97.5% Of Climatologists Blame Global Warming On “Human Activity”

Recently, in a friendly conversation, my matter of fact view of the danger of CO2 pollution was disputed. I stated that, according to my understanding, there is no debate in the scientific community about how CO2 accumulation must lead to global warming. To my surprise, my POV, based on what I assumed was settled science, was vigorously contested. I was told, about the impact and long term effect of CO2 accumulation, “There is no scientific consensus.”

Wow. When there is a basic disagreement about fundamental facts, that’s a conversation stopper.

If CO2 accumulation poses a lethal threat to future generations, then it is the obligation of this generation to take the difficult and expensive measures to protect future generations. If scientists are in disagreement that CO2 is a credible threat, then maybe we should wait until scientific understanding is more certain.

My brief Goggle research shows a lot of reason to support my POV about the consensus of scientists concerning the impact of CO2 accumulation. I’ll be glad to post arguments contradicting this POV.

Checking with Wikipedia, I found this comment: “The controversy is significantly more pronounced in the popular media than in the scientific literature, where there is a consensus that recent global warming is mostly attributable to human activity.”

An article from five years ago, “World scientists urge CO2 action”states, “It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities. The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action.”

A web-site called skepticalscience.com provides this chart,

The article accompanying the chart explains:

Is there a scientific consensus on global warming? Inevitably, there will be scientists who are skeptical about man-made global warming. A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” (Doran 2009). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what are most interesting are responses compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn’t publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes. As the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures.

Most striking is the divide between expert climate scientists (97.4%) and the general public (58%). The paper concludes “It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists.

The video below starts with a clip of Steven Colbert interviewing a former General Motors Vice President named Bob Lutz. Colbert challenges Lutz, “You don’t believe that global warming is real.” And Lutz defends his POV by stating that 32,000 scientists agree with him that CO2 is not the problem.

This video is very professionally done and, I believe, well worth watching, and is credited to Peter Sinclair. It is part of a series, “Climate Denial, Crock of the Week.” It shows where this claim, of 32,000 dissenting scientists, cited by Lutz, comes from. The video compares global warming deniers, seeking to block new public policy concerning CO2 accumulation, to cigarette health endangerment deniers, who at one time used bogus scientific arguments to block new public policies concerning cigarette use.

On his web-site, Sinclair writes,

Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.

There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.