Is the science on anthropogenic global warming settled?

Get a life!

Yes.

No, because 6 scientists, whose research is funded by multinationals disagree.

Randy Oldman wrote:

No, because 6 scientists, whose research is funded by multinationals disagree.

Abstract

It is often said that there is a scientific “consensus” to the effect that climate change will be “catastrophic” and that, on this question, “the debate is over”. The present paper will demonstrate that the claim of unanimous scientific “consensus” was false, and known to be false, when it was first made; that the trend of opinion in the peer-reviewed journals and even in the UN’s reports on climate is moving rapidly away from alarmism; that, among climate scientists, the debate on the causes and extent of climate change is by no means over; and that the evidence in the peer-reviewed literature conclusively demonstrates that, to the extent that there is a “consensus”, that “consensus” does not endorse the notion of “catastrophic” climate change.

Here's a summary of the article:

Brenchley’s paper goes on to cite the origin of the claim that global warming has universal consensus among the scientific community, when in fact, there never was consensus. His paper also addresses a more serious issue at hand here. The issue of fraud being perpetuated by some in the scientific community and by the journal Science specifically.

The claim of “consensus” can be traced back to an article in the journal Science entitled “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change” by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian who lacked qualifications in climatology. In her essay (not a scientific peer-reviewed paper) published in 2004, she analyzed 928 abstracts published in peer-reviewed science journals between 1993 and 2003, using the key words “climate change”.

She concluded that 75% of the papers either explicitly or implicitly accepted the “consensus” view; 25% took no position, being concerned with palaeoclimate rather than today’s climate; and –“Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. … This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect. … Our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it. … There is a consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.”

A lot of heavy stuff coming from one essay, however, when true scientific scrutiny was applied to her essay, it turns out it was bunk. After all, replication of scientific findings is the hallmark of science.

Benchley goes on to cite an attempt to replicate Oreskes study by Dr Benny Peiser, of Liverpool John Moores University in the UK. He found that using the search words “climate change” in the ISI Web of Science database, there were over 12,000 papers (from 1993 to 2003) not the 928 as Oreskes claimed. When he notified Science of his findings, the editors backpedaled and said that her search was based on “global climate change” not “climate change”.

Peiser then changed his search to “global climate change” which yielded 1117 documents, 929 articles and 905 abstracts. Among the many conflicting conclusions Peiser found was that fewer than 33% of the articles either explicitly or implicitly endorsed the “consensus” as defined by Oreskes (not the 75% that she claimed), and that more than HALF of the 905 abstracts didn’t mention anthropogenic climate change at all! Only 13 of the 1117 documents explicitly agreed with Oreskes own definition of “consensus.” That’s only 1%!

Dr Peiser wrote Science with his findings pointing out the many holes in Oreskes findings, only to have Science return a letter requesting a shortened version, when he did, they refused to publish it anyway! The editors of Science refused to publish any of the letters they received pointing out the deficiencies in the Oreskes analysis.

"It is often said that there is a scientific consensus to the effect that climate change will be catastrophic and that, on this question, the debate is over."

The OP did not ask about the consensus on if the change will be catastrophic.

He asked if there is a consensus about if people are changing the climate.

I am a climate researcher. The science is absolutely settled.

climate scientist wrote:

I am a climate researcher. The science is absolutely settled.

I am a senior researcher. The science might be settled. But I need 10m more funding to be sure.

We might all die if I don't get my funding. Super cereal.

One thing is for sure, global warming is responsible for the last two bitter winters, and the cooler than normal summers of 2013 and 2014.

You see,... it gets colder when it gets warmer.

HERP DERP!!!!!

climate_super_scientist wrote:

climate scientist wrote:

I am a climate researcher. The science is absolutely settled.

I am a senior researcher. The science might be settled. But I need 10m more funding to be sure.

We might all die if I don't get my funding. Super cereal.

One thing is for sure, global warming is responsible for the last two bitter winters, and the cooler than normal summers of 2013 and 2014.

You see,... it gets colder when it gets warmer.

HERP DERP!!!!!

^This.

It is cold where I am, therefore global warming is a hoax. This is rock solid logic. The scientific method at its finest. Suck it BUTTHURT LIBTARDS!!!

climate_super_scientist wrote:

climate scientist wrote:

I am a climate researcher. The science is absolutely settled.

I am a senior researcher. The science might be settled. But I need 10m more funding to be sure.

We might all die if I don't get my funding. Super cereal.

One thing is for sure, global warming is responsible for the last two bitter winters, and the cooler than normal summers of 2013 and 2014.

You see,... it gets colder when it gets warmer.

HERP DERP!!!!!

Well said.

Your check's in the mail.

No!!! Wait....... NO!!!!!!!!!!

The science is settled. Everybody can see that the temperature has risen 10 degrees and the sea level has risen 4 meters just like Al Gore and IPCC predicted 15 years ago.

"Is the science on anthropogenic global warming settled?"

Trick question: science doesn't actually "settle." That's sort of the whole point of the enterprise, really.

Oh, and 1/10. Someone show a little creativity around here, please.

Almost every major scientific organization has published a statement that the science is settled. No major scientific organization even takes a skeptical view.

One scientific organization that represents polluters, The American Association of Petroleum Geologists, changed its position a few years ago. They used to officially be skeptical of anthropogenic global warming, but now they take no position.

This link has a summary of each position of each organization. You can follow links to find the full climate change statement of each.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by_scientific_organizations_of_national_or_international_standing