Is+there+a+scientific+consensus+on+global+warming?

** Is there a scientific consensus on global warming? **
 * [[image:http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/right_top_shadow.gif width="553" height="7"]]

=The skeptic argument...= The Petition Project features over 31,000 scientists signing the petition stating "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere". (Petition Project)

What the science says...
That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 19 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, 97% of climate scientists actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position. 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. //Figure 1: Response to the survey question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (////Doran 2009////)// //General public data come from a// //2008 Gallup poll////.// 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."//

Scientific organizations endorsing the consensus
The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities": The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position: A letter from 18 scientific organizations to US Congress states:
 * American Association for the Advancement of Science
 * American Astronomical Society
 * American Chemical Society
 * American Geophysical Union
 * American Institute of Physics
 * American Meteorological Society
 * American Physical Society
 * Australian Coral Reef Society
 * Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
 * Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
 * British Antarctic Survey
 * Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
 * Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
 * Environmental Protection Agency
 * European Federation of Geologists
 * European Geosciences Union
 * European Physical Society
 * Federation of American Scientists
 * Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
 * Geological Society of America
 * Geological Society of Australia
 * International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
 * International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
 * National Center for Atmospheric Research
 * National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
 * Royal Meteorological Society
 * Royal Society of the UK
 * Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
 * Royal Society of Canada
 * Chinese Academy of Sciences
 * Academie des Sciences (France)
 * Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
 * Indian National Science Academy
 * Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
 * Science Council of Japan
 * Russian Academy of Sciences
 * Royal Society (United Kingdom)
 * National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science." The consensus is also endorsed by a Joint statement by the Network of African Science Academies (NASAC), including the following bodies: Two other Academies of Sciences that endorse the consensus:
 * African Academy of Sciences
 * Cameroon Academy of Sciences
 * Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
 * Kenya National Academy of Sciences
 * Madagascar's National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences
 * Nigerian Academy of Sciences
 * l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
 * Uganda National Academy of Sciences
 * Academy of Science of South Africa
 * Tanzania Academy of Sciences
 * Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
 * Zambia Academy of Sciences
 * Sudan Academy of Sciences
 * [|Royal Society of New Zealand]
 * [|Polish Academy of Sciences]

A survey of peer-reviewed research
Scientists need to back up their opinions with research and data that survive the peer-review process. A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004). 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way (focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis). More on Naomi Oreskes' survey...

Klaus-Martin Schulte's list of studies rejecting the consensus
That is not to say there are no studies that reject the consensus position. Klaus-Martin Schulte surveyed peer-reviewed abstracts from 2004 to February 2007 and claims 32 studies (6%) reject the consensus position. In these cases, it's instructive to read the studies to see whether they actually do refute the consensus and if so, what their arguments are. You can read a summary of Schulte's skeptic studies here... [|Printable Version] | [|Link to this page]

Related Arguments

 * [|Less than half of published scientists endorse global warming]
 * [|Naomi Oreskes' study on consensus was flawed]
 * [|IPCC does not represent a scientific consensus]

Further viewing
The [|"Climate Denial Crock of the Week"] video series examines the list of "32,000 leading skeptical scientists."

Naomi Oreskes gives a thorough presentation of the development of our scientific understanding of anthropogenic global warming:

Latest Posts

 * [|Heat stress: setting an upper limit on what we can adapt to]
 * [|Estimating climate sensitivity from 3 million years ago]
 * [|Climate Change and the Integrity of Science: a letter to Science]
 * [|University of Queensland talk wrap-up]
 * [|Kung-fu Climate]
 * [|Rain in the Canadian High Arctic in April?]
 * [|What causes Arctic amplification?]
 * [|Skeptical Science talk at University of Qld on May 7]
 * [|Common graphical tricks and the Medieval Warm Period]
 * [|Why are there fewer weather stations and what's the effect?]
 * [|A visual depiction of how much ice Greenland is losing]
 * [|Has Arctic sea ice returned to normal?]
 * [|Skeptical Science Housekeeping: flags, printable versions, icons and links... lots of links]
 * [|The significance of past climate change]
 * [|Where is global warming going?]
 * [|Tracking the energy from global warming]
 * [|Earth's five mass extinction events]
 * [|Flowers blooming earlier now than any time in last 250 years]
 * [|Arctic Sea Ice (Part 1): Is the Arctic Sea Ice recovering? A reality check]
 * [|Skeptical Science on steroids: the EPA response to 300,000 public comments]
 * [|Skeptical Science Housekeeping: Preview, translations and icons]
 * [|Ocean acidification: Global warming's evil twin]
 * [|Are we too stupid?]
 * [|McLean, de Freitas and Carter rebutted... by McLean, de Freitas and Carter]
 * [|A residential lifetime]
 * [|A database of peer-reviewed papers on climate change]
 * [|Greenland's ice mass loss has spread to the northwest]
 * [|The human fingerprint in global warming]
 * [|How you can support Skeptical Science]
 * [|Is the science settled?] ||

© Copyright 2010 John Cook || || Source: || [] ||
 * [[image:http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/p.gif width="218" height="1"]]