byork
If you got on a plane and 2 out of a hundred engineers said it was unsafe would you be happy to fly? Personally a risk of 1 in 50 is not a risk I would take. Regardless of the actual proportion of scientists who agree with the concept of dangerous climate due to excessive levels of GHGs, the risks associated with ignoring the issue, are much greater than the risks associated with moving to a low carbon emission economy.

Hasbeen, don't be too quick to discount the link between stomach ulcers and stress. Although they are primarily caused by bacteria, those bacteria are present in more than half the population without a problem. Stress does greatly increase the risk of stomach ulcers developing in those who are infected.

byork, I think a more accurate analogy would be if those 98 engineers said there was a fault in the plane. They don't actually specify that it's unsafe to fly, but some of them point out that the fault has been implicated in at least one previous catastrophic crash.

A good article Barry.

You could have pointed out that the IPCC also said:

"Human influence on the climate system is clear and growing, with impacts observed on all continents.

If left unchecked, climate change will increase the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems.

However, options are available to adapt to climate change and implementing stringent mitigations activities can ensure that the impacts of climate change remain within a manageable range, creating a brighter and more sustainable future."

The Synthesis Report confirms that climate change is being registered around the world and warming of the climate system is unequivocal.

"Our assessment finds that the atmosphere and oceans have warmed, the amount of snow and ice has diminished, sea level has risen and the concentration of carbon dioxide has increased to a level unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years."

The report expresses with greater certainty than in previous assessments the fact that emissions of greenhouse gases and other anthropogenic drivers have been the dominant cause of observed warming since the mid-20th century.

The more human activity disrupts the climate, the greater the risks.

Continued (increasing) emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and long-lasting changes in all components of the climate system, increasing the likelihood of widespread and profound impacts affecting all levels of society and the natural world.

Barry, the IPCC's latest Synthesis Report is alarming - it is not alarmist.

Aidan, if you look at the actual surveys on which the 98% analogy is based, you will find - as I said before - that they share the consensus of the IPCC that global warming has happened and that human activity is a significant driver of it. There is no attempt in any of the surveys to ascertain whether the experts regard the situation as positive or negative, catastrophic or beneficial, neutral or whatever.

Any analogy that tries to create any degree of alarm is therefore invalid.

I would love to see a major survey undertaken to ascertain whether climate scientists regard the consequences of warming as likely to be catastrophic, slightly damaging, beneficial, slightly beneficial, or neutral on balance. However, the alarmists would have no interest in supporting such an undertaking.

Perhaps this then, Barry?

http://theconversation.com/are-you-a-poor-logician-logically-you-might-never-know-33355

"In contested arenas, such as climate change, the Dunning-Kruger effect and its flow-on consequences can distort public perceptions of the true scientific state of affairs.

To illustrate, there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that greenhouse gas emissions from our economic activities are altering the Earth’s climate.

This consensus is expressed in more than 95% of the scientific literature and it is shared by a similar fraction, 97-98% of publishing experts in the area.

In the present context, it is relevant that research has found that the “relative climate expertise and scientific prominence” of the few dissenting researchers “are substantially below that of the convinced researchers”.

Guess who, then, would be expected to appear particularly confident when they are invited to expound their views on TV, owing to the media’s failure to recognise (false) balance as (actual) bias?

Yes, it’s the contrarian blogger who is paired with a climate expert in “debating” climate science and who thinks that hot brick buildings contribute to global warming."

It goes on but I'm sure you see the relevance.

DavidK, the bottom line is that the 95% or 98% consensus says nothing beyond the fact that human activity is a significant or principal driver of the 0.8 degree warming since 1880. If you have evidence that 95% of scientists believe the consequences will be catastrophic, then please present the source.

The IPCC synthesis summary contains elements that might be cause for alarm and other elements that negate alarm, such as the admission that 111 of the 114 models failed (ie, overstated the warming). And, of course, the report acknowledges the 'hiatus' that was not meant to happen according to the great majority of simulations.

A 2 millimetre per year sea level rise is neither alarming nor alarmist. The media has a lot to answer for in its sensationalism, as do non-climate scientists like Tim Flannery who promote alarmism and engage in incredible hyperbole.

Were I to be convinced that the situation is urgent and potentially catastrophic, I'd be advocating for nuclear power as that is the best available method of reducing CO2 emissions while not reducing our standard of living and not keeping the poor of the world poor.