Survey Shows Strength of Climate Science

authordefault
on

This is a guest post by ClimateDenierRoundup crossposted from DailyKos

One of the first peer-reviewed surveys of scientists used to determine the level of consensus onย human-made climate change was undertaken by Dennis Bran and Hans von Storch in 1996. They used a standard survey response format known asย theย โ€œLikert Scale,โ€ where respondents answer questions based on a scale of 1 to 7 to determine, for example, how confident they are that warming is happening or that itโ€™sย human-caused.ย 

Theyโ€™ve repeated the survey a few times since 1996, and have recently released theย 5th International Survey of Climate Scientists, for 2015/2016.ย Bart Verheggen helpfully goes overย the key consensus findings as well as a couple of issues with theย survey.ย 

Because of the Likertย Scale response format,ย though, describingย the findingsย in numbers isnโ€™t as effective as just looking at the graphs of responses. In many cases, the responses are so lopsided that some very clear statements can beย made.ย 

We can see that,ย as science has progressed, the level of risk associated with climate change hasย increasedย as hasย whatโ€™s at stake. In contrast to folks like Judith Curry who play up uncertainty as an excuse for inaction, the majority of scientists think that since 1996, climate science uncertainty hasย dropped. Meanwhile, if society were to listen to voices highlighting uncertainty,ย and fail to actย because of them, the potential for catastrophe for some parts of the world isย fairly great.

To the point of theย GOP AGs suggestingย that Gore and others could be held responsible for exaggerating climate risks, scientists clearly think sea level rise will be just as bad as we thought five years ago,ย if not worse.ย Theย sameย can be saidย for otherย negative impacts. Over the last five years, the urgencyย to act onย climate change hasย grown.ย 

As for the public, scientists clearly think they should beย told to be worriedย as we are already starting toย experience the impactsย of climate change. For example,ย theyย agree thatย theย frequencyย of extreme eventsย is increasing, as well as theย intensityย of those events, andย theย probabilityย that those extreme events occur. Scientists expect theseย extreme eventsย to becomeย moreย powerful, tropical storms toย get more intense, and certainlyย not any less frequent.ย Heat waves over the last 20 years areย growingย more intenseย as well asย more frequent.ย 

Most importantly, an overwhelming majorityย of scientistsย are convinced that climate change poses aย serious and dangerous threat to humanity, with only 2% responding that theyโ€™re not at all convinced. Again,ย with the Likert scale itโ€™s a bit difficult to put simply. Assuming a 4 out of 7 is the midway point between โ€œnot at allโ€ concerned and โ€œvery muchโ€ concerned, 8% of respondents fell between 1 and 3, 5.667% right in the middle at 4, and 85.74% between 5 andย 7.ย 

So,ย deniers claiming the science is still too uncertain to take action or that the public shouldnโ€™t be worried need to take heed of this survey (like they have in the past, if evenย just to spin it) and accept that theyโ€™re a fringe minority at odds with an overwhelming consensus. Thatโ€™s the facts, whether they Likert orย not.ย 

ย 

authordefault

Related Posts

on

The SEC move is a warning to the financial industry that false claims about fossil fuel involvement can carry consequences.

The SEC move is a warning to the financial industry that false claims about fossil fuel involvement can carry consequences.
on

Unraveling a $122 million web of climate denial, political extremism, and Trump campaign ties.

Unraveling a $122 million web of climate denial, political extremism, and Trump campaign ties.
on

PR and consulting agencies are being paid millions to focus the worldโ€™s attention on a promised โ€œeco-cityโ€ โ€” obscuring human rights abuses and Saudi Arabiaโ€™s long record of climate obstruction.

PR and consulting agencies are being paid millions to focus the worldโ€™s attention on a promised โ€œeco-cityโ€ โ€” obscuring human rights abuses and Saudi Arabiaโ€™s long record of climate obstruction.
on

Damage to oceans is releasing vast amounts of CO2, despite efforts to market fish as a sustainable food.

Damage to oceans is releasing vast amounts of CO2, despite efforts to market fish as a sustainable food.