What do you think of climate change?

[LeafByNiggle]

Northern sea ice has been stable between 2005 and 2019.

The chart you present from “climate4you” they say is from the Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency, and it shows different numbers than the one from NASA that I cited. Why do you suppose they have different numbers, and why would you prefer one to the other? For example, the NASA chart shows arctic sea ice extent at a minimum of 4.0 million km2 for the fall of 2015 while the JAXA chart shows 4.3 million km2. That may be a small point, but the bigger point is how the display of year-round ice obscures the minimum. If you look at the JAXA chart you posted and focus on the minimum extent only and graph the trend, you will see it shows the same downward trend as the NASA chart. But the year round data obscures that fact. In short, Tony uses the same trickery that he accuses others of using.

 

[Ender]

2019 – Babylon Bee: Experts warn we have only 12 years left before they change the timeline on global warming again.

This is one prediction I would expect to come true.

 

[phaster]

…Snopes fact-checking anything, perhaps they ought to stick to fact checking satirical and parody sites such as the Babylon Bee rather than proclaim “as fact” what they have little expertise in.

interesting the random trivia that I’ve leaned in the course of this thread,… anyway since you (and perhaps many others) don’t believe Snopes is credible, so what about a word from time magazine itself who categorically deny they published something deniers tout as fact!!!

Sorry, a TIME Magazine Cover Did Not Predict a Coming Ice Age

…the hoax does touch on an important part of climate science — and one that’s often misunderstood by skeptics. Call it the Ice Age Fallacy. Skeptics argue that back in the 1970s both popular media and some scientists were far more worried about global cooling than they were about global warming.

blah, blah, blah

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

http://time.com/5670942/time-magazine-ice-age-cover-hoax/

The TIME Magazine Vault

(NOTE,… The Global Warming Survival Guide | Apr. 9, 2007)
The TIME Magazine Vault

BTW if you re-read the post perhaps you’ll see the intended audience of my comment/humor was directed at another poster (who has a PhD) and seems to have grown tired of the same old arguments examples

phaster:

a good basic understanding of physics, chemistry and math is a prerequisite to grasp why the confluence of factors in play,… like long term solar system dynamics and the basic physical properties of a CO2 molecule,… which taken together directly points to the hand of mankind causing climate change,… BUT we know most don’t attend university to formally study climate science

anyway, to answer the question you seem to be asking,… the basic “theory” why CO2 is a GHG is because of physical properties of the molecule

I have a PhD in chemistry. I’m conceding that some people do not accept the science or at least not yet

also FWIW I’m posting as a physicist in real life (hand on bible “swear to god”) w/ a background and interest in among other things aviation and aerospace technology,…

given you posted as evidence

CO2 is not a pollutant.

It is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.

thought of an example (in a closed system)

https://www.uvm.edu/~cmehrten/courses/earthhist/Earth%20Closed%20System.pdf

where too much of an essential gas (for life) as you (seem to believe) isn’t actually the truth!!!

Apollo 13 the CO2 problem

 

[phaster]

Dry Facts, Debate, Despair: How Not to Teach Climate Change

…The message from popular culture can seem to urge that teachers just get with the program and tell students what to think., …But effective teachers know that leading with the attitude that anyone who doesn’t accept climate change is stupid is no way to help their students learn.

…Having students debate whether climate change is solid science isn’t a good strategy, because the science is, in fact, solid; there’s nothing there worth debating. As multiple studies using different methods have independently concluded,

…concentrating on the dire consequences of climate change isn’t a winner either: While students will certainly pay attention to hearing about climate change’s role in current extreme weather events and the like, the risk is that they will wind up feeling despondent and powerless.

Dry facts, debate, doom and gloom—teachers striving to teach climate change effectively despite the obstacles to doing so can be forgiven for considering all of the above.

Fortunately, there’s a better way. Climate change education is no different from any other topic in science, in that teachers want students to learn how scientists arrive at their conclusions: by collecting and evaluating evidence, assessing different explanations for the evidence, and provisionally adopting the best explanation available.

Dry Facts, Debate, Despair: How Not to Teach Climate Change (Opinion)

Children suffering eco-anxiety over climate change

…“Children are saying things like, ‘Climate change is here as revenge, you’ve messed up the climate and nature is fighting back through climate change’,” said Caroline Hickman, a teaching fellow at the University of Bath and a CPA executive.

“There is no doubt in my mind that they are being emotionally impacted … That real fear from children needs to be taken seriously by adults.”

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-b...limate-change-say-psychologists-idUSKBN1W42CF

Hopeless or hopeful? How eco-anxiety affects kids and youth

…there may be some benefit to eco-anxiety – as long as there’s not too much of it.

“Too much anxiety paralyzes you,” said Korol, relating the issue to the Yerkes–Dodson law that suggests stress can increase motivation. For many of the eco-anxious, encouraging engagement and participation in climate action may actually be helpful, she said, but so can turning down the TV.

That’s because hope is a key factor. “It’s important to counteract the nihilism and the hopelessness that people feel,” she said. “Hopelessness is the big enemy of solving any problem, including climate change. When we’re talking about children, we need to give them hope.”

http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/hopeless-or-hopeful-how-eco-anxiety-affects-kids-and-youth-1.4608324

wonder are skeptics who say they don’t believe the basic science of CO2 is causing CC, is because admitting so is akin to admitting ITEOTWAWKI???

 

[Theo520]

wonder are skeptics who say they don’t believe the basic science of CO2 is causing CC, is because admitting so is akin to admitting ITEOTWAWKI???

I’m wondering why some here don’t understand that it’s water and other feedbacks, not CO2 that is causing the alarmist model projections for warming.

CO2 only adds 1.1C in warming with doubling.

 

[phaster]

CO2 only adds 1.1C in warming with doubling.

what if this denier talking point like another one making the rounds,…

HarryStotle:

CO2 is not a pollutant.

It is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.

thought of an example (in a closed system)

http://www.uvm.edu/~cmehrten/courses/earthhist/Earth Closed System.pdf

where too much of an essential gas (for life) as you (seem to believe) isn’t actually the truth!!!

Apollo 13 the CO2 problem

is actually false AND good intentions actually lead to hell (on earth),…

think this is just an academic exercise?! if so check out the OP of another thread about financial mismanagement of a catholic hospital

'Why Is There Nothing Left?' Pension Funds Failing At Catholic Hospitals Catholic Living

this is a symptom of a fractal problem,… meaning the issue of financial mismanagement of pensions portfolios is repeated at different levels w/ in the economy,… for example @ the city level www.TinyURL.com/13thcheck then again @ the county level, then again @ the state level www.TinyURL.com/InvestorWarning actually the issue has made the news in different parts of the world,…

basically don’t think people fully appreciate murphy’s law

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

along w/

the parable of the vineyard owner which seems apropos to a homily about “climate change”

Here is a brief summary:

A landowner set forth a vineyard with great care and lavish attention. He then entrusted it to tenant farmers. At harvest time, he sought his share of the produce. Yet instead of giving the owner what was due him, the tenant farmers refused, ridiculing, beating, and even killing the servants sent to collect his share. They end by killing the landowner’s own son.

When Jesus asks his audience what they thought the owner would do in response, they replied that he would put the men to a wretched death and lease his vineyard to other tenants who would give him the produce at the proper time. Obviously, they did not realize that in the parable the Lord was actually describing them, and that such a judgment would be upon them unless they repented.

National Catholic Register

 

[Ender]

1991, the Club of Rome:

“outline a strategy for mobilizing the world’s governments for environmental security and clean energy by purposefully converting the world from a military to a civil economy, tackling global warming and to solve the energy problem, dealing with world poverty and disparities between the northern hemisphere and the Southern Hemisphere”.

“It would seem that humans need a common motivation, namely a common adversary, to organize and act together in the vacuum; such a motivation must be found to bring the divided nations together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one invented for the purpose”.

“The common enemy of humanity is man”.
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.

Stephen Schneider, Discover Magazine (October 1989 vol. 10 no.10):

On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.

1992, The Rio Summit, Maurice Strong

“What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of the rich countries?… In order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

1997, The Kyoto protocol, Timothy Worth (lead US negotiator):

“We’ve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”

Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change:

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution. That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 – you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation.”

 

[phaster]

Some economics nerds just realized how much climate change will cost us

…according to a new paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, that prevailing wisdom is backwards. The authors argue that a carbon tax should start out steep, above $100 per ton (and potentially above $200 per ton), rise higher for a few years, and then slowly fall over the next few centuries as people get the whole climate crisis thing under control.

Such a high price would encourage countries and businesses to clean up their act much faster. Part of the reason is that we need to make up for lost time.

“To me the most surprising result of the research was how quickly the cost of delay increases over time,” said Robert Litterman, a risk management expert who used to work for Goldman Sachs, in a statement accompanying the study. His team found that if the world procrastinated on a carbon price by just one more year, the damages from climate change would climb an additional $1 trillion. Waiting 10 years would put the price tag at $100 trillion. In other words, the time to act was yesterday (or, like the 1980s).

…Because studying the climate is a risky business, the researchers borrowed a model from the world of finance, which is hyper-focused on measuring risk (hello β). Their unconventional model considered the damage climate change would bring to agriculture, coastal infrastructure, and human health in the future. Their takeaway: For something as high stakes as the climate crisis, governments should be trying to avoid the worst outcome at all costs.

“We need to take stronger action today to give us breathing room in the event that the planet turns out to be more fragile than current models predict,” said Kent Daniel, a professor at Columbia Business School, in the statement.

http://grist.org/article/some-economics-nerds-just-realized-how-much-climate-change-will-cost-us/

Citing climate risk, investors bet against mortgage market

NEW YORK (Reuters) - David Burt helped two of the protagonists of Michael Lewis’ book The Big Short bet against the U.S. mortgage market in the run-up to the 2008 financial crisis. Now he’s betting against the market again, but this time, the risk is not from underwater subprime mortgages, it’s from homes sinking under water.

As he did then, Burt has given up his full-time job to make that bet. He left his role as a portfolio manager at the $1 trillion Wellington Management last year to start an investment firm, DeltaTerra Capital, which aims to help clients manage climate risk, and, where possible, take advantage of ways the market has not yet priced in that risk. His first investment strategy is targeting residential mortgage-backed securities, or RMBS, with exposure to climate hot spots like Texas and Florida.

“The market’s failure to integrate climate science with investment analysis has created a mispricing phenomenon that is possibly larger than the mortgage credit bubble of the mid-2000s,”

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-c...ors-bet-against-mortgage-market-idUSKBN1WE0D3

 

[phaster]

the Club of Rome

[blab, blab, blab,… about individuals/groups various ideas of a new world order]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/New_World_Order

given human nature seems WRT CC,… personal emotions and feelings about an issue are valued more than the scientific method

Why Do Ever Fearful Conservatives Ignore Climate Threat?

A great deal of evidence suggests that conservatives are more attuned to threat than liberals are. They see the world as a threatening place. Yet, they seem impervious to the threat of climate change. How can people who are big on fear in general discount climate risks?

…Supportive evidence is broad. People who grow up to be conservatives are more rule-bound and rigid in their childhood behavior (1). They want the world to be more predictable than it actually is, presumably because unpredictability evokes anxiety.

…Conservatives may be more sensitive to threats, but they are not equally sensitive to all dangers.

…Tribal Loyalty?

In a dangerous world, safety is found in close relatives and familiar faces who generally help us out in our hour of need. Perhaps for this reason, family and ethnic identity are particularly important to conservatives

Why Do Ever Fearful Conservatives Ignore Climate Threat? | Psychology Today

(after reading various pop psych articles) it should not take a rocket scientist to realize the terms TRIBAL LOYALTY and IDENTITY FUSION are somewhat related concepts

“Identity fusion” might explain why people act against their own interests.

…Swann’s theory offers an explanation for all sorts of seemingly counterproductive things that people do, from procrastination to poisoning relationships.

…As Swann sees it, outwardly appearing self-injurious behaviors like these might actually be part of a fundamental “desire to be known and understood by others.”

…Fusion is not a bunch of individuals contorting their way of thinking, but a bunch of individuals suspending their way of thinking.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/09/identity-fusion-trump-allegiance/598699/

as a catholic hard science guy I think of it this way,…

How Should I Deal With Climate Change Fears? Catholic Living

in my various catholic high school religion classes I was reminded throughout my formidable years, that life is terminal, greed is a sin one should always avoid because it can start a slippery slope process AND that “grief” can lead to paralysis (if one does not recognize the what is happening) (Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) having been introduced to the frame work of the five stages of grief long ago made me realize that the issue of climate change is just anoth…

if a liberal CC believer jumped off a tall bridge things would not end well,… likewise same thing would happen to an individual having a conservative mindset, if they jumped off a tall bridge

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

bottom line, because the basic science of CO2 and CC (like the idea of gravitation) is immutable,… deniers can ignore climate change, but climate change will not ignore deniers

 

[Ender]

(after reading various pop psych articles) it should not take a rocket scientist to realize the terms TRIBAL LOYALTY and IDENTITY FUSION are somewhat related concepts

With the science crumbling before them apparently pop psych is all that’s left to support the climate alarmists.

 

[phaster]

phaster:

(after reading various pop psych articles) it should not take a rocket scientist to realize the terms TRIBAL LOYALTY and IDENTITY FUSION are somewhat related concepts

apparently pop psych is all that’s left to support the climate alarmists.

sigh,…

ever consider WWJD or rather say,… in other words seems jesus would use the parable of the vineyard owner to illustrate poor stewardship of creation which is the cause of “climate change”

Here is a brief summary:

A landowner set forth a vineyard with great care and lavish attention. He then entrusted it to tenant farmers. At harvest time, he sought his share of the produce. Yet instead of giving the owner what was due him, the tenant farmers refused, ridiculing, beating, and even killing the servants sent to collect his share. They end by killing the landowner’s own son.

When Jesus asks his audience what they thought the owner would do in response, they replied that he would put the men to a wretched death and lease his vineyard to other tenants who would give him the produce at the proper time. Obviously, they did not realize that in the parable the Lord was actually describing them, and that such a judgment would be upon them unless they repented.

National Catholic Register

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

judgment would be upon them unless they repented (for poor stewardship of creation)?!

PG&E slammed for rolling blackouts for millions of Californians World News

PG&E slammed for cutting power to millions of Californians The governor called the fire-prevention shutdowns outrageous, but PG&E said this is “the new normal.” SONOMA, Calif. — Californians from the governor on down slammed the state’s largest utility Wednesday for rolling blackouts that could plunge up to 2 million people into darkness as it scrambles to keep its power lines from sparking wildfires. Pacific Gas & Electric Corp., or PG&E, began shutting off power in phases early Wednesday …

Commentary about PG&E's Public Safety Power Shutoff in California Social Justice

PG&E knows that customers have no real choice in the areas it provides power. Which is why they spend their dollars giving bonuses to executives and paying out dividends rather than maintaining old lines and ensuring the lines are safe. Sacramento County has a public non-profit that handles its power - SMUD. They elect board members from the districts they provide. And they had no need to cut power despite the wind advisory. Meanwhile, my house lost power for 2 days. But I could literal…

Editorial: PG&E’s hot weather power shutoffs signal the start of a new normal in California World News

It was 100+ today in the northern Sacramento Valley. It’s actually normal to have such days occasionally. We had to postpone our flag football game, but practiced in the gym instead. (Worked on our reverse option play!)

Inside the Megafire

Inside the Megafire | NOVA | PBS

How Wildfires Threaten The Nation’s Water Supply

How Wildfires Threaten The Nation's Water Supply | Here & Now

Freshwater Crisis,… By 2025, an estimated 1.8 billion people will live in areas plagued by water scarcity, with two-thirds of the world’s population living in water-stressed regions as a result of use, growth, and climate change.
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/freshwater/freshwater-crisis/

…By 2050, up to 5 billion people may be at risk from diminishing ecosystem services, particularly in Africa and South Asia.

Billions face food, water shortages over next 30 years as nature fails

 

[FrancisFan43]

I don’t

 

[phaster]

I don’t

given your forum screen-name @FrancisFan43, just wondering how you reconcile the thinking of a gift to “Climate Alarmists” with the pope’s crusade to protect creation (i.e. Laudato si’)

seems this question is a variation of what has been discussed before on CAF,… and borrowing from the earlier discussion found a quote that summarizes my own take on the issue, which is

…party politics have gotten in the way of listening and believing in what the scientists are telling us. Its not surprising that most of the republicans do not believe in AGW. They fear for corporate America and the interest groups they are being fed by. So it’s about the money to them.

God and the earth: Evangelical take on climate change

Conservative Christians have long opposed climate science, saying human induced warming goes against God’s omnipotence.

…Why climate policy hinges on evangelical support

According to a 2015 Pew Research poll, more than a quarter of the US population identifies as evangelical or born-again Christian, people who generally interpret the bible literally and tend to be very socially conservative. Largely white and transdenominational, they’re much more likely to be Republican than Democrat.

A different Pew poll in 2016 found that 81 percent of evangelicals and born-again Christians voted for President Donald Trump. Though, in large part, that trend could be attributed to his stance on abortion and gun control, he also used his campaign to tap into a long tradition of Republican antipathy to environmental issues.

www.dw.com/en/god-and-the-earth-evangelical-take-on-climate-change/a-47781433

 

[on_the_hill]

My main personal concern is that it will raise temperatures where I live, which might entice southerners to move into my area. I do not want those people living near me. Let 'em stay down south, I say.

 

[stavros388]

That is simply untrue. Here’s a link to 6 scientific surveys of relevant studies that demonstrate that the 97% is accurate.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

 

[Ender]

That is simply untrue. Here’s a link to 6 scientific surveys of relevant studies that demonstrate that the 97% is accurate.

I don’t have the time or really the interest to address every assertion about global warming, but I do try to investigate some things deeply enough to believe I understand those fewish things I get into. So, I won’t address all six of those surveys, but I will address the one authored by John Cook, as this is the one I have actually read. Have you read any of those surveys, or have you just accepted what is said about them?

So, I imagine you recognize that even that survey didn’t actually claim that 97% of all climate scientists believed man is responsible for global warming. Of the 12K papers he surveyed two thirds didn’t express any position, so what was actually claimed was:

Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

Those “abstracts expressing a position” (his definition) amounted to 34%. The 97% (of the 34%) fell in one of three categories:

1. Explicit endorsement [of AGW] with quantification
2. Explicit endorsement without quantification
3. Implicit endorsement

Those three categories were then all folded into one Endorse AGW category making the distinction between the three groups irrelevant. Bear in mind that the AGW theory holds that man is responsible for more than 50% of the warming. “Without quantification” (not to mention “implicit”) means no percent of the warming was actually specified for two of the three categories, yet the result was presented as if all were in category (1).

So, what percent do you imagine actually fell in that category? (Hint: think single digits.)

 

[Metis1]

But you’ll never convince those whom have a political agenda than a actual scientific objective-- as we’ve seen.

 

[stavros388]

I have not studied the consensus papers. However, I have faith in the scientific process, and 6 extensive surveys, done by different scientists, all resulting in a very similar consensus should be convincing to anyone who doesn’t suspect some highly unlikely conspiracy theory.

Anyway, I have also looked into the Cook study, and it seems to me that the findings are often skewed or misrepresented by people with certain industry interests, and/or misinterpreted.

Regarding this:

" Cook et al. (2013) classified the agreement of 11,944 papers with the consensus position with a scale of 1 – 7 by rating the text of the abstract. A score of 1 indicates a quantified agreement with the consensus (i.e. human influence {is greater than 50 percent of, dominates, is primarily responsible for} observed warming); 2 indicates explicit, unquantified agreement; 3 equals implicit agreement; 4 equals no position or uncertain; 5 equals implicit rejection; 6 equals explicit, unquantified rejection; and 7 indicates quantified, explicit rejection.

Cook et al. found that 3,896 papers fit classes 1-3, 78 papers fit in 5-7, and 40 were expressly uncertain. Thus, of the papers espousing a position on human-caused climate change, 97.1 percent supported human-caused climate change to some degree.

The consensus gets thin (33 percent) if you include papers that have no expressed position on human caused climate change; a point highlighted by climate economist, Richard Tol. The new Cook et al. study, however, argues that it shouldn’t be a surprise that many papers on global warming do not assert human causation in their abstract, because it is already established knowledge. Why waste limited space calling out one’s support for the overwhelming consensus? If similar criteria were applied to geology, Cook and his coauthors argue, one might conclude that most geological papers do not take a firm position on the existence of plate tectonics and that there is no consensus about that matter."

Also, and perhaps more importantly:“If climate skeptics are confident that human-caused climate change is small and favor internal variability to explain a large part of the observed warming, that is not well-documented in the literature (or it does not appear in many paper abstracts). If there is a strong, self-consistent, and quantitative case for recent warming having been caused by non-human influences on the climate, it is not being proclaimed in the literature.”

Should skeptics concede the climate consensus? - Niskanen Center

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The consensus gets thin (33 percent) if you include papers that have no expressed position on human caused climate change; a point highlighted by climate economist, Richard Tol. The new Cook et al. study, however, argues that it shouldn’t be a surprise that many papers on global warming do not assert human causation in their abstract, because it is already established knowledge. Why waste limited space calling out one’s support for the overwhelming consensus?

There is another reason for a large number of papers expressing no opinion on AGW. It is simply that the paper never intended to address the question. The first pass filter that came up with the 12,000 papers were based on the existence of certain keywords in the abstract. It is not surprising that many of the hits in the first pass filter were irrelevant hits. For instance, a paper about calibrating temperature sensing networks for use in assessing global warming might have some of the desired keywords used to find global warming papers, but would not have any expression, either implicit or explicit, of global warming or its attribution. For people who have looked at a number of technical papers in a field, they know that a subject like global warming has many narrow subjects that relate tangentially to global warming, but are not directed at answering any of the questions that would exhibit an opinion on AGW. A more carefully-constructed first pass might have found only 5,000 papers. Or a more loosely-configured first pass might have found 25,000 papers. In either case, the second pass manual filter would still find the same set of relevant papers. The number of papers in the first pass is clearly not indicative of anything substantial about the conclusion of the survey, and is only an incidental observation on the mechanism of finding the ~3900 relevant papers.

 

[stavros388]

This is interesting, thanks. A bit hard for me to wrap my head around, though! It might be worth pointing out here that:

“A recurring theme throughout the consensus research was that the level of scientific agreement varied depending on climate expertise. The higher the expertise in climate science, the higher the agreement that humans were causing global warming.”

“To none of our surprise, the highest agreement was found among climate scientists who had published peer-reviewed climate research. Interestingly, the group with the lowest agreement was [economic geologists].”

Also, as a link i shared above demonstrates, 6 additional surveys provided similar numbers.

Consensus Confirmed: Over 90% Of Climate Scientists Believe We’re Causing Global Warming | IFLScience