If Anthropogenic Climate Change is a scientific consensus, why are there so many scientists “deniers”?

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.”

--Stanley B. Goldenberg, Atmospheric Scientist, Hurricane Research Division of NOAA

"First off, there isn't a consensus among scientists. Don't let anybody tell you there is.”

--Dr. Charles Wax, Mississippi State Climatologist, Mississippi State University and past president of the American Association of State Climatologists.

The warmists told us for years that 'thousands of scientists' endorsed the IPCC position. Later, it came out that of the 3750 or so involved in writing the IPCC reports, fewer than 60 actually endorsed the 'consensus' view that global warming was anthropogenic. The rest worked on 'effects' chapters--where the cause was already assumed.

The Oserkes (2004) article claimed that 100% of the scientific papers found were in support of the consensus position. Attempts to replicate this work revealed it to be a fraud; less than half of the research papers found endorsed an anthropogenic cause of global warming.

The 2009 study (Doran et al) claiming 97% of scientists support AGW is pseudoscientific bunk. The figure was arrived at by cherrypicking from over 3000 responses down to just 79. The questions were worded in a way to encourage positive responses. The raw data has never been released.

Even if the consensus existed, it would be irrelevant. The assertion of a 'consensus' is an attempt to replace the scientific method with the bandwagon fallacy, argumentum ad populum. In the words of Michael Crichton:

“In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.”

***

PS <Ivar Giaever did not object to the APS believing AGW was very likely...>

This is bunk. In his own words:

“Global warming has become a new religion.”

“We frequently hear about the number of scientists who support it. But the number is not important: only whether they are correct is important. We don't really know what the actual effect on the global temperature is. There are better ways to spend the money.”

--Ivar Giaever, PhD, Nobel laureate, physics

and <...he objected to the strength of that one word. Yet, the APS was not willing to change it because the evidence is in fact incontrovertible.>

This is more bunk.

"No scientific theory can be proved with absolute certainty. One sign that an idea is not scientific is the claim that the idea is infallibly certain and irrefutable. Claims of infallibility and the demand for absolute certainty characterize not science but pseudoscience.”

--Robert Carroll, "Becoming a Critical Thinker"

In the words of Richard Feynman:

“A scientist is never certain.”

***

Being a chemistry tech, you ought to be able to figure it out, as least some. You are absolutely correct. There is at least 100 times more H2O in the atmosphere than CO2. H2O is highly variable depending on location and time of day (among other things). The greenhouse effect is caused by gases with three or more molecules. H2O the biggest CO2 next CH4 about 100 times lest than CO2 and less N2O than CH4. Lots of others in much lower concentrations. We pump ~25 gigatons of CO2 in the air annually right now - 100times more than volcanoes currently emit. We can't separate gases in the atmosphere. It you cause the earth to warm just a little because of extra CO2, what's that do to the other gases? The earth is three quarters covered with water. We cannot control evaporation and transpiration. We cannot really impact water vapor in the air. It the atmosphere warms a little, it allows the air to hold more water vapor and the air to heat up even more positive feedback).

We can reduce the amount of CO2 we pump into the air. Reduce the effect of CO2, it also reduces the impact of water vapor. It is a synergistic system, and altering a part impacts the whole system. So far, scientist believe that the bad outweighs the good. This assessment is based on worst-case scenarios, but it is prudent to plan for the worst and pray it does not happen (the precautionary principle). Plans can be adjusted as we see what is happening, but because climate reacts slowly (in terms of human measure of time) to changes in atmospheric composition, it is not wise to allow changes to become extreme and then try to adjust our behaviors. It is far better to be careful so we don't have to take extreme actions to offset a problem. Take actions now to control the problem.

Global warming is a fact. We can measure it and the science explains how it works. Models can always be better, but 97%-98% of climatologists have conclude that global warming is occurring, it is from human activity. The stuff you cite is a well-known fraud.

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-19/world/eco.globa...

The number is much higher than 400 now. It's more like 900 or 1000. And that number is growing every day. As for the Oregon Petition Project, I don't put a whole lot of emphasis on it. I know 30,000 sounds like a big number as does 9,000 PhDs. Regardless if every name is legitimate and qualified to speak out, there's still probably a significant number that are credible which shows something.

Although, when you are talking to a fanatic, they could find a few duplicates or false PhDs and claim to have debunked the entire list. The only number they trust and cling to is 97%. And they cling to it like cold death.

However, what I find interesting is that in Germany of all places, AGW support lately is crumbling.

Prof. Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt and geologist/paleontologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning: http://notrickszone.com/2012/01/30/german-fear-of-...

Prof. Dr.Knut Löschke: http://notrickszone.com/2012/01/26/prof-knut-losch...

Professor Dr.Richard Dronskowski: http://notrickszone.com/2011/11/13/german-professo...

Dr. Ir. Henri A. Masson: http://notrickszone.com/2011/09/24/another-profess...

The scientific evidence and support for AGW has not advanced much lately and real world data is becoming a big problem for AGW believers. I expect the rhetoric and the vilification to notch up even more in the coming months and years. I have doubts that IPCC AR5 will even have any relevance when it comes out.

If the solar physicists are right, we actually will have a climate crisis in the next twenty years. Global cooling. Let's hope that either they are wrong or we are prepared. And by prepared I don't mean acres of wind farms and solar panels. If that were the case, we'd be screwed.

Consensuses are sometimes wrong. There used to be a consensus that the Earth was flat and we all know how that turned out. I think the only people that claim there is a consensus that global warming is man made are scientist that are getting paid to study man made global warming.

You can also find lists of "scientists" who dispute evolution. On which you will find a similar mix of experts in irrelevant fields, people who were misquoted and/or don't actually agree with the petition, people who aren't by any reasonable measure actual scientists, and (quite possibly) duplicates and/or people who don't actually exist. (on the evolution front, I think Project Steve is the best counter, but...)

If you look at measures that actually take into account who is a working scientist in the field--for example, counts of peer-reviewed scientific papers, or polls of the members of relevant scientific societies or organizations--I'm pretty positive you'll find that the vast, vast, vast majority of scientists in relevant fields, and even many in not-relevant fields, firmly agree with the prevailing scientific view about human-caused climate change--that is, that it's happening, it's our fault, and it's likely to be bad.

Clearly, you weren't serious about the reeducation camps except that is a logical extension of Alarmists aims. There is no consensus except a political one. Science isn't about consensus. It is about falsifying theories. When you fail to do that, what is left but cry consensus? I for one am not a sheep and don't follow a crowd just to feel like I belong. I don't understand people who do. I sure wasn't raised that way. I was raised a skeptic and I was trained as a scientist. Both make it hard for me to accept something unless it is supported by evidence. With alarmists, it isn't the evidence, it is the cause that is important.

Since when is 3% many

"In late December of 2007 a U.S. Senate report noted that over 400 prominent scientists for more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called “consensus” on man-made global warming."

Many of those 400 said their views were misrepresented or even completely false in that Senate report.

"31,000 scientists have now signed the Oregon Petition rejecting the IPCC line on climate change. 9000 of them are PhDs"

This has been shown to be a fraud over and over. Anybody with an internet connection can sign the petition and claim to have a PhD.

The American Physical Society refers to the evidence as "incontrovertible".

That statement alone tells you that the are very very few deniers. Ivar Giaever did not object to the APS believing AGW was very likely, he objected to the strength of that one word. Yet, the APS was not willing to change it because the evidence is in fact incontrovertible. It is time for uneducated people to get past this -- that human activity is now causing the atmosphere to retain more heat has been fully settled for at least six years. Scientists are well past that. You can say it with confidence: human activity is certainly causing the environment to retain more heat.

There is debate around the rates, effects, and natural contributions. There is still research being done. But the fact of Anthropogenic Climate Change has long been well past consensus. It is closer to unanimous among climate scientists

Like East Anglia (aka Scare Central)?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-209...