Originally Posted by SDW2001
I'll say this for you....you play the game of Let's Argue on the Internet very well. You've successfully made the debate about me
instead of Teh Global Warming. So let's boil it down:
You are claiming that no credible scientist
disagrees with the theory of Teh Global Warming? I had to sift through the insults to get that, but I'm just making sure here before we go on.
... that a majority (> 50%) of global climate change is of anthropogenic origins with a probability of 90% (p = 0.9).
I not being a climate scientist, but being first an engineer and then a scientist, believe the above statement to be conservative, I believe that it is likely that 2/3 to 3/4 of global climate change is of anthropogenic origins with a probability of 95% (p = 0.95). That's my singular opinion based on my own reading of the climate science literature.Scientific opinion on climate changeScientific consensusGlobal warming controversyList of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warmingCategory:Global warming skepticsCategory:Organizations of environmentalism skeptics and criticsCategory:Former global warming skeptics
The last three links are not scientists or well established scientific bodies, for instance Rush Limbaugh is a wingnut talk radio host.
The fourth link from the bottom is a partial list of scientists from all fields of science opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. That list I'd characterize as being mostly emeritus types (i. e. old) who have opposed global climate change from the get go, and have not published extensively in the well established peer reviewed climate science literature since taking an opposing view from the mainstream scientific opinion. Nor have the vast majority conducted their own original climate science since taking their original positions against AGW. They appeal to emotion and subjectivity by critiquing the work of others without conduction unique works of their own, they formulate their arguments in the policy and political spheres, using the WWW and the MSM editorial pages as their main vehicle of presenting their dissenting views.
I refer to this sphere of influence as the blog-o-smear, it is also used in other areas of quantitative debate such as evolution and the events of 9/11 with respect to the WTC.
Now if wikipedia were to maintain a list of scientists supporting global climate change caused mainly by human actions, I would think that the length of that list would be either a high five digit number or a low six digit number. Or the percentage of all scientists who think global climate change is caused mainly by human actions would exceed 90% (I'm guessing somewhere between 95% and 99%).
I hope that answers your impossible narrowly asked question (e. g. negative proof