The questions are inane. Most of the questions didn’t ask if a majority of heating from 1950 was because of CO2. They simply asked did CO2 have any impact. The answer from almost everyone would be yes including me.
Your confusion is not sincere. You must understand that there are very few who deny that co2 doesn’t cause some effect. You presume that the deniers are people who deny physics. That’s false and a slander.
The problem for you folks is NOBODY DENIES that co2 absorbs radiation and becomes excited. What we deny is that the climate models which take that excitation and magnify it by a factor of 5 are correct.
You are doing the typical liberal conflation and deflection strategies. The typical approach of the climate fascists (alarmists) who are trying to quell all skepticism is that skeptics are denying the known physics of co2. NO, we aren’t. What we deny is all the rest that takes the co2 effect which is known to be small and magnifies it through powerful positive feedback.
So, pretty much all skeptics would answer yes to the question does co2 affect any temperature change. Therefore, the question is pointless if you are trying to say that skeptics don’t agree with most scientists that is false. Skeptics agree co2 has SOME effect. They (and I) would be part of the 97%. It should be alarming that even 3% of scientists would disagree that co2 has any effect.
If the question is : Is half the change from 1950 (which is 0.4C/2 = 0.2C) from CO2 I would say possibly. I think a scientist would agree. Is that probability 95%? No. Not in my opinion.
I understand the answer to the probability is based on a combination of the time period you look at and your assumptions about the climate record over longer time periods.
- If one looks at the longer period of several thousand years there are variations that are unexplained by co2. The LIA in particular. The temperate from 1950-> could be partly or wholly because of continued recovery from the LIA. Since it is not known what caused them there is too much unknown variation to say >50% probability is due to co2.
- If you restrain yourself to looking at only the last 50 or even 25 years between 1975–2000 and ask if that heating is because of CO2 and restrain yourself to the variables and understanding of the science by the climate glitterati then you would say that >50% probability that co2 is the cause of change from 1950.
Therefore depending on your acceptance of the MWP and LIA the probability that scientists would ascribe to the 1950+ period would vary.
If you believe in the hockey stick (and don’t believe in MWP and LIA ) then I think you are NOT a scientist. The reason I say that is the following:
1) There are almost 100 studies now which show significant temperature variation in sync all over the world that have been produced in my view proving that the MWP and LIA were not regional.
2) Regional climate change on the order of the MWP and LIA are not explained. This is very stupid. To say it is regional but then not have an argument why or how it could be regional change for hundreds of years is stupid. It’s begging the question. It’s deflection.
3) The oscillation of the MWP/LIA is not limited to the last 1000 years. It has happened 5 times in the last 5,000 years. So, it’s pointless to argue the LIA and MWP are regional because you’d have to argue that all 5 oscillations were also regional. That would drastically change the climate record.
I have seen no argument that the last 5000 years has been flat. Every temperature record I have ever seen shows a declining oscillation from the Holocene Optimem 5,000 years ago. None of this is explainable by co2 and I have seen no explanation for the variation since the Holocene Optimem.
So, let’s get back to the survey.
So far almost all the questions have asked if there is any effect of co2. I have shown that is trickery and conflation. Everyone agrees there is some effect.
If you ask if 0.2C is because of CO2 I would say that it is possible. The reason this is deceptive to ask is because you guys are really trying to justify “Will there be 3.0C temperature change which will make horrific damaging changes to our environment?” That’s really the question you need to ask. These questions of did Co2 cause 0.2C change is irrelevant deflection, conflation and deception. Arguing about the CO2 is not the point.
You are arguing that the world is going to end and that something must be done to reverse it. You are claiming that 97% agree to that. ITS NOT TRUE. THERE IS NO SUCH CONSENSUS PROVED.
You are conflating 0.2C and the known effect of co2 from infrared radiation with agreeing with massive amount of presumed science in the computer models and all kinds of studies of effects of co2 which are not well studied and are mostly garbage. That is the deceit you are pushing and the climate community of fascists is trying to stuff down our throats by using the 97% rhetoric. That because everyone agrees there is some effect from co2 means that we agree to all your crappy science. We don’t. Not me and not the majority of scientists.
Frankly I’ve never met A scientist who would defend the models or the science adequately. To suggest that 97% would agree with all that crap that is produced is stupid. I have not met Michael Mann nor do I care to. I suspect that any discussion with him would be insincere and loaded with political that would make any actual discussion of probabilities impossible.
For instance he supports the idea of climate induced extreme events is absolutely 100% proven when that is absurd. There is not possibly enough data to make that conclusion. Of course for Dr Mann and maybe for you this is the game you have played all along. Use 68 trees to prove that the MWP and LIA never existed, then when the trees don’t work, latch on some thermostat records to make it look like a hockey stick. Very good Dr Mann. It’s hard to believe he’s still a professor.