I think we need more specific consequences. When the IPCC tried to come up with a list of specific consequences, the Doran survey indicates most scientists found at least one to disagree with. Agreeing that too much CO2 is bad is one step, but considering the costs of reducing CO2 (possibly major economic damage) defining the magnitude of CO2's harm is very important. If we're doing it to avert widespread droughts/starvation/wars, cap and trade may be more palatable than if it turns out it's just to protect the habitat of a few species of tropical fish (hyperbole intended).
But sqrt(2) is right to say that most scientists agree that anthropogenic CO2 is causing a dangerous temperature increase. The percentage of scientists who agree with this statement increases with increasing relevance of the scientist's field.
The Doran study's survey question is phrased: 2. Do you think human activity is a significant
contributing factor in changing
mean global temperatures?
So I believe you injected the "dangerous" evaluation. jamstec.go.jp link says that overwhelmingly the most common response of those surveyed was to agree that AGW is real, but only "at least some of the forecast consequences of this change are based on robust evidence." So I don't think scientists are necessarily in agreement that we're headed for a cataclysmic disaster.
Slashdot Mirror
I think we need more specific consequences. When the IPCC tried to come up with a list of specific consequences, the Doran survey indicates most scientists found at least one to disagree with. Agreeing that too much CO2 is bad is one step, but considering the costs of reducing CO2 (possibly major economic damage) defining the magnitude of CO2's harm is very important. If we're doing it to avert widespread droughts/starvation/wars, cap and trade may be more palatable than if it turns out it's just to protect the habitat of a few species of tropical fish (hyperbole intended).
But sqrt(2) is right to say that most scientists agree that anthropogenic CO2 is causing a dangerous temperature increase. The percentage of scientists who agree with this statement increases with increasing relevance of the scientist's field.
The Doran study's survey question is phrased: 2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures? So I believe you injected the "dangerous" evaluation. jamstec.go.jp link says that overwhelmingly the most common response of those surveyed was to agree that AGW is real, but only "at least some of the forecast consequences of this change are based on robust evidence." So I don't think scientists are necessarily in agreement that we're headed for a cataclysmic disaster.