Some 97 out of 100 actively publishing climate scientists agree with the overwhelming evidence that humans are causing global warming.
The challenge for the media is how to accurately reflect that consensus. One way NOT to do it is to give equal time to climate science deniers. Unsurprisingly (yet tragically), that is the preferred strategy of most of the MSM. False balance lives at CNN, Reuters, Bloomberg, and even PBS.
Only one cable news show has been brave enough to take on false balance with a "statistically representative climate change debate." Unfortunately, it's a fake news show, John Oliver's "Last Week Tonight," on HBO. Here is the must-see segment:
Sadly, this is no laughing matter. False balance and media miscoverage have left the public with a serious misperception about the degree of scientific agreement on climate change:
And as Skeptical Science has noted, this "consensus gap" matters: "Research has shown that people who are unaware of the expert consensus are less likely to accept the science and less likely to support taking action to address the problem, so media false balance can be linked directly to our inability to solve the climate problem."
All scientists and media outlets should heed the "advice to climate scientists on how to avoid being swift-boated," from History professor Juan Cole:
"Any broadcast that pits a climate change skeptic against a serious climate scientist is automatically a win for the skeptic, since a false position is being given equal time and legitimacy."
By. Joe Romm of Climate Progress
Joe Romm is a Fellow at American Progress and is the editor of Climate Progress, which New York Times columnist Tom Friedman called "the indispensable… More
Comments
Who knew 97% of idiots economically dependent on "climate change" think their is "climate change".
It's comical that people are truly this stupid.
The debate is over you say? We've been watching too much FOX news you say? Got our heads in the sand you say? Really? Lemme say this, ...YOU and the people who regurgitate that nonsense/drivel noted above from groups like "Climate Progress" are helping to perpetuate one of the greatest frauds in human history. WE WANT A DEBATE! There is no 97 out of 100. It's complete BS! We want scientists to debate other scientists before moronic/idiotic economic decisions are made which effect all of humanity. Here are some OUR scientists:
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/31000-scientists-say-no-convincing-evidence
"So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.
Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”."
Question #1: When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
About 90% of all the scientists and 97% of the climate scientists said temperatures had risen.
Question #2: Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
About 82% of all the scientists and 97% climate scientists agreed that human activity is a significant contributing factor.
The anonymous poll sought the opinion of the most complete list of earth scientists they could find, contacting more than 10,200 experts at universities and government labs around the world listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments. The 2-minute, two-question poll had 3146 responses (30.7% of those polled). Approximately 90% of the scientists who responded were from the U.S., and about 90% held a Ph.D. degree. Of these scientists, 5% were climate scientists who published more than 50% of all their peer-reviewed publications in the past five years on the subject of climate change. The authors noted that the survey included participants with well-documented dissenting opinions on global warming theory. More results from this study, including responses from the general public, are shown below in Figure 1. (Read this study in full.)
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf
The moronic 97% "consensus" is like saying that 97% of priests believe in god. Of course they do, it's their job.
31,000 scientists say there is "no convincing evidence" that humans can or will cause "catastrophic" heating of the atmosphere.
This claim originates from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, which has an online petition...
To participate in the petition one only needs to mark a check box to show that one has a Ph.D., M.S., or B.S. degree, and then fill in the fields. Unfortunately, that means that anyone can sign the petition, whether they have a degree or not.
Since the results are not verifiable, there is no way to know how many signers have actually earned a degree.
Do '31,000 scientists say global warming is not real'? Maybe. But more importantly what is the significance of these signatures? The majority of signatures are engineers (10,102). 3,046 are in medicine. 2,965 are in biology, biochemistry and agriculture. 4,822 in chemistry and chemical engineering.
Without formal training in climate science the level of understanding remains unknown among those that signed the petition. A key question is not how many of those that signed the petition know climate exists, but rather how many of those that signed work directly in the field of climate science.
Only 12% of those who signed...
According to the data on the petition site, only 12% of those who signed the petition are indicated to have affiliation with atmosphere, earth, and environmental science. But there is no indication how many work in the field of climate science?
As for questioning what a "climate scientist" is since there is no corresponding university degree, than one could ask what is any scientist, since in general there are no 'scientist' degrees. Medical Scientist, Biological Scientist, etc., there are no degrees for any of these. Similar to CEO, CFO, Investment Broker, and many other job titles.