Actually anthropocentric climate change has been shown to be the consensus among climate scientists. https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/
Concenus is man has some effect on climate and even Judith Curry is counted in scientists believing that but only a very few scientists believe man is the primary driver of climate change. The vast majority believe our contribution is somewhere between inconsequential and nothing to get excited about. The Cook study falsely counts them as full fledged believers in AGW and as the OP points out the number of scientists buying into AGW is irrelevant anyway.
I always hear about the flaws of the Cook study. But there have been numerous studies supporting the consensus on climate change. Here they are: Verheggen et al., 2014 Powell, 2013 John Cook et al., 2013 (the one you mentioned) Lefsrud and Meyer, 2012 Farnsworth and Lichter, 2011 Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2010 Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009 Bray and von Storch, 2008 Harris Interactive with the Statistical Assessment Service, 2007 Oreskes, 2004 Also, virtually every major scientific organization related to climate science publicly endorses that view as well, as my NASA source showed.
Because the very nature of science involves limited info and knowledge ? Or you get people like that infamous physicist that claimed all of physics is known and only some details remain! Then the new field of quantum physics made him look like an utter fool! Remember ? The problem isnt science but the flawed humans who make claims of scientific certainty....writing checks they cannot cash. In this sense some people in science become similar to the old religious authority and have taken on the role of priests This is the human element in science .Doing what humans do ..exclaim authority and certainty. While not knowing if newdiscoveries will .change understanding in the future. Remember that physicist with his claims.
You still are not getting it. Scientists like Judith Curry the "denier" extraordinaire would be counted in those numbers because she agrees C02 has some effect on climate.
Which study would she be counted in? All of them, or just the Cook study? I also missed a couple: Carlton 2015 Stenhouse 2014 Verheggen et al., 2014 Powell, 2013 John Cook et al., 2013 (the one you mentioned) Lefsrud and Meyer, 2012 Farnsworth and Lichter, 2011 Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2010 Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009 Bray and von Storch, 2008 Harris Interactive with the Statistical Assessment Service, 2007 Oreskes, 2004
All of them. Any scientists that believes mans c02 has any effect on climate is counted as affirming the AGW hypothesis. Problem is they don't because they don't believe man is the primary driver of climate and our contribution will lead to catastrophic events which is the basis of the AGW hypothesis.
I've read enough to draw that conclusion. It's a small minority of scientists that believe man is the primary driver of climate change the results of which will be catastrophic.
You just claimed that every single study I referenced would have mis-classified this climate skeptic as agreeing with the consensus. Do you have any evidence for this claim? For example, in the Carlton 2015 survey. You can read it here. Can you find a problem in their study that misclassifies climate skeptics? https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094025
All these study's make the same claim about overwhelming numbers of scientists supporting AGW which is mathematically impossible unless you count scientist who believe mans C02 is a contributing factor no matter how slight.
Why do you believe this is "mathematically impossible." The paper I referenced goes into fine detail about how it arrived at the numbers it did and is available for anyone to critique.
From your link, "Most respondents (93.6%) believe that mean temperatures have risen and most (91.9%) believe in an anthropogenic contribution to rising temperatures." Look closely at that statement and then think about what I've been telling you as to who is counted in those numbers, Even a "denier" such as myself wouldn't argue with that blanket statement and I'd. Be counted in the 91 percentile.
And they are very open about that. Here is another statement. Most of the skepticism from scientists are from people who don't know the planet is warming. "93.6% of respondents across all disciplines indicated that they thought temperatures have risen" "Of those who indicated that they believed temperatures have risen, 98.2% indicated they believe that 'human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures'."
This isn't about pedestals or moral/ethical issues with products made from scientific discoveries. This is about climate, and what scintists the world over have been finding out about how Earth works.
Sure. Also, doctors have been wrong before, so we're all better off just going with our gut on health and wellbeing. I'm off to eat a gallon of bacon ice cream, because that's what my gut demands right now.
Point is scientists are not infallible and should not be treated as such and the science of the AGW hypothesis is not "settled science" as so many claim.
I think you misunderstand the intent of the phrase "settled science" and the idea of scientific consensus if your interpretation of such is that people are treating scientists as infallible. We're faced with an existing situation: global average termperatures are increasing year over year. We observe that these temperature increases are leading to negative conditions for our species and a lot of others on this planet. We observe that the rise in temperature coincides with an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. That CO2 increase coincides with the industrial revolution. Based on all that, the AGW hypothesis is formed and repeatedly tested. It has been tested for more than half a century, including by scientists working for private companies in the energy industry. While there have been modifications to details of the idea, with regard to exactly how much human activity contributes, for example, the hypothesis has yet to be falsified. I consider that pretty settled. So we're facing a bad situation, and an overwhelming number of the people most likely to know about the issue, who have spent decades studying it, are telling us that we have some cuplability for it and that there are ways that we can reduce our impact. But scientists (not even these scientists, just some scientists in the past) have been wrong before, so f*** 'em all? Or, at the very least we should consider the opinions of people who have a huge monetary stake in those scientists being wrong, but whose contravening evidence is dwarfed by the evidence that is consistent with the AGW hypothesis? Has the other side ever been wrong about anything? Last point of consideration, all those times scientists were wrong, who corrected them? Lay persons? Captains of industry? Or was it other scientists (even themselves, in some cases)?
Science and thus those who practice it is often wrong until it corrects itself, that is what it is. The entire history of our species is learning one lesson after another and building upon the knowledge. The key is to actually learn and adjust as needed.
Cite please. The Cook analysis and many others are on the record. Our major science efforts, NASA, NOAA, and our universities, etc., show science indicating that humans are indeed the major factor. And, this is what is reported the world over - not just the USA. If you think there is one that supports your personal contention, I'd like to see it.
Even Judith Curry would be counted as a supporter in the cook study. I’ve posted how this works in another thread but I’m not going to search for it. If you choose not to believe me that’s your prerogative.
That doesn't mean anything at all unless you can show some sort of data concerning how many are being overcounted. The Cook report and several others confirm that the vast majority of experts in climatology agree that human contribution IS the major problem. Show some data if you disagree. Don't tell me Judith Curry - one single climatologist who in fact agrees that we must get serious about this problem of warming - regardless of the exact percent of human contribution.