we don't know about climate makes AGW more dangerous, not less. You wouldn't let your kids play on a highway with 4500 cars per hour. Would you let them play on a highway with 2000 cars per hour?

edit for Andy

"Only for the AGW supporters who think that since the scientists paid to research man caused climate change is correct."

Yeah! Scientists are paid to do research, to look for answers to questions which have one or more possible answers. 97 percent of climate scientists believe that global warming is real and we are causing it because of the evidence.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-key-climate-ind...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-a...

Only oil industry hacks and and the staff of Faux New are paid for predetermined conclusions.

expanding on what Pegminer said about denialists thinking that negative feedback would be a good thing, more hurricanes would be a negative feedback. They reflect lots of sun light and emit infrared from their warm cloud tops.

Only for the AGW supporters who think that since the scientists paid to research man caused climate change is correct. I heard on this site yesterday someone saying that scientists with a good hypothesis get grants and that should make things equal. He is not in the modern system where you have to have the next major problem to fix to get grant money and if you want to research something that is against the main stream it is extremely hard to get funding since people think you are wasting your time.

Yes long time ago, it is clear to all thinking people that AGW is real and happening. There are still 'deniers' but they are not debating just denying.

If Yahoo thought Global Warming was fake, they wouldn't have a category for it.

It's summer in the southern hemisphere. And some countries there: Australia, Brazil, Sri Lanka, have all flooded. Expect many coastal cities in the United States to flood this summer.

No

The useless debate will continue because there are still brain dead denialists continuing to pick a fight over something that they have lost long time ago.

There will always be detractors wanting to derail the truth either through ignorance or because of selfish reasons.

http://www.circleforhumanity.net/

AGW is no longer debatable and One + One = Two, no matter what the denialists tell you.

Pegminer said:

"but the great majority of scientists have known that AGW is real for a long time, so in that sense the debate is dead."

There is a well known and documented phenomena in our society called group think. This group think mentality has been documented across many areas or science.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/1...

Anybody who makes such claims is not scientific. Especially when there is so much uncertainty in the data that the climate sensitivity is overstated (See missing heat, missing hotspot).

Edit for Pegminer:

Any scientist who says that the debate is over despite the many uncertainties in the data simply because there is a "consensus" is a poor scientist. You know perfectly well proof of catastrophic global warming is proof of strong net positive feedbacks. You can have a weak water vapour feedback but a strongly negative cloud feedback, you will still get a negative feedback. As far as I know clouds are a big uncertainty. Then you have climate models that are overestimating the cooling effects of aerosols by not taking in the heating effect of black carbon. This means that climate models do not accurately reproduce past temperatures. Aerosols are also a huge uncertainty. So please spare me this crap that there are no uncertainties.

jyushchyshyn: Missing hotspot, missing heat, flat OHC for six years are data that says climate sensitivity is overestimated. Read my answer more carefully, I never did say it was in the field of climatology. Given what we have read in the climate gate emails, the scientists in climatology are a lot worse.

It's been dead for a long time. However there are still those in the general population that claim it does not exist because they refuse to look at the evidences. These are the people who believe in conspiracy theories.