But there is no indication how many work in the field of climate science? What is notable is that the polls indicate there is a perspective difference between working climate scientists and scientists not working in the field of climate. When one examines the experts in the field, one sees a significant divergence from the general view.
So the more important question for us is, what do 'expert' climate scientists think? When compared with pres levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant? Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures? Source: Pew Research Center. Changing scientific opinion In the Gallup organization conducted a telephone survey on global climate change among scientists drawn from membership lists of the American Meteorological Association and the American Geophysical Union.
We repeated several of their questions verbatim, in order to measure changes in scientific opinion over time. On a variety of questions, opinion has consistently shifted toward increased belief in and concern about global warming.
Among the changes:. Source: George Mason University. There is a hoax going on, but it's not what some claim. Learn now to separate fact from fiction and reason from rhetoric to learn who is really 'tricking' you.
This book includes critical economic facts and key percentages that put the climate debate in a whole new light. Powered by Plone with the Notre Dame Skin. Skip to navigation Personal tools Log in Register. Impacts are due to observed climate change, irrespective of its cause, indicating the sensitivity of natural and human systems to changing climate. Cook, J. Nuccitelli, S. Green, M. Richardson, B. Winkler, R. Painting, R. Way, P. Jacobs, and A. Skuce Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature.
Environmental Research Letters , 8, Consensus on consensus: A synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming. Environmental Research Letters , 11, Doran, P. Eos , 90 3 , 22— Climate Change Synthesis Report. Geneva Switzerland. Accessed January 22, Oreskes, N. The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change. Science , , Both papers were based on analyses of earlier publications.
Other analyses and surveys arrive at different, often lower, numbers depending in part on how support for the concept was defined and on the population surveyed. Authors addressing impacts might believe that the Earth is warming without believing it is anthropogenic.
In the article, Oreskes said some authors she counted "might believe that current climate change is natural. The most influential and most debated article was the paper by Cook, et al. The authors used methodology similar to Oreskes but based their analysis on abstracts rather than full content.
I do not intend to reopen the debate over this paper. Reviews of published surveys were published in by Cook and his collaborators and by Richard S. Tol , Professor of Economics at the University of Sussex. Dates given are those of the survey, not the publication date. The classification of publishing and non-publishing is that used by Cook and his collaborators.
These categories are intended to be measures of how active the scientists in the sample analyzed have been in writing peer-reviewed articles on climate change. Because of different methodology, that information is not available in all of the surveys.
The categorization should be considered an approximation. One does not expect nuance in political speeches, and the authors of scientific papers cannot be held responsible for the statements of politicians and the media.
0コメント