Global-warming skeptics deny that 98% of scientists active in climate research believe in global warming, why?

Because the are either informed, uneducated, arrogant or naive?

@"For the very simple reason that the 98% of scientists that are active in climate research and believe in global warming have a vested interest in persuading all of us that their research is of the utmost importance; that way they keep their jobs."

Actually they would all still have jobs if AGW didn't exist because there would still be natural climate change to study. You also have the entire field of palaeoclimatology that wouldn't be affected that much (except changing a few modern day conclusions).

@Jim Z:

"They believe in it? That is your idea what science is? Belief is for religions. Science is for objectively looking at the evidence and making conclusions about probabilities. 98% of the climate scientists may believe that we have emitted CO2 and it has had an effect. Who cares?

Why don't you read what the APG said? It sure didn't say what you think it said and the vast majority of geologists are still skeptical of significant or harmful AGW in spite of what the organization stated which were weasel words. What is important is whether that effect is significant and harmful. 95% of Journalists are left leaning politically. They got into it to save the world. I am guessing many of those climate scientists think they are saving the world too."

And 90% of statistics is made up? there is plenty of evidence behind AGW and you are just mincing words over the word believe. You have two kinds of belief in this case. Religious belief which is the belief in a higher power with no provable evidence. Scientific belief which is the belief that you conclusions are correct with all currently available evidence. Scientific belief can be changed if you are presented with evidence to the contrary of what you believe. However you cannot deny the greenhouse effect it is a thermodynamic fact. You cannot deny that we put huge quantities of GHG into the atmosphere and so we therefore must have an affect.

Where are your vast quantities of geologists that don't believe in AGW? Are they climate scientists? Do they publish this denial of AGW and get it through peer review? Did you just make that up?

I would argue that only a small percentage of climate scientists solely study AGW the majority study natural climate change and then look at how we have affected the natural change. If AGW didn't exist (and it does) there would still be the natural changes to study.

Climate scientists say AGW exists you can argue about to what a degree we have an affect but we have an effect period. So when it comes to climate science I might listen to a climate scientist not a doctor, dentist or geologist in a non related field.

I would argue that the media is more right leaning than left but it depends on where you live and what media you pay attention to. Most climate scientists don't get into it because they want to save the world they get into it because it academically interests them.

You said:

"I understand there is big money to be made by denying that altering the composition of the earths atmosphere (that acts as a blanket), does change its insulating properties."

That shows great scientific ignorance on your part. Adding greenhouse gases to the earth's atmosphere will cause the earth to heat up. That is not in dispute. The problem is all else being equal adding this extra greenhouse gases will only cause a one degree rise in temperatures. The three, five up to ten degree rise that you hear about comes from a second theory that says as the earth heats up from these greenhouse gases the earth's atmosphere will act in such a way that will amplify this effect many times over. The fact that you do not realize that positive feed backs are the main source of the warming shows that the ignorance is on your part.

Then you make the even more scientific ignorant assumption that all of the catastrophic changes to the earth's climate predicted by computer programs called climate models (more droughts, more storms etc) as the earth warms is a given. It is not a given. You have to prove that as well. So please educate yourself on the science of climate change then criticize others.

No, we don't deny this, but we do tend to point out that these same climate scientists ignore ALL past warming and cooling since the last ice age. These same climate scientists continue to forget to state that we are still warming up from a period known as the Little Ice Age. So why should we listen to a group of climate scientists that have to manipulate the facts to get their point across?

As for companies that continue to pollute, based on the laws of the United States, they are not. It is only in certain parts of the World where they don't have the same environmental laws of the United States and Europe. What is even worse is that some environmentalists have come out and said that we may be wanting to regulate ozone in the United States below background. When we do this there is no way to meet the requirements so the environmentalists can punish companies for failure to meet an unmeetable requirement.

98% of mechanics would like fix something on my car every time I get the oil changed. Who am I to stop them, Hell I'm no mechanic.

I don't have a problem with the theory that extra CO2 in the atmosphere is making it warmer. I don't see evidence supporting that it is unprecedented, I don't see enough evidence supporting the accuracy of earths climate history. I don't buy the silly explanations given by warmist, Like there was a region of the earth that got warmer for 300 years and then went back to it's normal climate. I find it cconvenientthat the proof of climate change is identical to the history of climate changes humans have experienced in single life span. I don't by whichever version of the consequences there are now, more extreme, more severe, more frequent, less frequent but more severe, hotter in some places, colder in others, more snow, no snow, less snow, more rain, no rain, less rain. I'm not convinced by someone who can say with a straight face, It, cannot be linked to changes in weather but Katrina would make a good example of what we are talking about.

The conclusions given by liberals on just about everything is so far off from logical I have come to the conclusion that they are new species. One ddefinitelynot known for it's scientific superiority. There is no way liberals could have survived human history without significant support ddefinitelynot prior to the institution of government support. So they're either aliens or they are a new species that has evolved the environment of government hand outs and control. I'm going with new species and not alien.

They come to the wrong conclusions so they're half witted attempts at coming up with a solution usually result in the opposite effect making things worse than when they started.

Dook - We have to lie on the internet because there's no one to disagree with in the real world. I'd really love to meet someone that believed in AGW. They're just not part of the real world. I'd love to lie to an alarmist I'm just not sure where to meet them. Why don't you start a group and start protesting the anti-science liar deniers. Certainly no one would stop such an effort and you could expose the anti-science liar deniers and we'll certainly be shunned from society for our lack of faith.

Edit: Since pegiminer is a scientist and he says that the poll response to the question was very low I'd say the number would have to be even lower than 80%. Who would not respond to something so deadly important.

98%... not true. Yesterday and today the APS meets and the big topic is all those scientists that do not believe in the position taken by the APS [actually 2 board members made the decision to support AGW over lunch discounting the advice and votes of the body]. Ivan Giaever resigned because he couldn't live with their statements as did Hal Lewis and many others. There could be hundreds resign soon as the top fellows of this society have had it with this pseudoscience run by internet trolls. Naomi Oreskes coined the phrase that the "science is settled", a history professor at USCD who makes her millionaire living off her libeling and slandering real scientists who disagree with her and will not debate the same people she libels. Wonder why.

I believe the number touted is usually 97% & here is an interesting explanation of how that 97% could be as few as 75 individuals out of a world population of 7 billion.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/12/30/law...

but its totally irrelevant anyway as science isn't done by vote,consensus or majority/mob rule.

Good Question.

In order for a scientist to be involved in climate research, they must believe in global warming, or at least say they are. Why? Because the research money, except for small amounts donated by oil companies, and energy companies, come from the governments, which are controlled by those who are pro-global warming. So, if a climate researcher wants to get a paycheck, they have to be "supportive" of the idea of climate change induced by anthropological forces.

To be honest, I'm in climate science and even I don't think that 98% of climate scientists believe the warming we've been seeing over the past decades is anthropogenic. That's just too high a number, I would say that it's definitely over 80% and probably over 90%, but let's face it it's almost impossible to get 98% of the people to agree on ANYTHING. The polls that came up with numbers like that (I heard 97%) suffered from very low response rates--one of them was under a hundred responses, as I recall.

EDIT: I hadn't read any of the answers when I wrote mine, but many lie and insult scientists for no reason. Starbuck apparently thinks that science should be done by public debate, rather than research and publishing. Richard Sommerville is a busy (and officially retired) scientist. He DID participate in a public debate with people from the denial crowd: Richard Lindzen, Michael Crichton and others--you can find it on YouTube. Fred Singer came to Scripps and gave a talk, but could never seem to hear any question that he didn't want to answer.

Col JD claims

"In order for a scientist to be involved in climate research, they must believe in global warming, or at least say they are."

It is easy to show that this is nonsense, has he never heard of William Gray, Richard Lindzen, Patrick Michaels or Roy Spencer? Deniers seem to believe all sorts of things that are easily refuted.

EDIT for Moe: you said

"Edit: Since pegiminer is a scientist and he says that the poll response to the question was very low I'd say the number would have to be even lower than 80%. Who would not respond to something so deadly important."

You're kidding, right? If responding to opinion polls is anywhere near the most important thing you do, you really need to get a life. I'd say responding to polls is the very LEAST important thing on most scientists' to-do lists.

All your stating is a consensus based on medical reference. From personal experience I'd say research all your alternatives. Or in other words: the only reason I'm alive is because of exceptions. Things that don't fit in with mainstream values are specific not a net determinate.

People love to throw numbers around. It just demonstrates that too many people are not emprical thinkers anymore.

There is so much money behind that agenda that school textbooks these days are little more than a modern version of "Mao's little red book."

With incomplete models you can predict anything. With manipulation of graphical information- you can make a graph show what you want it to show, even if the opposite is true. You can also initiate any agenda you wish by using the petri dishes of public and some private schools to cultivate and foster any agenda you wish to if you are one of those monied special interests.

Follow the money- Who profits the most? And I can tell you who will lose the most- you will.

The indoctrinations are so thorough that when the real data in other fields is encountered, it is like a typist or translator- in one ear and out the other and nothing takes hold.

The real problem with global warming- other than people like Al Gore, and Prince Charles along with the rest of the SK&G family and banks like JPMorgan Chase making tremndous fortunes off the agenda- the theories supposedly supporting AGW is there is that any answer somehow is percieved as "proof"- which for those familiar with the scientific method means the "theory" is wrong.

Just remember- truth has no place in the classroom, and "people who mean well" get a pass on the fabricated numbers they toss about as if such straw man arguments they propose are accurate and valid when in most cases they are not.

Piltdown Man is the perfect example- it is a fraud that persisted in British text books for over 50 years in spite of the fact it had been discredited many times.

I am reminded of 2 things- 1) the story of Chicken Little (played by Al Gore.) 2) History repeats itself.

For those who believe in AGW as real- look around you- that all goes away if the monied interests who spoon fed you AGW propaganda have their way. Want a car? YOU cannot have one. You want to college somewhere? The answer is NO! You are not of the right family. You want to have a Stereo or TV or a computer? The answer is NO- You have had your allotment, your name will have to go on the 20 year waiting list. You want a bicycle? You will have to wait as the waiting list is 3 years now. Need parts for one- the waiting list is 4 years for you. Now go out and harvest that GMO wheat by hand, you better get started because you have 40 acres to harvest before the sun sets.

That is the future that awaits you if the AGW promoters have their way..