Meteorologist don't impress me as real scientist anyway, half the little girls doing weather on local TV news are meteorologist.
Hey it is the video itself that claims meteorologists are the highest level of expertise, fast forward the video to 2:15 and then look at the graph that states 97% of meteorologist are in support of AGW.
Sorry my mistake, meteorologist is the middle of the graph, climate scientist is the highest educated and most agreeable to AGW...So what degree is a climate scientist? I've never seen an actual Bachelor of Science in climate science...So what degree defines a climate scientist?
I'm certainly not the expert on all the degree offerings at different levels - MS, MS, phD... However here is one University's description of a Bachelor's of Science in Climate Science. Climate science is the comprehensive study of the Earth’s climate system, including the atmosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere (frozen water), land surface and biosphere. With a focus on developing research and practical skills, you’ll examine issues such as climate change, the El Niño–Southern Oscillation, drought, flood, tropical cyclones, and interactions with human society. Here's a description of a Masters Degree from UC San Diego: The UC San Diego Master's Degree in Climate Science and Policy equips professionals with the knowledge they need to improve society's response to climate change. It is focused on development of local capacity and science-based management tools. The program is designed to teach current and future professionals about climate science from the scientific, economic and policy perspectives, as well as provide important cultural and communications skills.
The Master of Advanced Studies program in Climate Science and Policy responds to an international need for people working in topics affected by the world's changing oceans and climate to combine the scientific knowledge of the Earth's climate system with an understanding of the political, legal, and economic challenges associated with applying scientific knowledge in particular governmental and social contexts. The program's interdisciplinary curriculum is designed to prepare practitioners to make wise and realistic decisions about the management of climate impacts and their associated risks. Crossing a variety of fields in climate sciences, policy and communication, the program invites students with professional backgrounds in the private and public sectors as well as non-government organizations (NGOs). The program is most appropriate for professionals in the following roles: Managers in CleanTech and related industries from all regions of the world Practicing ocean, climate and other natural scientists Educators Science policy analysts and advocates Communications specialists Financial experts Insurance officers Environmental engineers and military officers Experts in the energy sector Managers of utility services Environmental law practitioners Journalists https://scripps.ucsd.edu/masters/mas/climate-science-and-policy So according to this, you don't necessarily have to be a scientist, to get a Masters Degree in Climate Science and Policy. It reads more like a political degree than a scientific one.
There's probably some truth in what you say. However, usually one has a BS, prior to a Masters. Not sure if a BS in Climate Science is a prerequisite, which would include a lot of the science. Sometimes universities are flexible, and will accept other BS degrees. My experience is that if you get into an upper-level class, it's assumed you have the background knowledge necessary (in this case, the climate science). If not, the student will generally have a hard time keeping up...
Politics are not capable of reducing the amount of fossil fuel electrical energy generation to significantly reduce the rate of CO2 emissions increase. Any politician who tried to do this would be voted out of office. This is the Iron Law of Climate Policy. The only way to respond to the consequences of AGW (whatever they may be - they are net positive for the next ~ 3 deg C increase) is through economic growth and adaptation. Cities are 2 - 3 deg C warmer than the surrounding rural areas - the people living in the cities adapt.
Perhaps you should look at the source of funding for Dr. Roy Spencer (below). This is the tactic of the fossil fuel industry. Pay people with credentials to flip. Spencer admits that he believes in Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). He admits that he is part of the 97-98%. So let's start there. The word that was utilized in most of the 97-98% polls, was "significant". In other words - the results of AGW will be significant. If Dr. Spencer says he is part of the poll group, then he agreed to a "significant" climate result from AGW. Now the money starts coming out, and he publicly says it's not significant. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/roy-spencer-peabody-energy_us_57601e12e4b053d43306535e One of the world’s largest coal companies, Peabody Energy, paid a prominent scientist and dozens of others to promote climate change denial, new documents reveal. The company’s list of creditors, filed to comply with financial disclosure requirements as part of its recent bankruptcy, shows just how many different organizations and individuals Peabody Energy paid to deny climate change. The watchdog group Center for Media and Democracy published a breakdown of creditors that details their affiliations. One such creditor is Roy Spencer, who teaches at the University of Alabama, Huntsville.
Relatively short list of scientist compared to the list of scientist I posted earlier that don't buy into the agw hysteria. So much for the 97% BS.
Define significant. And again we see personal attacks on Dr. Spencer in lieu of anything fact based. But that's what alarmists do. BTW Dr. Spencer does not deny that global warming is happening.
And a list of scientist's names proves something? If you actually viewed the original video, you will find that of climatologists, 97% confirm AGW as a significant threat. Meteorologists and geologists have a much smaller consensus. The denier polls approached any scientist with a BS degree (I have a BS) to come up with a huge number of scientists - 20,000+. The number is meaningless, because there are hundreds of thousands with BS degrees in the US. The number represents only 2-3%.
LOL, you still have it wrong. A bunch of buddies at (un)SkepticalScience reviewed thousands of papers and threw most of them out so the real percent is around 3%. No one actually asked the climatologists. Besides that, everyone agrees it has warmed and that man puts CO2 in the atmosphere and that puts the accused deniers in the 100% that believe that. What it does in a coupled non-linear chaotic system is where the real debate is and the CO2 centric hypothesis is unfalsifiable. So are the computer models of which the worst case and least likely models are used to scare the useful idiots.
You should watch the Denial101 video. You obviously haven't. Multiple studies HAVE polled the Climatologists. You show your bias, with every post, by starting them out with "LOL". Maybe you can get a little more creative, and maybe you can study the actual science, instead of what FOX News tells you.
Well that video was the subject of this thread. You won't watch it, but you'll spend hours criticizing it.
That makes the thread a joke. A failed cartoonist with an alarmist blog is not what one calls 'science'.