about that overwhelming 97-98% number of scientists that say there is a climate consensus… _ watts...

7/22/2019 About that overwhelming 97-98% number of scientists that say there is a climate consensus _ Watts Up With Th

1/23

9/14/13 About that overwhelming 97-98% number of scientists that say there is a climate consensus | Watts Up With That?

wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/about-that-overwhelming-98-number-of-scientists-consensus/ 1

About that overwhelming 97-98% number of scientists that say there is aclimate consensusPosted on July 18, 2012 by Anthony Watts

Larry Bell writes in his weekly Forbes column about that oft repeated but less than truthy 98% of all scientists

statistic. Supposedly, this was such an easy and quick to do survey, it was a no-brainer according to the two

University of Illinois researchers who conducted it:

To maximize the response rate, the survey was designed to take less than 2 minutes to complete, and it was

administered by a professional online survey site ( www.questionpro.com ) that allowed one-time

participation by those who received the invitation.

I think it is hilarious that so few people who cite this survey as proof of consensus actually look into the survey and

the puny response numbers involved. So, I decided to graph the data to give some much needed perspective.

Apparently, the majority of AGU members polled didnt think this poll on climate change consensus was worth

returning. Anthony

That Scientific Global Warming ConsensusNot! Forbes

By Larry Bell

So where did that famous consensus claim that 98% of all scientists believe in global warming come

Watts Up With That?
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/98_percent_climate_scientists_graph.pnghttp://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/98_percent_climate_scientists_graph.pnghttp://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/98_percent_climate_scientists_graph.pnghttp://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/98_percent_climate_scientists_graph.pnghttp://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/98_percent_climate_scientists_graph.pnghttp://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/98_percent_climate_scientists_graph.pnghttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/about-that-overwhelming-98-number-of-scientists-consensus/http://wattsupwiththat.com/author/wattsupwiththat/http://wattsupwiththat.com/http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/98_percent_climate_scientists_graph.pnghttp://www.questionpro.com/http://wattsupwiththat.com/author/wattsupwiththat/http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/about-that-overwhelming-98-number-of-scientists-consensus/http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/about-that-overwhelming-98-number-of-scientists-consensus/


2/23



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.

That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: When compared with pre-1800s levels,

do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

Few would be expected to dispute thisthe planet began thawing out of the Little Ice Age in the middle

19 century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age

ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)

The second question asked: Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing

mean global temperatures? So what constitutes significant? Does changing include both cooling and

warming and for both better and worse? And which contributionsdoes this include land usechanges, such as agriculture and deforestation?

Read the whole article: That Scientific Global Warming ConsensusNot! Forbes

Heres the survey as it appeared in EOS:

EOS, TRANSACTIONS AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION, VOL. 90, NO. 3, PAGE 22, 2009

doi:10.1029/2009EO030002

BRIEF REPORT

Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

Peter T. Doran, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois, Chicago

Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois, Chicago

Fifty-two percent of Americans think most climate scientists agree that the Earth has been warming in recent years,

and 47% think climate scientists agree (i.e., that there is a scientific consensus) that human activities are a major

cause of that warming, according to recent polling (see http://www.pollingreport.com/enviro.htm ). However,

attempts to quantify the scientific consensus on anthropogenic warming have met with criticism. For instance,

Oreskes[2004] reviewed 928 abstracts from peer-reviewed research papers and found that more than 75% either

explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view that Earths climate is being affected by human activities. Yet

Oreskess approach has been criticized for overstating the level of consensus acceptance within the examined

abstracts [Peiser, 2005] and for not capturing the full diversity of scientific opinion [Pielke, 2005]. A review of

previous attempts at quantifying the consensus and criticisms is provided byKendall Zimmerman[2008]. The

objective of our study presented here is to assess the scientific consensus on climate change through an unbiased

survey of a large and broad group of Earth scientists.

th
http://www.pollingreport.com/enviro.htmhttp://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009EO030002.shtmlhttp://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/


3/23



Rate this: 44 Votes

Share this:

Like this:

11 bloggers like this.

and the paper with the data: http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

UPDATE:The original Larry Bell article referenced 98%, but the actual calculated number is 97.4%. On the web, 97

and 98% values are both referred to individually in articles, as well as a range of 97-98% Ive amended the title to

use the range Anthony

This entry was posted in Consensus, Opinion and tagged AGU, American Geophysical Union, climate change, Earth, Global warming, Oreskes, Scientific opinion on climate

change. Bookmark the permalink.

93 Responses toAbout that overwhelming 97-98% number of scientists that say there is a

climate consensus

Cal fans show off their loyalty.

http://bit.ly/1g1WES9

About these ads

Bryan Huntsays:

July 18, 2012 at 8:40 am

Lies, damn lies, and statistics

TheAverageJoesays:

July 18, 2012 at 8:40 am

Reblogged this on TaJnB | TheAverageJoeNewsBlogg.

Edohigumasays:

July 18, 2012 at 8:43 am

I cant facepalm as much as I would like to.

Realist2says:

July 18, 2012 at 8:51 am
http://theaveragejoenewsblogg.com/2012/07/18/42481/http://theaveragejoenewsblogg.com/http://www.facebook.com/bryanhunthttp://en.wordpress.com/about-these-ads/http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/about-that-overwhelming-98-number-of-scientists-consensus/http://wattsupwiththat.com/tag/scientific-opinion-on-climate-change/http://wattsupwiththat.com/tag/oreskes/http://wattsupwiththat.com/tag/global-warming/http://wattsupwiththat.com/tag/earth/http://wattsupwiththat.com/tag/climate-change/http://wattsupwiththat.com/tag/american-geophysical-union/http://wattsupwiththat.com/tag/agu/http://wattsupwiththat.com/category/opinion/http://wattsupwiththat.com/category/consensus/http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdfhttp://en.gravatar.com/clotildajamcrackerhttp://en.gravatar.com/geologyfreakhttp://en.gravatar.com/ntesdorfhttp://en.gravatar.com/senmihttp://en.gravatar.com/misbehavedwomanhttp://en.gravatar.com/mzysunnyhttp://en.gravatar.com/cogdissonancedagainhttp://en.gravatar.com/magsx2http://en.gravatar.com/iainchallhttp://en.gravatar.com/catherineshermanhttp://en.gravatar.com/1idvethttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/about-that-overwhelming-98-number-of-scientists-consensus/?share=email&nb=1http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/about-that-overwhelming-98-number-of-scientists-consensus/?share=digg&nb=1http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/about-that-overwhelming-98-number-of-scientists-consensus/?share=reddit&nb=1http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/about-that-overwhelming-98-number-of-scientists-consensus/?share=stumbleupon&nb=1http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/about-that-overwhelming-98-number-of-scientists-consensus/?share=facebook&nb=1http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/about-that-overwhelming-98-number-of-scientists-consensus/?share=twitter&nb=1http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/about-that-overwhelming-98-number-of-scientists-consensus/?share=google-plus-1&nb=1


4/23



I hope somebody administers a more probing survey of scientists, soon. This time, include some physicists and chemical

engineers, who have the backgrounds in thermodynamics, radiative heat transfer, mathematically modeling (and testing!) of real

systems. This time, ask if the scientists believe the increase in CO2 over the past 100 years has had a significant, measurable effect

on temperature, precipitation, extreme events, etc. Ask about confidence and error in our temperature records and adjustments.

Ask about biases in the academic community. Ask if the participant has received funding for climate work, and by whom.

Edohigumasays:

July 18, 2012 at 8:55 am

Addendum, that first question is what kind of nonsense is that? The only answer to it can be yes.

When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained

relatively constant?

Thats like asking Is a soccer ball round, is the Pope Catholic, is the United States of America in North America?

It does explain why only roughly one third even sent it back. The other almost 6,000 probably saw the first question and went

What the heck?!

polistrasays:

July 18, 2012 at 8:56 am

In other words, people whose paycheck depends on answering Yes answered Yes.

Jim Gsays:

July 18, 2012 at 8:57 am

Very poor sampling method, very poor question construction, cannot evaluate administration of the survey based upon this info

but overall a very poor study to be sure. High probability of sample bias and questions structured to obtain a directed response.

My opinion is based upon designing and managing survey research for over 20 years either directly or as a function of

departments I managed. Quoting this study is, indeed, meaningless.

David C. Greenesays:

July 18, 2012 at 8:57 am

Selection of those in the business of global warming is what led to the result. It is not surprising that those getting their support

from biased sponsors would answer in accord with self-interest.

Tom in Floridasays:July 18, 2012 at 8:57 am

Whenever I see a % being used in a discussion my BS alarm goes off. Much like the long lost R Gates who was so fond of quoting

a 40% increase in CO2and the much ado about nothing 15% tax rate of Mitt Romney. (BTW, Romney paid over $3 million in

taxes while almost half the people in the U.S. paid nothing yet those people used most of the government services. Who isnt

paying their fair share?)

The old saying figures lie and liars figure is correct, 97% of the time.


5/23



Steve Divinesays:

July 18, 2012 at 9:13 am

Umm, Im not trained in statistics, but 75 of 77 is not 98%. Its 97% (97.40%). If my math is wrong, Im sure someone will correct

me.

Hu McCullochsays:

July 18, 2012 at 9:15 am

The second question asked: Do you think human activity is a signif icant contributing factor in changing mean global

temperatures?

Being statistically inclined, I would have interpreted significant as statistically significant. Although Im not aware of any study

that actually does this, I would be surprised if human CO2 emissions havent had some statistically significant contribution to

warming since 1800, however small, so I would have to answer yes.

But this wouldnt mean I thought it was an important contributing factor, or that warming was a great concern or threat. And, as

Larry Bell points out, human activity is not necessarily CO2 it could be deforestation, urbanization, or non-CO2 smokestack

and auto emissions.

So Id say the second question does not make the desired point.

gator69says:

July 18, 2012 at 9:16 am

42.7 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot.

The Hon. W. Richard Walton, Sr.

Steve Divinesays:

July 18, 2012 at 9:17 am

And while Im not trained in statistics, I think it is a meaningful that 75 of 3,146 respondents is only 2.38%. Yes, I read that the

survey administrators apparently filtered respondents to those supposedly qualified to answer the question.

Wagathonsays:

July 18, 2012 at 9:20 am

Lies, damn lies and the EPA

Science authoritarians make a mockery of truth, science and morality. Because of Government-funding a consensus of academics

who are lost to reason have been created. They do not want to hear about anything that is contrary to a host of beliefs that they

are no longer able to defend. It is now impossible for any of them to face the fact that nothing they have done has made a

worthwhile contribution to society.

And, that is what the EPA is doing in putting its support behind global warming alarmismempowering overreaching Leftists to

take full advantage of credulous and thoughtless dimwits. The EPA is hiding the truth, hiding the decline, hiding the immorality

and the harm to the public and to the culture and to all the kids in the dropout factories whose futures are being wiped out.
http://evilincandescentbulb.wordpress.com/


6/23



John F. Hultquistsays:

July 18, 2012 at 9:23 am

Nice post. We have needed a concise report on this survey.

Recently Tim Blair (July 16, 2012) linked to a statement by Matt Neal wherein the survey (97% in Neals article) was used

under the heading The climate change debate is over in the Warrnambool Standard [on AUs south coast 230 km west of

Melbourne]. One of the statements is:

As someone working in the media, I would love to see my fellow journalists and reporters put a ban on covering the views of climate

change deniers. [by Matt Neal]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

An analogy to the original survey might be to ask the College of Cardinals if they thought the Pope was Catholic. Other questions

of a similarly silly nature are often repeated.

David Larsensays:

July 18, 2012 at 9:24 am

Scientists use real math, not statistics. Only the pseudoprofessionals of Illinois can use statistics think it makes something real.

Jimmy Haigh.says:

July 18, 2012 at 9:25 am

Steve Divine says:

July 18, 2012 at 9:13 am

Umm, Im not trained in statistics, but 75 of 77 is not 98%. Its 97% (97.40%). If my math is wrong, Im sure someone will

correct me.

They homogenised it

Maussays:

July 18, 2012 at 9:28 am

Its still a consensus of 98% of the elite 2% of the 33% that responded out of a quantity equal to 50% of the earth scientists in

Canada in 2009. You must be a Big Oil shill to disagree with such a broad consensus of scientific individuals employed mainly by

Big Oil and Government.

more soylent green!says:

July 18, 2012 at 9:39 am

I call unfair! Just like with Manns work, were just supposed to accept the conclusions without asking for the data.

The debate is over. Four out of 5 dentists climatologists surveyed would recommend sugarless gum to their patients who chew

gum not showing their work to people who would ask too many questions.

thomaswfuller2says:

July 18, 2012 at 9:42 am
http://3000quads.wordpress.com/


7/23



They would have needed 366 responses to be able to make that claim with a 95% level of confidence. Their math is bogus.

Allensays:

July 18, 2012 at 9:50 am

Nothing to see here, really. CO_2 emissions continue to rise so that is all we need to know about how the ordinary consumer

views this CAGW meme. If they think about it, they still dont care. And thats fine by me!

tadchemsays:

July 18, 2012 at 9:52 am

There is an old concept of preaching to the choir, and then there is the flip side of that disk: polling the choir.

Imagine asking everybody in a large restaurant at a Sunday luncheon if they attend church. That includes the church choir that

meets there after services each week.

The conclusion might read 98+% of all vocalists polled attend church regularly.

I am sure the climate scientists who responded also contacted their fellow scientists and urged them to complete the poll as

well, so their opinions would be well-represented. After all, that is something activists do!

kramersays:

July 18, 2012 at 10:06 am

Another point that I think is worth mentioning. Most of the scientists who say there is global warming are basing this on the data

from GISS and CRU (and I think NOAA?).

Arent these the organizations that comprise the team members who might have tampered with the temperature data?

Tom Barneysays:

July 18, 2012 at 10:08 am

If 18%( 3146*.18=566) of the total that responded did not agree, then they outnumber the cherry picked 75 by almost 8 to 1.

Tom Barneysays:

July 18, 2012 at 10:21 am

Ill bet at least 98% of the Federal funding for GW research went to the 75.

Mark Treysays:

July 18, 2012 at 10:26 am

A high percentage of Earth scientists are likely to be self-selected warmists. I should like to see a study of the history of the

establishment and curricular content of climate studies departments at universities. These are the scientific wings of sociology

and political science departments, funded and staffed because they have a political axe to grind. Faculty and students after

seven years of watching Inconvenient Truth are recruited because they have a pol itical agenda. These intellectually unsound

departments are accorded a spurious expertise by their more rigorously scientific colleagues who are too busy to call the bluff or

rock the boat. Anecdotally, I know this to be the case: a world-famous biologist says he agrees with AGW because he defers to

the expertise of his telegenic, catastrophist AGW colleagues and is not prepared to look for himself into what he thinks is a

boring and, er, a scientifically trivial pursuit. Being tenured, elderly, and comfortably ensconced in an ivory tower, he is happy to

allow his AGW colleagues work with pol iticians to tell the world to shut down industry. He and thousands of other academic


8/23



apathetic deferrers inflate the consensus of scientists. Apathetic deferring also explains why activist catastrophists can hijack

professional scientific organizations to give their imprimatur to AGW as a political position.

MarkWsays:

July 18, 2012 at 10:27 am

Lies, damn lies, and warmistas

thomaswfuller2says:

July 18, 2012 at 10:31 am

They dont need to have anywhere close to the total number of invitees to make the claim. But they didnt get anywhere close to

the number they would have needed. They got 75they needed 366. They are way out of line to be making any statements

regarding what earth scientists believe.

Michael Moonsays:

July 18, 2012 at 10:31 am

I lived in Chicago when this came out, and talked to Doran. The written responses to the questions were hilarious, along the

lines of Pre-1800S? Temperatures have been far higher and far lower, just how far Pre are we talking about here?

Mason P Wilson, Jr, Ph.D retired professor of Thermodynamics and a weatherman in servicesays:

July 18, 2012 at 10:34 am

I have come to the conclusion that climatologists that believe in man-made global warming,are not truly scientists. True scientists

always question.when we have something as believeable as Newtons laws, if we didnt continue to seek we would not have

the theory of relativity. We have just begun to understand cyclic events in the ocean and climatic variations that take decades to

be revealed all of which affect climate..how can we be so certian that the earth s undergoing man-made global warming?

Perhaps many of them feel guilty and need to blame mankind to satisfy their appetite for everything. How gullible can we be?

Furthermoore consensus is not science, remember it wast too long ago that man believed the world was flat.

marksbvuesays:

July 18, 2012 at 10:38 am

Bravo, Realist 2 - for your note today (7-18-12 @ 8:51 am).

Many very sensible suggestions.

M.J. Snydersays:

July 18, 2012 at 10:44 am

This has to be one of the most successful surveys of all time. Not because of its accuracy, or profundity, or keen scientific

approach. Its succinct. Its easy to remember. Its shocking. And it can be easily shaped to fit nearly any discussion on AGW.

Everyone interested in GW seems to have heard it AND THEY REMEMBER IT! As a tool of propaganda for the Team it was

perfect. That was the goal and they achieved it admirably.
http://wuwt/http://gravatar.com/marksbvuehttp://3000quads.wordpress.com/


9/23




July 18, 2012 at 11:10 am

Mason P Wilson, Jr, Ph.D retired professor of Thermodynamics and a weatherman in service says:

July 18, 2012 at 10:34 am

I have come to the conclusion that climatologists that believe in man-made global warming,are not truly scientists.

True scientists always question.when we have something as believeable as Newtons laws, if we didnt continue to

seek we would not have the theory of relativity. We have just begun to understand cyclic events in the ocean and

climatic variations that take decades to be revealed all of which affect climate..how can we be so certian that the earth s

undergoing man-made global warming? Perhaps many of them feel guilty and need to blame mankind to satisfy their

appetite for everything. How gullible can we be? Furthermoore consensus is not science, remember it wast too long ago

that man believed the world was flat.

I think whomever coined the phrase green to describe the environmentalist movement was colorblind. Theyre all reds when

you look at them closely.

dcfl51says:

July 18, 2012 at 11:10 am

This must be where they get the term con census.

dcfl51says:

July 18, 2012 at 11:14 am

Realist2, can I also suggest the inclusion of solar physicists and cosmologists in any new survey. There are quite a few scientists

who think that the big yellow thing in the sky might have something to do with the climate. Not just TSI, but the effect of

magnetic field fluctuations.

George E. Smith;says:

July 18, 2012 at 11:17 am

""..That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think

that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant? ..""

Ignoring the esoterica of the quantum mechanical world, where the answer may be uncertain, until it is certain; I would say the

correct answer to this question as worded is :- Yes.

Mike Hsays:

July 18, 2012 at 11:19 am

Lawrence Solomon of the Finl Post reported this long ago. Just giving credit. Great it is now getting more coverage.

daveburtonsays:

July 18, 2012 at 11:24 am

Do 97% of experts agree with the IPCC that human CO2

emissions are causing dangerous global warming?
http://gravatar.com/dcfl51


10/23



Climate Movement activists frequently claim that 97% of qualified experts agree with the basic premise of climate alarmism:

that human CO2 emissions are causing a dangerous warming of the earths climate, which will have catastrophic consequences

for mankind and the Earths ecosystems, unless CO2 emissions are quickly and drastically curtailed.

That 97% claim is significant, not for what it what it reveals about the science of climate change, but for what it reveals about

the Climate Movement spin machine. It turns out to be a classic example of the Big Lie. Here are some articles about it:

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/01/03/lawrence-solomon-97-cooked-stats/

http://climatequotes.com/2011/02/10/study-claiming-97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is- flawed/

http://www.wendymcelroy.com/news.php?extend.3684

http://sppiblog.org/news/the-97-consensus-is-only-75-self-selected-climatologists

The 97% claim comes from an articleby Peter T. Doran about a surveyby Margaret R. K. Zimmerman of 10,257 Earth Scientists,

of whom 3146 responded.

The 97% claim is based on the answers to just two questions, both of which were so uncontroversial that even I, and most other

climate change skeptics, would answer yes to them.

Worse yet, 97.5% of those who responded were excluded aftertheir responses were received. Of 3146 responses received,

only 79 responses were consideredfor one question, and only 77 for the other.

Nor is it clear that 97% of the 79 scientists even answered yes to bothquestions. For one of the two questions, 77 of 79 answered

yes, and for the other question 75 of 77 answered yes, which seems to indicate that at least two of those who answered the

first question didnt answer the second question.

76 of 79 (96.2%) answered risen to this question: When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global

temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

75 of 77 (97.4%) answered yes to this question: Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing

mean global temperatures?

(3146-79) / 3146 = 97.5% of the respondents were excluded after the responses were received.

Plus, neither of the two questions actually addressed anthropogenic global warming!

The first question asked respondents to compare current temperatures to the depths of the Little Ice Age (pre-1800s), and

asked whether its warmer now. Well, of course it is! Whats remarkable is that they didnt get 100% agreement. 3 of 79

apparently didnt agree even with that.

The second question asks whether anyhuman activities significantly affect global temperatures. That encompasses both GHG-

driven warming and particulate/aerosol-driven cooling.

Since just about everyone acknowledges that anthropogenic particulate/aerosol air pollution causes cooling, I would have

expected just about everyone to answer yes to this question. Yet 2 of 77 apparently did not.

Why do you suppose they didnt ask an actual question about Anthropogenic Global Warming? Why didnt they ask something

like, Do you believe that emissions of CO2from human activities, such as burning fossil fuels, are causing dangerous increases in

global average temperatures?

Note: If you read the Doran article, you might wonder whether they actually didask a question like that, because the Doran

article mentions that up to nine questions were asked, but never tells us about the other seven. So I boughtthe Zimmerman

report, to find out. It turns out that other questions were mostly just about demographics. These were the nine questions:
http://www.lulu.com/product/ebook/the-consensus-on-the-consensus/17391505?productTrackingContext=product_view/more_by_author/right/1http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/the-consensus-on-the-consensus/4281091?productTrackingContext=product_view/more_by_author/right/1http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdfhttp://sppiblog.org/news/the-97-consensus-is-http://www.wendymcelroy.com/news.php?extend.3684http://climatequotes.com/2011/02/10/study-claiming-97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/01/03/lawrence-solomon-97-


11/23



Q1.When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or

remained relatively constant?

1. Risen

2. Fallen

3. Remained relatively constant

4. No opinion/Dont know

Q2.Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures? [This question wasn't

asked if they answered "remained relatively constant" to Q1]

1. Yes

2. No

3. Im not sure

Q3.What do you consider to be the most compelling argument that supports your previous answer (or, for those who were

unsure, why were they unsure)? [This question wasn't asked if they answered "remained relatively constant" to Q1]

Q4.Please estimate the percentage of your fellow geoscientists who think human activity is a contributing factor to global

climate change.

Q5.Which percentage of your papers publ ished in peer-reviewed journals in the last 5 years have been on the subject of climate

change?

Q6.Age

Q7.Gender

Q8.What is the highest level of education you have attained?

Q9.Which category best describes your area of expertise?

Dave Burton

March 1, 2012

Permalink: http://tinyurl.com/Clim97pct

David, UKsays:

July 18, 2012 at 11:24 am

It was designed to get the outcome it got. There never was any other possible outcome. All that followed then was just

conjecture and bullshit.

Wagathonsays:

July 18, 2012 at 11:39 am

Does changing minus signs to plus signs count as human-induced global warming?

Taphonomicsays:

July 18, 2012 at 11:40 am
http://evilincandescentbulb.wordpress.com/http://tinyurl.com/Clim97pcthttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/email


12/23



Ive always thought that my geostats professor would have whacked my peepee with a ruler if I attempted to hand this in as

completion of an assignment. There is no way I could have gotten partial fulfillment of an M.S. degree with Kendall

Zimmermans thesis.

Ottersays:

July 18, 2012 at 11:51 am

Serious question time, guys:

I had been told somewhere, that there were at least three other studies done, which came to same conclusion: 97%

Now, I find that to be total bull (and unfortunately, I have never been able to find my way back to that list the person

presented).

Heres my question(s):

1. Are any of you aware of these other studies?

2. Have they ever been picked apart like the one mentioned above?

and

3. Where might one find this information?

Id be pleased to hear from any of you say, perhaps, AGW fanatacists.

Rob Pottersays:

July 18, 2012 at 11:52 am

Note also that the second question does not mention CO2 only human activity as a significant factor. Since pretty much

everyone accepts a significant urban heat island effect and most accept that this affects the temperature as measured by theweather stations, which are then used to estimate mean global temperature. On that basis, you could include me in the 97/98 %,

but I sure as heck dont think human CO2 emissions are significant.

In all surveys, it pays to study the actual wording of the questions and when the results are being spun, it pays to compare the

message you are being given with the actual question asked.

Glennsays:

July 18, 2012 at 12:02 pm

Can this data be verified or repl icated? Names of respondents and contact information would be required, and although I

havent opened the pdf (it freezes my browser) such information is likely to be withheld due to privacy issues. If this is so, then

are we expected to take their word for it? Perhaps they would release such information only to True Climate Scientists to whom

they could trust with the metadata.

Ottersays:

July 18, 2012 at 12:03 pm

Wow did I scramble that last bit.


13/23



I AM interested in hearing from anyone who is aware of those other studies. AGW fanatacists need not apply.

Gunga Dinsays:

July 18, 2012 at 12:08 pm

So..the science of the consensus is unsettled?

Wagathonsays:

July 18, 2012 at 12:21 pm

More interesting is the number of scientists who once believed in AGW theory who have since made a beeline for the UN exits.

After the foi2009.pdf disclosures that has been anyone with a reputation to protect. No valid scientific question that can be

described as Left vs. right issuethat is how we know that global warming is about politics not science.

Henry Clarksays:

July 18, 2012 at 12:28 pm

daveburton: Very good summary. Im glad to see skeptics seeing through the tricks well enough for me not even to need to writemore myself. ;-)

Ian Weisssays:

July 18, 2012 at 12:51 pm

77 is the number of respondents to question #2 who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have

published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change So I think the graph at the top

of this post is in urgent need of revision. Specifically, the labels on the 3rd and 4th bars are not accurate.

daveburtonsays:

July 18, 2012 at 1:02 pm

Otter, the first paragraph of the Doran article mentions one:

attempts to quantify the scientific consensus on anthropogenic warming have met with criticism. For instance, Oreskes [2004]

reviewed 928 abstracts from peer-reviewed research papers and found that more than 75% either explicitly or implicitly accepted the

consensus view that Earths climate is being affected by human activities. Yet Oreskess approach has been criticized for overstating

the level of consensus acceptance within the examined abstracts [Pei ser, 2005] and for not capturing the full diversity of scientific

opinion [Pielke, 2005]. A review of previous attempts at quantifying the consensus and criticisms is provided by Kendall

Zimmerman [2008]. The objective of our study presented here is to assess the scientific consensus on climate change through an

unbiased survey

Okay I recognize that the final sentence about their objective is guffaw-provoking. But Oreskes [2004]is one such other study.

(Note: Zimmerman [2008] is just the study report upon which Dorans article is based.)

Heres an articlewhich quotes Benny Peiser saying that, of the 928 abstracts, just over a dozen explicitly endorse the consensus,

while the vast majority of abstracts [do] not mention anthropogenic global warming.

In other words, Oreskes [2004] was as much of a fraud as Doran/Zimmerman.
http://algorelied.com/?p=3900http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.fullhttp://www.facebook.com/ian.weiss.900http://evilincandescentbulb.wordpress.com/


14/23



However, there are also some surveys that the Climate Movement activists nevercite:

1.What Scientists Really Think About Global Warming, by S. Robert Lichter. Harris polled 500 leading American

Meteorological and Geophysical scientists in early 2007, and even back then (before Climategate) there was no consensus. They

found that:

97% agree that global average temperatures have increased during the past century. But not everyone attributes that rise to human

activity. A slight majority (52%) believe this warming was human-induced, 30% see i t as the result of natural temperature

luctuations and the rest are unsure.(More details here.)

2.From theBulletin of the American Meteorological Societywe learn that most broadcast meteorologists disagree with the IPPC

claim that humans are primarily responsible for recent global warming.

3.A subsequent survey of all American broadcast meteorologists by researchers at George Mason Universityconfirms that result.

Gail Combssays:

July 18, 2012 at 1:10 pm

Mason P Wilson, Jr, Ph.D retired professor of Thermodynamics and a weatherman in service says: @ July 18, 2012 at 10:34 am

I have come to the conclusion that climatologists that believe in man-made global warming,are not truly scientists. True scientistsalways question

____________________________

As a professor of Thermodynamics and a weather person could you please write an article for WUWT on the subject of Earths

long wave radiation vs the suns short, high energy radiation, CO2 and the amount of energy absorbedand returned to earth by

CO2vsthevariabilityin solar energy and TSIand more importantly the short, high energy solar radiationthat is absorbed by

the worlds oceans.

We are told by cl imatologists the variability in total solar energy is very small > 0.1% (the changesin the mix of wavelengths is

left out) but it is always given as a PERCENT and not in total energy. It is also not compared to the amount of energy supposedly

returned to the earth by CO2. It would seem that a change of up to 6% in the high energy EUV and UV wavelengths absorbed by

the oceans at depth would have a heck of a lot more impact on the climate over time compared to the puny low energy

wavelengths returned by mans 4% contribution to the 400 ppm of atmospheric CO2.

I am afraid that thermo was not one of my better subjects in college so I do not dare attempt to do this myself. However the

orders of magnitude involved makes me think we have been treated to a pile of mushroom fertilizer so I would really l ike to see

someone with a good background take a look see. Thanks

Jim Berkisesays:

July 18, 2012 at 1:13 pm

This whole notion of consensus of scientists reminds me of a two question survey

a senior staff physicist once put out on the network at a lab where I was working; hecalled it the Scientist Test. The two questions were 1. Do you consider yourself

to be an expert in your field of research? 2. Do you disagree with everyone else

who is considered to be an expert in your field of research?

If you answered yes to both questions, you must be a scientist.

Ally E.says:
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/506268main_sorce4b.jpghttp://www.klimaatfraude.info/images/sverdrup.gifhttp://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/images/instruments/sim/fig01.gifhttp://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-dBzA1.htmhttp://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sdo/news/sdo_eve.htmlhttp://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/atmospheric_transmission.png?w=640http://www.udel.edu/Geography/DeLiberty/Geog474/geog474_energy_interact.htmlhttp://www.heartland.org/full/27383/Majority_of_Broadcast_Meteorologists_Skeptical_of_Global_Warming_Crisis.htmlhttp://www.heartland.org/publications/environment%0climate/article/26794/Meteorologists_Reject_UNs_Global_Warming_Claims.htmlhttp://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.htmlhttp://www.forbes.com/2009/12/19/climategate-copenhagen-science-opinions-contributors-s-robert-lichter.html


15/23



July 18, 2012 at 1:24 pm

Their whole point was to have something they could claim was factual (if looked at the right way, of course) and convince the

general public that their consensus was mighty. No one was supposed to look at it too closely. Good on Larry Bell and Forbes for

publishing this. Well done. :)


July 18, 2012 at 1:37 pm

Can these twoquestions beany more vague?

When compared with pre-1800s 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?

For question 1, define relatively. If were measuring in degree Kelvin, how much of a change have we really seen? You can easily

argue the temperatures have been relatively stable. But with a starting point in the Little Ice Age, the answer was largely

predetermined. Other possible answers such as I dont know or indeterminate werent on the menu, either.

As for number 2, how many different human activities are there which may influence the climate and have nothing to do with

CO2 or GHG emissions? What level is significant? Is 10% significant, or does it have to be 50% or more to qualify.

With these questions, what other results could they get? The significant thing about this survey is the number of people who

chose not to respond.

Dan in Californiasays:

July 18, 2012 at 1:45 pm

The scientific consensus does not include this 1000 peer reviewed papers and their authors that caution against significance of

AGW.http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

Nor does the consensus include the 31,000 scientists who have signed this petition against the alarmism of global warming.

http://www.petitionproject.org/

COBsays:

July 18, 2012 at 1:54 pm

more soylent green! says:

I think whomever coined the phrase green to describe the environmentalist movement was colorblind. Theyre al l reds when

you look at them closely.

We are correct. We all need to be careful here as 20% of males have a degree of Red/Green Colorblindness.

COBsays:

July 18, 2012 at 1:58 pm
http://www.petitionproject.org/http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html


16/23



My apologies Mr. Green my post should have started.

You are correct.

Juan Slaytonsays:

July 18, 2012 at 2:04 pm

Otter, Dave Burton:

This may be the latest attempt to claim 97-98%:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107

AndyG55says:

July 18, 2012 at 2:30 pm

The second question asked: Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global

temperatures?

If the mean global temperature is that meaningless metric which is calculated by CRU , GISS etc from land station data.. thenthe answer has to be Yes..

UHI, data adjustments, loss of cold station data.. its all due to man.

Clif Westinsays:

July 18, 2012 at 2:34 pm

When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained

relatively constant?

I seem to recall that about 4 billion years ago the earth was rather much warmer than now so Id have to answer, theyve fallen

Gail Combssays:

July 18, 2012 at 2:50 pm


July 18, 2012 at 1:37 pm

Can these two questions be any more vague?.

With these questions, what other results could they get? The significant thing about this survey is the number of people who

chose not to respond.______________________________________

Or whose responses were not printable in a family blog

Tom in Worcestersays:

July 18, 2012 at 2:59 pm

Michael Moon says:

July 18, 2012 at 10:31 am
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107


17/23



I lived in Chicago when this came out, and talked to Doran. The written responses to the questions were hilarious, along the

lines of Pre-1800S? Temperatures have been far higher and far lower, just how far Pre are we talking about here?

======================================================================

Is there anywhere on the net to find the responses by the actual scientists who took the survey. (The 77) I have heard that they

were very telling . or did I imagine that.

Martin457says:

July 18, 2012 at 4:03 pm

More than 2/3rds of scientists asked to respond to the questionairre didnt find it worthwhile to do so.

G. Karstsays:

July 18, 2012 at 4:13 pm

No matter how many times this myth is busted it arises again. It is just another zombie belief held and trumpeted, by the AGW

religion. It will not cannot die die die. GK

RoyFOMRsays:

July 18, 2012 at 4:24 pm

My understanding, collected from recent polls,is that the more educated an individual is the less they believe in CAGW.

Dont these findings just agree with that consensus? Climate scientists are less educated than other scientists!

Ottersays:

July 18, 2012 at 4:56 pm

Dave, Juan, thank you both very much!

timg56says:

July 18, 2012 at 5:45 pm

Ive given up on this particular piece of climate krap. Nowadays, when I see or hear someone quote the 97% number I just shale

my head. Ive found it only wastes my time explaining the specifics behind that number. They dont care. It is the provibial

leading of the horse to water except for the fact its actually a jackass, if you look closely.

Reg Nelsonsays:

July 18, 2012 at 5:48 pm

Otter says:

July 18, 2012 at 11:51 am

Serious question time, guys:

I had been told somewhere, that there were at least three other studies done, which came to same conclusion: 97%

Now, I find that to be total bull (and unfortunately, I have never been able to find my way back to that list the person

presented).


18/23



Heres my question(s):

1. Are any of you aware of these other studies?

Heres another one of the 97%ers:

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full

Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 9798%

of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC (anthropogenic climate

change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific

prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

This is akin to using an extensive dataset of the most active pot smokers to determine whether we should legalize marijuana.

curlysays:

July 18, 2012 at 6:33 pm

Hmmm These earth scientists Im not a native Francophone, but if merde is loosely translated as earth, are these earthscientists really merde scientists?

(Apologies to geologists, solid earth geophysicists, etc.)

TonyGsays:

July 18, 2012 at 6:49 pm

I swear I read an article about this survey right here a couple years ago but Ive been through the archives and cant find it. It

went through the exact same breakdown. Does anyone else remember anything similar?

Juan Slaytonsays:

July 18, 2012 at 7:27 pm

TonyG:

Look here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/05/expert-embarrassment-in-climate-change/

Juan Slaytonsays:

July 18, 2012 at 7:37 pm

Also here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/24/global-warmings-stephen-schneider-the-light-that-failed/

rogerknightssays:

July 18, 2012 at 11:33 pm

As Bill Tuttle posted here on WUWT a week ago in reference to another survey:

From that same [AMS/AMU] study [ at http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html]:
http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.htmlhttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/24/global-warmings-stephen-schneider-the-light-that-failed/http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/05/expert-embarrassment-in-climate-change/http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full


19/23



Former Vice President Al Gores documentary film An Inconvenient Truth rates better than any traditional news

source, with 26% finding it very reliable and 38% as somewhat reliable.

The egregious errors and bunk science in Gores slide show were well-publicized by the time that survey was made, yet

64% if those polled found it pardon my chuckles reliable.

The survey bias is obvious.

Therefore, as a yardstick to the respondents objectivity, future surveys should ask their opinion of the Inconvenient Truth film.

TonyG: here are more threads on these surveys (not necessarily different surveys):

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/02/scientific-consensus-on-global-warming-sample-size-79/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/04/lawrence-solomon-on-consensus-statistics/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/25/where-consensus-fails/

Mr Green Genessays:

July 19, 2012 at 1:07 am


July 18, 2012 at 11:10 am

I think whomever coined the phrase green to describe the environmentalist movement was colorblind. Theyre all reds when you

look at them closely.

Not necessarily. Dictionary.com provides a useful list of possible definitions for green, when used as an adjective. Among them

are:-

Not fully developed or perfected in growth or condition; unripe; not properly aged: This peach is still green;

Unseasoned; not dried or cured: green lumber;

Immature in age or judgement; untrained; inexperienced: a green worker;

Simple; unsophisticated; gullible; easily fooled;

Fresh, recent, or new: an insult still green in his mind; or

Having a sickly appearance; pale; wan: green with fear; green with envy.

John Asays:

July 19, 2012 at 5:31 am

I would like to see the raw data and assess the filtering used to the dataset to ensure that it did not bias the results. Could anyone

get it to me?

Mason P Wilson, Jr, Ph.D retired professor of Thermodynamics and a weatherman in servicesays:

July 19, 2012 at 7:47 am

Thanks for the invite and you are right on..Ill take a look at it but it seems to me that I would have to make a number of

assumptions concerning the absorption of the high energy wavelengths in the sea, since the opacity of the sea vs depth I believe

is dependant on the pllanktonif so it would make a big difference as to the energy being absorbed close to the surface and

reraidiated at a higher rate than if absorption occured at lower depth. If this is so my assumptions could sway the outcome as
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/25/where-consensus-fails/http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/04/lawrence-solomon-on-consensus-statistics/http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/02/scientific-consensus-on-global-warming-sample-size-79/


20/23



much as the global warming buffs. While the analysis might prove interesting I think I would rather wait and gather the

information to make informative assumptions than make a claim that cant hold up under the scutiny of other scientiststhanks

againmason

boodybullsays:

July 19, 2012 at 8:29 am

well, im tired of being called a denier, like i was a holocaust denier or something. how about we up the ante on the AGW

alarmists and just call them what they really are, extremists. just like religious terrorists distort their religion for their own goals

its seems comparable to me to call AGW the same as they so readily distort, change or exaggerate the facts to further their

religion.

man once did believe the earth was flat, that our planet was the centre of the universe, you could call that a consensus on both,

didnt mean it was right.

they attempt to terrorise the public with their extreme views, those nasty Extremist AGW Terrorists.

boodybullsays:

July 19, 2012 at 9:02 am

i have worked in construction and logistics my entire working life and been a member of a couple of different unions, i havealways previously voted left, labour party here in australia. i will not be voting left the next election because of the worlds

highest carbon tax ( 6 times higher than the EUs scheme), there will be no carbon tax under the government i lead, the science

is settled (juliar gillard, prime minister), introduced at the beginning of this month. all for a temperature reduction, best case

scenario, of just 0.0038 of a degree celsius by the end of this century. yeah truth. that comes from the IPCC itself. Lord

Monkton was not so generous 0.00005 of a degree celsius. they really did it even though the science and maths says its

pointless. could it be the tax dollars?

growing up i remember many times hearing that if the government could find a way to tax the air we breath they would. i

thought it was a joke. obviously they finally found a way. they wont get away with it though, its political suicide according to the

polls. as it truely deserves.

time magazine cover from 1977- How to survive the coming ice age- 51 things you can do to make a difference. anyone old

enough to remember this? i bet the science was settled and their was a consensus too. dont be fooled all over again. its here-

http://state-of-the-nation.com/2828/time-magazine-april-1977-survive-coming-ice-age-global-warming/time_iceage1/

TonyGsays:

July 19, 2012 at 9:27 am

Juan thanks for the links. They werent what I was looking for but Im going to read them over anyways :)

Roger your first link was the one I was trying to find thanks!

Kelvin Vaughansays:

July 19, 2012 at 1:02 pm

If 98% of scientists believe in global warming then all the papers produced by them and peer reviewed by them are biassed!

Alan Greysays:

July 19, 2012 at 3:44 pm
http://state-of-the-nation.com/2828/time-magazine-april-1977-survive-coming-ice-age-global-warming/time_iceage1/


21/23



This is exactly the sort of science they do.

observasays:

July 19, 2012 at 4:13 pm

Filter..cherry-pick..hit enter..print..ring up liberal-progressive media mate!

The Climate Realisttsays:

July 19, 2012 at 6:49 pm

Since there are around 6.1 bill ion people now, and the average heat output from the human body is around 28 watts, then there

is a constant heat source of 170 bill ion watts running 24/7/365. No wonder the world has heated up a tiny tiny bit. Better

depopulate quick, lets start with all the greenies.

Jeff Albertssays:

July 19, 2012 at 7:01 pm

The first: When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen,fallen, or remained relatively constant?

I would have to answer as follows:

Since mean global temperature is a meaningless construct, your first question is invalid. Since the second question relies on the

premise laid down in the first, the second question is also meaningless.

Toddsays:

July 19, 2012 at 7:52 pm

Soo.. what was the result of the survey you graphed. Those 3K odd returned surveys dont give me a % of opinion.

RACookPE1978says:

July 19, 2012 at 8:03 pm

It is notable that no commenter above has noticed that she filtered her responses through a Do you work for the government

agency (or government-paid institution) whose future budget will rely on the 1.3 trillion dollars per year of CAGW income that

will come from your research?

Only those 78 CAGW-funded government-paid eco-theists whose funding requires a CAGW case be built up from their

imaginations and their fabricated research were counted.

Stevesays:

July 19, 2012 at 11:49 pm

Hu McCulloch SAID(being statistically inclined) I would be surprised if human CO2 emissions havent had some statistically

significant contribution to warming since 1800, however small, so I would have to answer yes.

So you dont know. would have said yes despite thinking it was not true. So logically we should not trust the statistically

inclined because theyre inclined to lie.
http://gravatar.com/theclimaterealist


22/23



Brian Hsays:

July 20, 2012 at 3:35 am

Any intelligent scientist reading the survey questions would throw it aside, seeing how pre-cooked and irrelevant it was.

Therefore the ones who returned it were the stupidest and/or most biased in favor of its obvious intent. Thus the survey

conclusion should be, 98% of the stupidest and most biased scientists agree with AGW.

rogerknightssays:

July 20, 2012 at 5:12 am


July 18, 2012 at 11:10 am

I think whomever coined the phrase green to describe the environmentalist movement was colorblind. Theyre all reds

when you look at them closely.

Blackberries are green when theyre red.

Alan D McIntiresays:

July 20, 2012 at 6:38 am

I would answer yes, the earth has warmed over the last century, and yes, yes, humans have had a significant effect on the

warming- and Im a CAGW cynic. Seeing those questions in a SURVEY, Id immediately jump to the conclusion that this was a

propaganda poll, with no validity, and throw it away. A more reasonable conclusion would be 1 (3146/10,257)= 69.3 % of

scientists think that pushing CAGW is a scam and a waste of their valuable time.

stpaulchucksays:

July 20, 2012 at 11:43 am

I never did see a number telling me how many of the 7,000+ who did not return the survey were climate scientists. For me that

is also tell ing. Seven thousand scientists of the type they wanted on their roll call just trashed the survey. Perhaps a one third

response is a reasonable amount for any survey of this type. What is also telling is that they disregarded the responses of the

respondents who werent defined as climate scientists. So why then did they poll them?

Samuel Cogar - "SamC"says:

July 21, 2012 at 6:09 am

Im glad to see that was explained here on this site because Ive been saying the same thing on the NewsVine Science forum for

maybe the past 2+ years.

CRS, Dr.P.H.says:

July 22, 2012 at 5:36 pm

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.


23/23


atts Up With That?

well, that says it all right there!! We are on our THIRD U of I President in less than 3 years, with numerous other scandals and

problems. Poor UI, weve seen better days.but at least we aint Penn State!

The Twenty Ten Theme. Blog at WordPress.com.
http://wordpress.com/?ref=footerhttp://theme.wordpress.com/themes/twentyten/http://wattsupwiththat.com/

about that overwhelming 97-98% number of scientists that say there is a climate consensus… _ watts...

Documents