The results are in, and even though Joe Romm suggested:
“Please click here and freep this poll until the magazine has the decency to take it down.”
He apparently had little effect. I do agree with Joe though, the poll was poorly designed. For example look at this result:
Only one problem, the math for percentages doesn’t add up:
That’s because the poll allowed for more than one answer to some questions. When you do that, percentages then don’t reference properly to 100%.
As I and many others said, it was poorly designed and poorly presented. From my vantage point it looked like very little thought went into it.
That said, the results, while interesting, should be taken with a grain of salt.
It IS worse than we thought!
Obviously, the ‘hurt’ goes overseas:
http://www.theclimatescam.se/2010/10/15/svansen-viftar-hunden/comment-page-4/#comment-170036
Thanks/TJ
Gonna be tough to hide the decline of the percentages who believe in AGW….err…climate chan…….ahhhhhh whaterever!!!
Even if you could vote for more than 1 answer, the number for “skipped question” should have just kept increasing. The bigger number of skipped questions I saw was 40 (early in the poll), then it was always kept small, in the single digit.
Climate scam = polling scam
I voted. Yup, the poll was poorly designed.
Isn’t solar variation a natural process?
-Jay
Wrong but probably not deliberately misleading at the math level.
Its the interpretation of statistics that leads the the greater depatures from the truth
‘Scientific’ what?
Uh-huh …
.
Ahem….. it is widely known that 67.49% of all statistics are made ‘up on the spot’. Reference Mann/Jones et.al. statistical methods for examples.
If these responses are from SA readers, the readers are far more objective and informed than the editors and publishers. Very encouraging.
“Please click here and freep this poll until the magazine has the decency to take it down.”
“Freep” is a term used by the conservative forum http://www.freerepublic.com to swarm a poll. Somehow, I find it hard to believe that Joe Romm is a FReeper.
The more interesting thing is the results from those that only allow one answer!!!
I found the results amusing.
(I especially find it amusing that journalism ratings seem to indicate that AGW is so last year.)
Scientific American…….”those were the days my friend…..” that won’t return.
The real story is that someone at Scientific American doesn’t think that solar variation is a natural process.
Given that they are clearly thought leaders on every front and are in on the truth, let me be the first to welcome our new Sun manipulating alien overlords.
I would have thought that scientific theories, observation and (dare I say it) commonsense, would mean that the first three options would all have to be checked (ticked).
The only question is – how much of climate change to allocate to each factor? Observation of the effects of El Ninos/La Ninas (alone) would indicate that the relative allocations themselves would vary from time to time.
You can count on the AGW proponents to forget simple math… that’s why the climate hasn’t followed their computer predictions… LOL
I actually liked it.
And if they continue to do things like that, and publish real (sceptic) science, I would consider reading them as well.
But this is peer-reviewed climate science, Anthony! It uses different laws of mathematics to the rest of science.
Worse than we thought?
It’s not a true scientific study and I’m sure there’s bias one way or another in who answers the questions. (The sampling in NOT unbiased.)
However, it’s interesting to see that the majority don’t buy into the greenhouse gas theory.
Re percentages. They won’t add up, not I think because they’ve got it wrong, but that a good proportion of those who answered yes to natural processes would also answer yes to solar variation as a subset of natural processes.
In the question above, solar variation is a natural process.
I checked both.
The option I would want is “No reliable information available to draw a conclusion.” Given that the majority of the climate science community has defended the publishing of graphs that hide the errors of proxies by replacing proxy temps with thermometer temps, no evidence brought forth by that community can be trusted.
I wonder if anyone is going to do a confirmation of the study by Edward Long, where he compared a rural and urban station in each of the fifty states and found a divergence after about 1960. It doesn’t seem like it would take to long to go over a hundred stations and verify that he didn’t cherry pick. His study seems like an extremely strong indication of error from the urban heat island or similar effect. There seems to be very little discussion of his study on the net. It doesn’t seem to have been debunked either. The study is:
CONTIGUOUS U. S. TEMPERATURE
TRENDS USING NCDC RAW AND
ADJUSTED DATA FOR ONE-PER-STATE
RURAL AND URBAN STATION SETS
by Edward R. Long, Ph.D.
And Anthony, the release of your surfacestations study is taking so long that it is starting to look like you are hiding something. At least give us an update.
REPLY: The paper is written, submitted, and in peer review. We’ll give a full release of data when published. It is out of may hands now, waiting on the journal – Anthony
Whoops, just seen I’m repeated Anthony’s comment – sorry.
I assumed that you weren’t limited to one answer to each question