Quote:1. It depends on what you consider a believer vs. a skeptic. All of the scientists accept the greenhouse effect
 (misnamed, but that doesn't really matter, the effect is still real). All accept the fact that it has warmed since 1979. There is a huge spread in opinion in the amount of warming expected for a doubling of CO2, 1-2K per doubling vs. 4-5K at the upper end. IIRC, the most recent IPCC report has published a range of 1.5 to 4.5. Using temperature and CO2 measurements gives a value in the 1.5 to 2.5 range, depending on which temperature measurements are used. If you divvy the climate scientists up by "big problem" vs. "small or no problem" then as a WAG, I'd guess the percentages are about 70-30.

 

2. Yes, but mostly unintentional. There is a selection effect in play; if someone isn't a believer that person is much less likely to go into the field. How many athiests apply for the priesthood? Also, non-believers have a much harder road to a PhD since most of their advisors and committee members are invested in global warming being a problem.

 

If you are asking about the research, there is also an unintentional effect in play here. If a scientist gets a result that doesn't agree with his pre-conceived opinion, he'll double and triple check the results. If the results agree he won't bother to re-check. A lot of the adjustments to the raw data are also affected by this. If the adjustment trends to cooling it is questioned, if it trends to warming it is accepted immediately.

 

3. The raw temperatures are adjusted in several ways. One method (called homogenization) is to compare results to nearby stations and filter out any abrupt changes that only appear in one station. This is reasonable, but will filter out necessary corrections of drift. For example, in the case of temperature stations, they are painted bright white to prevent sunlight heating of the box containing the thermometer. As they age, paint will weather away and/or they will get dirty. When one is repainted, it will appear as an abrupt change. If that change is filtered out, then the intermediate small warmings from aging will add together to create a continual warming.

 

NOAA adjust their temperatures by adding theoretical adjustments to the raw data.

Individual:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/res...ffs_pg.gif

Total:
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/res...raw_pg.gif

 

The biggest adjustment is for time of observation differences. This is not done on a site by site basis (which IMO, is the scientifically-correct way), but is just a theoretical value added to the final result. The one adjustment which cools the trend, the urban heating effect, is a suprisingly small adjustment. Note that the total sum of the corrections adds 0.4F to the warming. About half of the reported warming is due to corrections.


There are also annual adjustments to the temperature vs. time series. These always increase warming compared to the previous year's published series, usually by cooling the past. These are defended as being correct, but when every adjustment is in the same direction year after year it's certainly suspicious. Here is an example of adjustments from a previously published result by the same group.


http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.c...tments.jpg

 

Satellite measurements of sea level are also adjusted. If you're a glutton for punishment, here's a link:

http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/ml/ocean/J2_ha...no_rev.pdf

 

One quote:


 

<div>The range reported on the OSTM/Jason-2 (O)(I)GDR has already been corrected for a variety of 

calibration and instrument effects, including calibration errors, pointing angle errors, center of 

gravity motion, and terms related to the altimeter acceleration such as Doppler shift and oscillator 

drift. The sum total of these corrections also appears on the (O)(I)GDR for each of the Ku and C 

 

band ranges (see net_instr_corr_ku and net_instr_corr_c). 

 

How much these adjustments change the sea level rise is beyond my desire to dig that deeply. One of the world experts on sea level, Dr. Nils Morner, claims that the satellite measurements are adjusted so that the rise agrees with the pre-satellite value (specifically Hong Kong tidal measurements). Take all such claims skeptically, but he was an expert. You'll find that almost all of the publically expressed skepticism is from older scientists. They can afford to express skepticism because they have nothing to lose. For a young scientist to express skepticism risks being ostracized. Of course, that don't mean that the skeptics are right, but it's another factor to consider.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colum...-told.html

</div>

 

The trouble is, if as you say, 70% of climate scientists say this is a big problem, vs the 30% who say this is a small or no problem, then whom am I to believe?   A lot of people say the ratio of believers to skeptics is even higher than you say.   And if I google, "Are sea levels rising," I get all sorts of hits on what seems like very credible sources, well-known and respected scientific organizations, who universally say yes, sea levels are rising.  In the face of conflicting opinions like this, I tend to go with the majority, who seem very credible to me.  

 

Add to that the fact that global warming skepticism is concentrated among people with a political reason to deny it: people who are afraid that the solution might be something they don't want.  Studies show that when people are confronted by unpleasant solutions, they tend to deny that a problem exists at all.  

 

You also lay out the idea that some scientists are saying they are believers out of fear of ostracism or losing their job.  I don't find that very persuasive.  I have known some scientists in my lifetime, and they are just not that way.  They put on blinkers and pursue the truth.  Maybe I just have more faith in scientists than you do.  

 

Like I have said before, I don't think there's anything we can do about it.   The solutions are so unpleasant and expensive in the short term, we won't ever have the political will to undertake any solution.   So I hope you are right that this is not a big problem.   Fortunately for me, the predictions are for the worst effects to happen far enough in the future that it won't affect me.   I'll be dead.   My generation will not only have bankrupted the country, we will have destroyed the environment.   From the greatest generation to the worst generation in one single generation. 

---