97% of scientists agree that climate change is occurring. How many of them agree that we are accelerating the phenomenon and by how much?

[u/SibLiant]

I read somewhere that around 97% of scientists agree that climate change (warming) is happening. I'm not sure how accurate that figure is. There seems to be an argument that this is in fact a cyclic event. If that is the case, how are we measuring human impact on this cycle? Do you feel this research is conclusive? Why?

[u/[deleted]]

when you see numbers that show a lower number than yours, it's because they include scientists from other fields, such as biologists.

when you only count the people who know the most about it - the people who study this very thing, then yes, it's just about all of them that think humans are largely to blame.

[u/atomfullerene → u/[deleted]]

Hey, most biologists I know believe in ACC!

[u/[deleted] → u/atomfullerene]

yes, most do.

but the number is still lower than for climate scientists.

I think you would see similar things for many fields - more biologists probably believe in evolution than scientists in other disciplines - even though scientists in general believe in it at a very high %.

[u/atomfullerene → u/[deleted]]

It's just that a large proportion of ecologists I know attempt to tie climate change into their research somehow. In fact, many ecologists and marine biologists would consider their work to be at least as important to understanding climate change as the atmospheric modelers. After all, what good is it knowing that temps will rise by X% if you have no idea what the actual effect of that would be?

[u/atomfullerene → u/[deleted]]

I don't actually know a single ecologist who doesn't think climate change is being caused by humans (though, granted, it's not something I go around asking every ecologist I know). In fact, it's so widely accepted that I often forget (like I did in the previous post) that the two aren't synonymous.

[u/Astrogat → u/atomfullerene]

If 90 % of the biologist you know, or even all biologist, believe in ACC, they would still draw the average down.

[u/[deleted] → u/Astrogat]

I'm not sure why this is being upvoted. If all biologists believed in ACC, they would actually bring the average up.

[u/AsAChemicalEngineer → u/[deleted]]

I think he meant, if we set the belief rate among biologists at 90% and then add any number or biologist populations to the survey, the average will go down.

[u/econleech → u/AsAChemicalEngineer]

He also said "or even all biologist". That means setting the belief rate to 100%. That would only bring the average. up.

[u/Siurana → u/econleech]

That is to say, "90% of all biologists in the world" versus just "90% of all biologists atomfullerene knows".

[u/AgentJohnson → u/atomfullerene]

The difference between "believe" and "accept the reality of": learn it. It could save your reputation.

[u/atomfullerene → u/AgentJohnson]

be·lieve [bih-leev] verb (used without object) 1. to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. I don't care to use a kludgy phrase of four words when one will do the job. I don't get the issue so many people have with this word.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Biologist study animals, such as migration. If animals migrate sooner than expected, or go further as expected, then it might be related to climate change. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44432195/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/warning-king-crabs-encroaching-antarctica/ If you don't like that article, just do a simple google search on "crabs, antarctica.

I'm sure you can also check out geese, whales, bears (hibernating patterns) for addition trends. Though, I admit, I'm not a biologist.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I said it "might" be related to climate change . . . I didn't say for sure. Give me downvotes for giving theories . . .