Off the back of the recent Climate Skeptics vs The Consensus image, we were curious how many scientists might make up ‘The Consensus’.
The Skeptical side claims at least 31,486 dissenters in their ranks, according to the PetitionProject.org. That sounds like a lot. But is it?
Of course, not all 12 million US scientists therefore agree with ‘The Consensus’. But this puts the PetitionProject’s 31,486 signatories in some kind of context.
Our maths here is somewhat coarse. Some better data suggests the ‘consensus’ figure is around 97.5% of publishing climatologists and around 90% of all publishing scientists supporting the human-induced climate theory. See this study for more details (PDF – Doran And Zimmerman 2009)
Actually, here’s how some of it looks:
Skeptical Field
Among the climate skeptic scientists, we wondered which fields of science were most represented. We expected climate and earth sciences. But we got…
In fact, when you adjust the PetitionProject’s odd categorisation – they filed ‘chemical engineers’ as chemists and physical engineers as ‘physicists’ – the total number of engineers who signed the petition, by our reckoning, jumps to 49%
Why so many engineers?
UPDATE 1: 23rd Dec 09. Thanks all for the excellent feedback (and barbs!). The language and presentation have been adapted now to hopefully better reflect our exploratory intentions.
:: Research by Helen Lawson Williams
:: source The Petition Project, US Census Bureau – Data on Science Degrees (Excel) & Advanced Science Degrees (Excel)
:: You can find all our data in this spreadsheet.
115 Comments
Thank you for replying to my first comment. I see that many more have poured in since then, and many of them seem to be referencing exactly what I’m talking about.
Unfortunately, there is no real “context” that you can give signers of a given petition by comparing them to THE ENTIRE BODY OF SCIENTISTS who might or might not have ANY opinion on the issue. This is terrible statistical practice DEFINED.
It is NO different than saying “only 1% of the city participated in the gay rights march of January 2008, therefore, the city believes that gay rights are not worthy of hearing, since 99% of the city is in opposition.”
You claimed in your reply that you weren’t trying to infer that the other scientists support global warming, but then why did you put them in a chart where they are upright outlines of people, while the people who signed are shown as an upside down person. This places them as opposites, and DIRECTLY infers that the larger body is in opposition to the smaller body.
I am a degree holding computer scientist, and professionally published software author, but I neither signed the document nor do I disagree with it. I simply don’t know. Not knowing, listening, and learning are good science. Pretending to know that which you have too little data to truly conclude from? That’s Bad science.
Whether your illustration was misleading by accident or not (I think you may have been a little biased), you have to acknowledge a couple of things:
1) The people who actively signed this document are scientists who claim to know a little about climate science, and have put their names on the line to prove a point, and what you’ve done is made them seem like a puny minority, when in fact 30,000 people saying one thing should never be taken lightly.
2) If you wanted to do a better comparison, you need to have data where more scientists ACTIVELY prove their support for the opposite claim. If your goal was to say, “the people who signed this specific document are a drop in the bucket”… everyone knows that… but what you really imply is “the people who did not sign this document are mostly against the drop in the bucket’s worth of people who did sign.” which you CAN NOT PROVE.
Be a little more careful with your sampling and analysis of the things you decide to cover, and you’ll keep a lot more people. I love almost all of your other postings (I even save the graphics onto a thumb drive to reference from time to time or to share with friends, and give them the link to your site if we have access at that time. The “this side” vs “that side” ones are all good, and the federal spending one really was beautiful.)
Sorry to spam, but I see cited by Enci:
““Of course, not all 12 million US scientists therefore agree with ‘The Consensus’. But this puts the PetitionProject’s 31,486 signatories in some kind of context.—
No. This does not come through in the graphic. Almost every other graphic ever posted here can be viewed without reading the accompanying blog post and still make perfect sense. To have this graphic passed around and looked at does not convey that.
“How many U.S. Scientists Disagree with human-induced climate change?” is the title. You don’t know that answer. The only numbers you have are “how many scientists signed a petition that indicated that they do not agree with HICC” and “How many scientists are there?”. There’s no correlation or relation or comparison to be made between those two numbers.
I would estimate that over 50% of those scientists didn’t even KNOW ABOUT the petition. I would estimate that if they are GOOD scientists, all of them with insufficient data didn’t abstain from signing because they DISAGREED with it, but because they didn’t KNOW the answer.
Find an opposite poll or publication, and use that for your next graphic. What you’ll find is that about 30,000 people with degrees all saying one thing is an incredibly large number as these things go.
The main problem people seem to have with this graphic is the juxtaposition of 30k signatories with 12m science graduates. There’s a suggestion this is apples with oranges. But if I’ve understood correctly, the reason David’s selected this group is that the 12m represents the group of people who the Petition Project have classified as eligible to sign their petition. This wasn’t his choice, and it seems silly to attack him for it.
I’d suggest that the graphic could be improved by two ways:
1) Make it clearer in the * footnote that this is the criteria set by the Petition Project
2) Maybe use a slightly less pejorative colour than green for the non-signatories.
I agree that this is a very unscientific way to go about such research.
My main concern however, is that many of the “scientists” considered as supporting the consensus do so because they are unwilling to contemplate unscientific practice in the climate science community. As more of these individuals learn what “Climategate” is really about, their opinions will change. This shift is already apparent in the wider community and the media.
The other issue is that climate science has become a closed shop where many are too concerned about the potential career ramifications of dissenting with the consensus.
The top echelon of climate science has so skewed the process and thinking in this field that serious research has all but been abandoned by the main stream.
I suggest that those 31,000 who have been willing to be counted on this are just the tip of a very large iceberg. They made the effort to understand what is beneath the surface of climate change and have made a concious decision to change their stance from believer to sceptic.
Regardless of the claimed consensus, it is prudent to remember that the only real proof of what is causing the climate to change is solid evidence to identify the cause, and that is in short supply.
Once, we all believed in Santa Claus. It’s sometimes difficult to accept that a strongly held belief is not borne out by the facts
“Why so many engineers?” To answer that, I would need to know how many of the 12m science graduates ARE engineers. I suspect that it might come pretty close to 49% given the realities of the U.S. economy. Do you have stats for what fields all of these graduates are currently in, or if they’re even using their degrees at all? The interesting information is not the percentages of the signatories that are in each field, but the discrepancy (if any) between that and the percentages of all graduates in each field.
Regarding the comparison of signatories vs. number of eligible scientists, you’re including in the “did not sign” group everyone who has never heard of the petition and therefore couldn’t possibly have chosen to sign it or not sign it. Perhaps it’s impossible to determine without taking another survey (and one that would tend to affect its own results just by taking it), but lumping all non-signers together against the signers seems somewhat akin to counting everyone who didn’t vote at all in an election as a “no” vote.
A few more points, one for each of the graphs. First, as previous posters have already pointed out, the first graphic smacks of bias and frankly does a disservice to information design. I really don’t think you can do anything to improve it. It’s sort of meaningless and was an empty exercise. That is, unless your intent was propaganda, in which case you’ve already succeeded as one poster here has uncritically stated “now we see what 30 000 actually means!” In reality, the graph does nothing to illuminate what it means.
Secondly, in regards to the second graph, the hacked East Anglia emails (aka “climategate”), if nothing else, reveal that some of the most influential climatologists in the world have intentionally corrupted the peer review process. It has been shown, by their own words, that they worked to keep skeptical views out of major journals. They also manipulated the process such that only peers with compatible views would review their work. So, while your second graph may be technically correct, it’s still based on a faulty premise.
Lastly, it does not surprise me that climate and earth scientists did not have the highest representation in your third graphic, considering the amount of public funding they receive to study AGW. A more revealing infographic might be a timeline depicting the spike of public dollars since the late ’80s being funneled to climate science, where that money goes, and the % of believers to skeptics within the groups that receive the money and those that don’t. It might also be illuminating to juxtapose the views of geologists and earth scientists who have been studying the climate history of Earth since before that spike and those that are newer to the field.
Have a look at what an engineer discovered.
All average global temperatures since 1895 are predicted by a simple model. There was no need to consider change to the level of CO2 or any other greenhouse gas.
The model, with an eye-opening graph, is presented in the October 16 pdf at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true.
To the final question, it may be because engineers are by far the most conservative scientist cohort.
It is also worth noting that there are many sites that pull apart the validity of the opinion of the Oregon Petition in the first place
Here is one:
http://www.desmogblog.com/oregon-petition
Quoted from the above link:
“The petition and the documents included were all made to look like official papers from the prestigious National Academy of Science. They weren’t, and this attempt to mislead has been well-documented.”
“Along with the petition there was a cover letter from Dr. Fred Seitz, a notorious climate change denier (and big tobacco scientist), who over 30 years ago was the president of the National Academy of Science. Also attached to the petition was an apparent “research paper†titled: Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. The paper was made to mimic what a research paper would look like in the National Academy’s prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy journal. The authors of the paper were Robinson, Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon (both oil-backed scientists) and Robinson’s son Zachary. With the signature of a former NAS president and a research paper that appeared to be published in one of the most prestigious science journals in the world, many scientists were duped into signing a petition based on a false impression.”
“The petition was so misleading that the National Academy issued a news release stating that: “The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science.”
Wow. This is a really good subject for a debate. Do you mind if we turn this to the public? I’d like to post this question to the people on debatehall.com. And this is not spam or something.
Interesting graphic. If you don’t mind, I will post it on my blog as well. http://www.myvisualvoice.com/blog
I’d just scrap the first graphic. My girlfriend just got her degree in environmental science (so chalk another number up there) and she is a HICC skeptic. But she never signed a petition.
I won’t talk about my views here, that’s not the point. But, though the rest of the information was interesting, it’s marred by the first chart and its implication that not signing a petition indicates preference for the idea of HICC.
“Climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes.†– with 1 representing “strong agreement†and 7 “strong disagreementâ€
29 percent of climatescientists is less of more a sceptic (and another 13 % = neutral and not pro ) according to this peer reviewed research.
http://dvsun3.gkss.de/BERICHTE/GKSS_Berichte_2007/GKSS_2007_11.pdf
Hans von Storch and Dennis Bray
Institute for Coastal Research
GKSS Research Center
[Interesting study - thanks a lot Seven! Couple of things:
I count 42% scientist surveyed agree on athropogenic causes for climate change (p 63 of the PDF - those scoring 4 or above)
Nature counts 56% - http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/08/climate_scientists_views_on_cl_1.html
Also I count only 1.1% of those surveyed as being climate scientists? p23)
Thanks! David]
Consensus? Graph”http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/chart.JPG
“Hans von Storch (born 13 August 1949 in Wyk auf Föhr) is a German climate scientist. He is Professor at the Meteorological Institute of the University of Hamburg, and (since 2001) Director of the Institute of Coastal Research at the GKSS Research Centre in Geesthacht, Germany. He is a member of the advisory boards of the journals Journal of Climate and Annals of Geophysics.
Could the first graphic be redone with heads pointing along the horizontal axis?
The same could be said for virtually anything within science. That is what science is, best guess… The sad truth is that schools (pre-college) teach kids “facts” instead of theories and punish those who question the dogma. Which is obviously anti-science in its nature and causes people to believe that science can general certainties which it cannot.
No one mentions more water vapour is created when burning oil than CO2. No one mentions water vapour is a much better greenhouse gas. No one mentions airborne particulate from burning fossil fuels allows for the formation of more drops and less rainfall. No one mentions the reflectivity of drop-rich cloud cover and the reduced solar radiation.
Either way, this is an important question to answer. To have a massive survey done on such a group would be a proper step forward at this point because, as of now, both proponents and skeptics are receiving equal representation in the news outlets, and that doesn’t seem to be sound reporting if the size of both groups are disproportional. Whichever side of the argument you’re on, I think we can both agree that news outlets seeking equal representation of arguments in order to polarize the public on a subject that might authoritatively be disproportionate can be likened to giving any type of radicalism equal air time to state their case in the media, such as say, islamic terrorism. The size of representation from an authoritative community should be proportionate to its consensus, regardless of the side of the line that consensus may fall on.
The Petition Project was created to counter the claim by the proponents of AGW—primarily the “2500 scientists” cited by the IPCC—that there was a “consensus” and that the science was “settled”. In any event, the skeptics maintain that scientific truth is not determined by a show of hands.
Here is a quick and easy quide to scientific consensus and the whole global warming bru ha ha. If you are applying for a National Science Foundation Grant or for a teaching position in a major university; you will claim to be in the man caused global warming camp. Scientists who have tenure and are independently well off, (don’t need supplemental grants) might approach the question with intellectual curiosity rather than as a religion.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.” – Galileo Galilei, contrarian astronomer.
wow looks like the breakdown of economists that correctly predicted the bubble vs the entire population of economists.
Also your assuming that the entire population agrees with the consensus. I’m not sure I believe the data.
Missing scientific evidence ( facts) can not be substituted by majority vote. As long this evidence can not be proven without a doubt, it is just a belief, but not science. Believers and nonbelievers (a better word for deniers) should search for scientific truth and not trying to fight each other.
Wow, this really brought out the crazies. Love seeing people say “this graph is unscientific. This just adds to my argument that HICC is a myth. Mu ha ha ha ha” despite their grasp of climate science being, well… unscientific.
If the evidence for human caused global warming/climate change is so staggering and so irrefutable, why do we need petitions?
That goes for either position. I realize that the particular petition in question is by and for those who do NOT agree with the “consensus”, but there have also been similar petitions and materials being distributed for scientists to *affirm* their support for HICC. Either way scientific research shouldn’t hinge on belief. Fact is independent of belief.
If the evidence was compelling in its own right, there wouldn’t be a need for an appeal to consensus.
The release of the e-mails should have triggered an appeal to knowledge and fact, not a petition drive. The almost religious aversion to those who question their methods and data reveals the weakness (or perhaps vulnerability) of their claim. In any case, it certainly does not add veracity to its scientific merit.
Lastly, these petitions are meaningless anyway, right? Of the 31,000 who signed this petition (and the millions more who didn’t) how many are *actually* climate experts? If (as is commonly asserted) it takes 10,000 hours or 10 years to become an expert in a field, it seems likely that the vast majority have no specific expertise or first hand experience with the data in question.
They are only marginally more qualified to comment than the average lay person, such as myself.
*bleh*
I think the reason many of the skeptics are engineers is because they work for the industries that are being challenged to change their practices. Here are my thoughts on why their stance appears to be a political one, not a scientific one: http://chrysler5thavenue.blogspot.com/2009/11/thoughts-on-global-warming-debate.html
I blogged about this article and included a couple of the graphs here: http://chrysler5thavenue.blogspot.com/2010/01/scientific-consensus-regarding-human.html
One thing that confused me is the male/female icons. It gives the impression that the dissenters (0.24% in the first graphic and 1% in the third graphic) are female. Upon closer examination, this is clearly not the case as the male/female icons are arranged in rows. Would it be clearer to use some generic (gender-neutral) scientist icon instead of a male/female representation?
Interesting post and good criticisms in the comments. My worry isn’t the statistical validity of the representations, but the psychological effects. When presented with acres of people coloured green and one coloured grey my empathy goes to the one coloured grey. Hurrah for them. Without knowing anything of the data, or what is being represented, the graphic lends intrigue and interest to the minority. It’s them we want to know more about, them we want to support. Presumably that’s not the psychological effect you intended to elicit?
Right. It is only the vast, vast majority of scientists who believe that global warming and/or climate change is a problem, but certainly not all of them. Just as with the flat earth theory, there are and always will be holdouts.
Of course, part of the reason for this — as the hacked climate emails showed — is that those who disagree with AGW are less likely to BE published. And seeing how scientific funding follows political agendas, scientists who doubt AGW are less likely to have their research funded in the first place. However, you are only looking at the outcome — those who publish — and conclude that that outcome is evidence of consensus in the scientific community (and that AGW must therefore be real). But you fail to account for so many factors that could impact that outcome that your conclusion is flawed. In other words, just because so few published scientists doubt AGW does NOT prove AGW is real. For a group of young adults who claim to be so enlightened (i.e. the youth climate movement), I would expect a much more thorough and thoughtful analysis — and I would challenge you to perform one.
The graph could alternately be subtitled, ‘How many U.S. Scientists were not fooled by years of manipulated climate science?”
Interesting post and discussion. I do agree that the graphic is a bit misleading, implying that the non-signers all support AGW. It might have been better to use a pie chart and show the tiny slice of all scientists who signed the petition. But an “anti-petition project” petitions signed by 500,000 climate and other scientists signing the “anti-petition project” petition affirming AGW against the relatively small number who signed the petition project.
To those who paint dark pictures of funding for AGW-positive research skewing the results, put it in the context that the coal industry reportedly spends $100,000 A DAY on lobbying. Similar money no doubt buys some pet scientists for them as well.
Interesting way to present the data. It’s neither bad science nor good science, because it isn’t science. You’re interpreting data and presenting it in such a manner that it creates a reaction. This friends is graphics design.
It is an interesting statistic, that of 12 million scientists, only 31,000 plus are against global warming. But the most interesting thing is that among climatologists, those who are specialized in the field and whose opinions and theories should carry more weight, only 1% disagree with the idea that man is influencing the climate. That 1% would most likely cover those climatologist either paid directly, or whose research is funded by, companies and organizations who would be hurt by stricter emissions controls.
Excellent design piece that quickly and starkly shows how “large” the opposition actually is to the idea that man has some impact on the global climate.
The key to fight against extreme climate change is our awarness. Do we really care about our planet?
It’s certainly your right to limit the scope of discussion on the topic iteself – however, what is most troubling is what appears to be a concerted and ongoing effort to portray those who disagree (for whatever reason) as being on the same level as “Holocaust Deny’ers” and “Racists”, thus rendering anyone who may disagree (again, for whatever reason) as “evil”, on the same level more or less as a committed “Nazi”.
I applaud the changes you have made to the original post based on the feedback you’ve received, but I still think the primary graphic is highly misleading.
To be counted as disagreeing, a person had to sign the petition – while it is highly likely there are additional scientists that disagree but did not sign the petition.
The primary graphic still appears to present all others as agreeing – even though there is text saying of something different.
I think the only way to present this fairly is to compare the # of petition signers with some equivalent on the agreement side of the argument. Anything else is highly misleading – regardless of caveats.
I work at an engineering firm, and one of the engineers here recieved an invitation to sign the petition project…. I would hardly suggest that he’s in a position to make a good estimation of the science involved. Basically he recieved an 8 year old paper on the topic that takes the position that climate change is not affected by greenhouse gases– the paper was not even from a published journal. Google the Petition Project and you can find that there are many problems with it’s methology and that it does not even carefully screen any of the responses. Anyone can get on it… I don’t think therefore that suggesting that there are 30,000 scientists that disagree is about as good as taking a number out of a hat.
A really good graphic would be to show the number of articles that efffectively challenge AGW that have been published in peer-reviewed journals out of the total number of such articles on GW.
Why are there 56 dress wearing scientists and only 44 pants wearing scientists? They stop alternating in the last four columns and bottom three rows. Isn’t it kind of disingenuous to imply that there are even an equal number of women with science degrees as men? Why do you use gendered scientists anyway? While I appreciate your attempt to be fair, don’t be fair at the expense of truth.
Sorry, but that first graphic is functionally useless. There are three potential states for the science graduates in the US publicly pro-AGW theory, publicly anti-AGW theory, no publicly stated position. If you don’t have the data to differentiate between no stated position and the pro and anti positions then assuming that ALL individuals with no stated position are pro is nonsense. A graphic as simple as three states in a population shouldn’t need explanatory text.
I’m afraid it’s pretty obvious to me why so many engineers disagree. It’s practically their job. Outside of electrical and maybe civil engineering most engineers are going to be working for companies that would be hugely affected by any climate change legislation. Students are finally being taught just how important these issues are and companies may eventually turn their greenwash into actual action (probably long after the gov. forces them to) but I imagine the current generation of practising engineers are pretty resistant to change and worried about the future of their industries.
I would publish my name to prove I speak from experience but getting blacklisted from the industry probably wouldn’t be fun.
Oh dear, not this old chestnut again..
‘Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition#Criticism_of_the_Oregon_Petition
This is a terrible, terrible graphic. One of the worst I have EVER seen (I have a large collection and have produced info-graphics professionally).
Trying to discredit the statements : unpopular, unaccepted, disapproval generating, career damaging, brave statements of 34,000 active scientist
- by –
comparing the huge cardinal number of these scientist with those who have any type of scientific degree
is, basically, po-faced dishonesty.
If I needed any more reasons to not accept the arguments of climate change supporters at face value (NB: their arguments – not this one – may be acceptable after investigation), then this graphic, and your support of it, would be a great reason.
I have bookmarked this page to use the monstrously stupid image in just that way, should I ever need to mock a climate change supporter.
Hello David,
As a graphic designer I dig data visualization. I love your Blog and graphics, I like to pass them around to people to explain things, and they are generally really inspiring. However on this graphic, I do see the same inconsistencies pointed out in other comments.
Regarding this issue you may be interested in creating a graphic that shows the relation of CO2 of human emission in relation to other sources of emission and overall CO2 in the world. The reason of this is because I have come to know that dead leaves, and animal poo emit tenths of times more CO2 than the whole of humanity. I mean, we emit CO2 as we breathe! Not that this is something new, it is just something that is not mentioned in the man-made-climate-change propaganda.
Also it would be interesting to show what percentage of CO2 actually makes part of the atmosphere in relation to other gases, since water vapor makes most of the so called “greenhouse gases”.
That could give some perspective, as CO2 is one of the live’s main building blocks, it is not a very important “greenhouse gas” in proportion, and humans are far from being the top producers of it in the earth. It is rather funny to propose it as a sort of extraneous-blame-us-for-it-thing on earth.
May I suggest:
- The Story of Cap & Trade, with Annie Leonard
- George Carlin, on “saving the planet”
- The Global Warming Swindle
Regards,
[Thanks Gabriel. I have a diagram showing different CO2 contributions in my book actually. I will try to upload at some point soon - David]
“Of course, not all 12 million US scientists therefore agree with ‘The Consensus’. But this puts the PetitionProject’s 31,486 signatories in some kind of context.”
At some point in the near or far future you are going to wake up from the trance of your fully colonized mind and know to a dead certainty what a stupid statement that is and what a useless chunk of pure propaganda this graphic is.
You know, just because you make of living from this doesn’t mean you should lie for money and for future gigs all the time.
“what a useless chunk of pure propaganda this graphic is.”
No comment on what a useless chunk of pure propaganda the Oregon Petition was?
Perhaps an interesting graphic would be to compare the issues that climate change deniers keep parroting but have already been addressed by climate scientists.
If you’re going to do the CO2 in relation to natural output, then make sure that it shows how much of the CO2 produced by nature is absorbed by it (100%) versus the CO2 being produced by humans being absorbed by humans(0%). The point being that a small imbalance can have long term consequences – the amount of rainfall during Katrina was small compared to the flow of the Mississippi but the banks still burst.
That a scientist does not sign a petition does not mean that he or she opposes that petition. Nor does it mean that they are not supporting. What I am saying, is that we have no record of what these 99.76% percent of all scientist that did not sign the petition mean about this petition!
For the most part, people don’t care enough to sign anything concerning either side. I don’t doubt the main conclusions of the UN climate board, but have I signed a petition? No. For all you know, those 99.76% that did sign it might have if they had to make an active choice.
To make any meaning at all you should come up with a similar graphic depicting the number of scientists that actively support the consensus, compared to the total number of scientist. THEN we would have something to compare.
Ronald McDonald I would suggest that you don’t take the arguments of the skeptic lobby at face value either. Those guys are happy to criticise percieved inaccuracies in the “consensus” while at the same time pushing their own thoeries (of global Marxist conspiracy) without a shred of evidence.
climate change is given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. This does not include the views of individual scientists, individual universities, or laboratories, nor self-selected lists of individuals such as petitions.
Well climate change is the most serious concern today among scientists around the world.The warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level.Ne ways keep sharing.
Without going into “publishing scientist” and what that exactly means the total numbers still only represent 30% of all Scientist. In other words 70% or 9,060,800 have not been heard from!