![HistoryOfSettledScience-big1[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/historyofsettledscience-big11.jpg?quality=83)
From the “Cooking up another 97% consensus” department and Purdue University:
WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. – A Purdue University-led survey of nearly 700 scientists from non-climate disciplines shows that more than 90 percent believe that average global temperatures are higher than pre-1800s levels and that human activity has significantly contributed to the rise.
The study is the first to show that consensus on human-caused climate change extends beyond climate scientists to the broader scientific community, said Linda Prokopy, a professor of natural resource social science.
“Our survey indicates that an overwhelming majority of scientists across disciplines believe in anthropogenic climate change, are highly certain of these beliefs and find climate science to be credible,” Prokopy said. “Our results also suggest that scientists who are climate change skeptics are well in the minority.”
Previous studies have shown that about 97 percent of actively publishing climate scientists believe in human-caused climate change, and a review of scientific literature on the existence of climate change indicated that about 97 percent of studies affirm climate change is happening.
However, no direct surveys had assessed whether the general agreement on the impact of human activities on the Earth’s climate extended to scientists in other disciplines.
Prokopy and fellow researchers conducted a 2014 survey of scientists from more than 10 non-climate disciplines at Big Ten universities to determine the relative prevalence of belief in, and skepticism of, climate change in the scientific community.
Of 698 respondents, about 94 percent said they believe average global temperatures have “generally risen” compared with pre-1800 levels, and 92 percent said they believe “human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.”
CREDIT (Environmental Research Letters image/J. Stuart Carlton)
Nearly 79 percent said they “strongly agree” and about 15 percent “moderately agree” that climate science is credible. About 64 percent said climate science is a mature science compared with their own field, and about 63 percent rated climate science as “about equally trustworthy” compared to their discipline.
Disagreement about climate change is rarely a simple dispute about facts, Prokopy said. People’s interpretation of information can also be influenced by their cultural and political values, worldview, and personal identity. Prokopy’s research team found that division over climate change was linked to disagreement over science – such as the potential effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth’s climate – but also differing cultural and political values, which the survey gauged in a section of questions on respondents’ general worldviews.
While cultural values did not appear to influence scientists as much as previous studies have shown they influence the general public on a variety of issues, including climate change, the survey indicated that “when it comes to climate change, scientists are people, too,” said lead author Stuart Carlton, a former postdoctoral research assistant in Prokopy’s lab.
“While our study shows that a large majority of scientists believe in human-caused climate change, it also shows that their beliefs are influenced by the same types of things that influence the beliefs of regular people: cultural values, political ideologies and personal identity,” he said.
Prokopy said she was “quite surprised to find cultural values influencing scientists as much as they are. This shows how strong these values are and how hard they are to change.”
Respondents’ certainty in their beliefs on climate change appeared to be linked to the source of their climate information. Certainty was correlated to how much of respondents’ climate information came from scientific literature or mainstream media, Prokopy said. The more respondents relied on scientific studies for information on climate change, the greater their certainty that human activity is causing the Earth’s temperatures to rise.
“Climate literature is very compelling and convincing,” she said. “Scientists are not fabricating their data.”
Nearly 60 percent of those who believe in climate change said they were “extremely sure” and about 31 percent said they were “very sure” average global temperatures have risen. Respondents who said they believe global temperatures have fallen or remained constant were “significantly less certain” in their beliefs, Prokopy said.
Carlton said the tendency of some media to portray climate change as more controversial among scientists than it actually is could decrease people’s certainty in whether climate change is occurring and its potential causes.
“The media probably do this for good reasons: They want to give each side of a story to try to be balanced,” said Carlton, now the healthy coastal ecosystems and social science specialist at Texas Sea Grant. “However, our study shows that there is very little disagreement among climate scientists or other scientists about the existence of climate change or the quality of climate science as a discipline. There are important questions about what we should do about climate change, but those are policy controversies, not science controversies.”
The survey results did not reveal many strikingly different responses by discipline, Prokopy said, though among the fields of study represented, natural resource scientists showed the highest amount of skepticism that global temperatures have risen.
Respondents across disciplines nearly unanimously agreed that climate science is credible, but views on its maturity and trustworthiness compared with their own discipline varied. Physicists and chemists, for example, rated climate science as a highly credible discipline but gave it lower marks in trustworthiness and overall maturity compared with their own fields. Prokopy said this was “not surprising given that physics and chemistry are some of the oldest, most established scientific disciplines.”
While previous studies showed that many prominent climate science skeptics were physicists, Carlton said this survey did not show similar evidence.
“The proportion of physicists and chemists who believed in climate change was right around average.”
###
The paper was published Thursday (Sept. 24) in Environmental Research Letters and is available at http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/10/9/094025.
AW: Comment:
It seems curious to me that if man-made climate change is so certain, why do some people feel the need to prove that a majority of their peers believe in it and that anyone who doesn’t is simply wrong?
I would wonder what a similar survey of scientists might have shown around 1912 when Alfred Wegener proposed the theory of continental drift. Would 90 to 97% of them say that the Earth’s crust was static? Probably so. It took another 40-50 years and new discovery in science before Wegener’s ideas became accepted as the facts as we know them today, that the Earth’s crust does in fact move in plates. But back then, scientists were so certain of their consensus, that they dismissed Wegener’s ideas:
Except for a few converts, and those like Cloos who couldn’t accept the concept but was clearly fascinated by it, the international geological community’s reaction to Wegener’s theory was militantly hostile. American geologist Frank Taylor had published a similar theory in 1910, but most of his colleagues had simply ignored it. Wegener’s more cogent and comprehensive work, however, was impossible to ignore and ignited a firestorm of rage and rancor. Moreover, most of the blistering attacks were aimed at Wegener himself, an outsider who seemed to be attacking the very foundations of geology.
Because of this abuse,Wegener could not get a professorship at any German university. Fortunately, the University of Graz in Austria was more tolerant of controversy, and in 1924 it appointed him professor of meteorology and geophysics.
In 1926 Wegener was invited to an international symposium in New York called to discuss his theory. Though he found some supporters, many speakers were sarcastic to the point of insult. Wegener said little. He just sat smoking his pipe and listening. His attitude seems to have mirrored that of Galileo who, forced to recant Copernicus’ theory that the Earth moves around the sun, is said to have murmured, “Nevertheless, it moves!”
Source: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Wegener/wegener_5.php
Sound familiar? The point here is that a perceived consensus doesn’t necessarily indicate factual certainty for any idea, and consensus in science can be overturned easily with new information.
Note: this article was updated shortly after publication to include a a URL for the source of the Wegener story
I just wonder how they select the respondents for the survey. I simply can’t believe that there actually is this much consensus out there.
There’s not even a “consensus” in this Administration.
Please note the discipline that is missing from the survey, engineering. Even as far back as my college days, my engineering professors were outright dismissive of the global warming scare. A lot of the consensus appears to be due to professional courtesy, but most importantly is the deliberate obfuscation of the question. Please note the statements: “temperature has risen and man is responsible”. This is a very broad strokes question that most respondents here would agree to. Of course, many would argue that it is due primarily to deforestation and land use changes, or simply state that the dangers of the expected warming have been greatly exagerrated.
The most important part of the survey is the question.
Exactly, the world has warmed since the little ice age = no-brainer. humans have caused a significant part = depends on the definition…if the thermometers say 0.3C and adjustments add another 0.5C, then clearly the majority is man-made. Or if one takes the adjustments as being true and necessary, then look at the Surface Station project and see that most of the stations have been severely impacted by man made artifacts in the vicinity – so once again man-made global warming. The answer to both questions is clearly yes, so the poll is a meaningless exercise. There is no conclusion which can be drawn from those two questions!
My first thought was “why are they asking the opinions of people who are not experts in the field?” These people got their information from other sources. They did not work it out for themselves. Such a survey tells us nothing of use. The respondents are merely parroting what they see in the press, which is overwhelmingly left on the political spectrum. The agenda isn’t science, it is control, which is a political beast. A beast we should be very concerned about.
I’d use a two question survey:
1) have average global temperatures risen/remained/fallen since the peak of the last ice age?
2) is the change (if any) primarily caused by human emissions of GHGs?
I’m curious about how many contributors to and posters on WUWT are “experts in the field” of climate science. A yes/no break-down of the proportions would be sufficient.
Oh, and I mean real experts, not armchair ones…
Hard to say what an expert is. I have a couple of climate related degrees and a research background but dont get paid for “climate science”. I feel like I’m an expert in 5% of the field. But I’m not sure very many people are expert at much more than that.
Often I feel that I am more able to assess the situation because I’m at arms length. I don’t have a position to defend or grant to secure or think tank to feed. But I do have the technical background and experience to decide for myself
I do know that I’m an expert at quantitative forecasting and verification. I’m also quite sure that very few academic climate scientists have a clue how to properly forecast
So in summary, I think climate science is too big for anyone to become truly an expert. Also many so-called “experts” cannot see the forest because of the trees
I was a paid expert for almost 15 years in Simulation and Modeling , and currently 17 years in data analysis. +5 years surface station data analysis.
NO IT IS THEIR EMPLOYMENT.
Mary,
“Climate science” is not science. It is anti-scientific, politically and career-driven advocacy via GIGO computer gaming. Its method is the mirror image of the scientific method. In CS, if the data don’t match the models, you change the data rather than the models.
There used to be a science called “climatology” and, God willing, there will be again. In a few furtive corners of the academy, it’s still practiced in the dark, damp spaces, keeping hope alive, waiting for sanity to return and the witch hunts to end.
Experts do indeed exist in the areas of genuine earth and atmospheric sciences, but the computer gamers who have hijacked the science are expert at nothing but feathering their own careerist, financial and ideological nests.
micro6500 says:
I was a paid expert for almost 15 years in Simulation and Modeling , and currently 17 years in data analysis. +5 years surface station data analysis.
And you’re a northeast Ohio boy, just like me! You da man. ☺
Bernard J,
Define a “real expert.”
Thanx…
Nearly half of respondents do “some+” research involving climate change!!! Climate money is infecting all academia:(
Q25 Which of the following statements comes closest to describing your research?
1. The majority of my research concerns climate change or the impacts of climate change 5.50%
2. Some of my research concerns climate change or the impacts of climate change 42.45%
3. None of my research concerns climate change or the impacts of climate change 52.04%
Don G,
That says it all.
That means ≈half of the respondents have a vested interest in promoting climate alarmism. They are being paid to sound a false alarm. And surely they must know it, too; they’re not stupid. So from the get-go they’re not very honest. Pushing a poll in the direction that helps secure their income stream is a no-brainer for the ethics challenged.
And who is going to pay someone who correctly points out that nothing currently happening is either unusual or unprecedented, and that prior to the industrial revolution global T changed much more than it has over the past century? Anyone who tells the unvarnished truth will just have to forget about those easy money grants.
So the situation is this: taxpayers’ money is being given to those who sound the false alarm. The goal is passage of a carbon tax, therefore taxpayers are being forced to fund a hoax that will result in much more of their money growing an already out of control bureaucracy. It will be heaven for EPA bureaucrats; but hell for the rest of us.
Good for you, Don G. Too many people have commented on the study without reading the paper and have jumped to conclusions.
Read the paper – it is not a complex research design or analysis – and you will find that it is much worse than you thought: (plus what they ask and what they don’t ask as well as how is revealing of the indoctrination of academe and timely with UN sustainability circus about to go in NYC – expect the pope to jump out of the climate closet Friday)
background of taking 2 higher education courses in physics, chemistry, biology = same as taking 0 = captured you in that box – why not ask exactly how many courses faculty had taken in all the disciplines?? I’ll leave you to think on that bias.
major selection bias, as Owen realized below, for electing respondents that cannot be parceled from results
very high percentage of respondents think there needs to be more governmental control (and laws) ruling our lives, 80% self-declared liberals … there’s way more fodder in the paper
this is a very poorly conducted study with a prior agenda – where have I seen that before?
Beyond that, this survey is being sold as the “opinions” of non-climate scientists.
Yet half of those who responded work on climate science.
The very basis on which this survey is based has been invalidated.
(And that’s without going into the problems of self-selection bias and surveys in which 2/3rds of the people asked don’t respond.)
This study reminds me of the famous saying: “It’s not what Congress [or the professoriat] doesn’t know that bothers me–it’s what they know that just ain’t so!”
“Prokopy and fellow researchers conducted a 2014 survey of scientists from more than 10 non-climate disciplines at Big Ten universities…”
So these were all university scientists who depend on government funding. Why doesn’t someone commission a random survey of scientists that includes the private sector?
90 percent believe that average global temperatures are higher than pre-1800s levels
========================
the cause cannot be human burning fossil fuels, because this was minuscule until the 1950’s. What caused temps to rise during the first 150 years and why is this not the same thing that caused temps to rise during the past 65 years?
What caused temps to rise during the first 150 years and why is this not the same thing that caused temps to rise during the past 65 years?
Quite.
Two points:
“Pre-1800” is very vague.
“significant impact” is also very vague.
The “key” statement about the survey is, to wit:
So believe it, there is that much consensus among the employees at Big Ten universities simply because their reputation and job security is more important to them than disagreeing with extremely lucrative revenue sources of Grants, Gifts and Endowments.
“….researchers conducted a 2014 survey of scientists from more than 10 non-climate disciplines at Big Ten universities ….”
I believe this sums up the cherry tree from which they picked their findings.. You will note they did not go outside of academia which is plagued with ‘you will toe the line or you wont work here’ thinking and pressures.. How in the hell did they think they were going to answer?
I need a great big cherry tree to go here!
Consensus is a political measuring device, not a scientific one. So why are people so obsessed with applying it to science?
Good point, Jim. I tell people that I never learned that consensus was part of the Scientific Method in school.
Climatology is not a science.
IMO, climatology is or was a science, however young. However, “climate science”, ie politically motivated, GIGO computer gaming, is not a science.
I’ll bet they still believe saturated fat’s the cause of heart disease, too!
Climatology is going in the same direction as Lysenkoism. Before the big money appeared, it was a backwater area of science. But the UN, and Michael Mann and his gang changed all that. Now it’s 97% politics.
…why are people so obsessed with applying it to science?
Because it’s all they’ve got.
and it helps to ensure that the money continues to flow…
Dbstealey, your comment sums it up nicely. +10
Short answer: Paris conference coming up.
They apply consensus to science because they want to use it for political purposes. To convince world leaders to agree on the need for higher taxes, skyrocketing energy prices, and redistribution of wealth, they need a consensus (or at least the allusion of one.)
Jim,
I think you kinda answered your own question . . and simply inserting the (perfectly appropriate/true) term ‘some’ in the question …
“Consensus is a political measuring device, not a scientific one. So why are {some} people so obsessed with applying it to science?” …
… makes the answer obvious, I feel; Political reasons.
The whole notion that we have been watching a science driven “movement” is to me somewhat silly at this point, as one who has looked into the so called science which supposedly fueled the movement. No, I say, it was and is a political “strong arm” maneuver, not a science driven anything (other than the science of human manipulation, which is quite real and well developed at this point, I am quite certain).
The “maneuver” began before “global warming” was even selected as that “vehicle” through which it would be conducted, it seems clear to me (and the bottom center cartoon at the top of this very page is evoking some of the evidence I have seen that this is true).
The intent was to facilitate a march toward “global government” under the control of some hyper-wealthy “elites” most notably, who for rather obvious reasons, I feel, wanted to essentially parley their wealth into dominating/permanent political power. Please consider these words (which came to light from the manuscript collection of a former diplomat and Bilderberg regular George C. McGhee after he died recently), written in 1970 by the founder (in 1968) of the Club of Rome “think tank”, an Italian industrialist named Aurelio Peccei;
““The work program exposition of the Club of Rome project relies heavily on the global (or G) matrix approach.”
““It should be pointed out (…) that such a consensus is meant to provide “the initial conditions” for the operational evolution of the Club of Rome Project”.
This “think tank” was, at least ostensibly, concerned about overpopulation to a great extent, but what is described in these writings is a process that matches what happened/happens in the IPCC process for arriving at it’s “executive summaries”. .
“It should only be viewed as an exemplary value-base whose universality, validity, and credibility depends on the judgments of the DELPHI technique participants. Nevertheless, it will represent an attempt for a substantive and professionally coordinated delineation of the “Predicament of Mankind”. The more groups engage in similar intellectual efforts, the more meaningful the dialogue on the worldwide problematique will become.”
Basically all sorts of experts in various fields are invited to participate, in working groups as the IPCC calls them, to give the impression that the conclusions (which are predetermined) have been arrived at spontaneously by all those people. In reality, it’s just a few people in key positions who turn some degree of consensus on vague statements like “humans probably have some effect on climate”, “CO2 effects temperatures”, and so on, into a manufactured consensus that “Human CO2 emissions are changing the world’s climate”, in summaries written by hand picked “executives”,
One working group, concerned with “attribution”, consisted predominately of computer modelers . . and the rest is history, so to speak.
It’s about consensus, because it’s about political power, as you implied it seems to me . . it was never about real climate science, just the illusion that it was.
Peter Abelard (1079-1142)
“Authority is inferior to reason because it deals with opinions about
the truth rather then with truth itself, while reason concerns the
thing itself and can settle the question”
Adelard of Bath (1080-1152)
“authority alone cannot create belief in the thought of a philosopher
nor even lead one towards such belief, and this is why logicians agree
that citing authority does not even necessarily add probability to a
given argument”
Wow. As an engineer, I certainly fit the profile. I accept that the earth may be warming, maybe, but skeptical that it has anything to do with human activity.
What is wrong with me?
I suppose if I was an astronomer then I would be better equipped to deal with terrestrial matters?
It looks to me to be another loaded survey in that Ocean/Marine Sciences, Geological and Earth Sciences, and Astronomy academics are no doubt principally funded by NOAA or NASA, which I’m sure require their sheepish wether to swear a loath of loyalty and wouldn’t knowingly hire/fund an open minded, objective, pure-science type individual.
Nothing. The polls are loaded. While I agree “climate changes” and that humans have some (very small) impact on climate change, I can’t buy into the political, catastrophic global warming forecasted by the political crowd. And as an engineer, I know the importance of definitions; I am a skeptic, not a denier and I’m tired of this attempt to demonize.
If one of the questions on the survey was ” Are you a socialist or a Capitalist ” , 97% would have said ” Socialist ” !!! Picking and choosing who you ask kind of negates the reality of the survey !!!
No one admits being a spcialist… Except Bernie
and B.O. who stated when Bernie decided to run, “they want another socialist in the white house?”
From the look of things we engineers seem to be a pretty sceptical bunch, which is good to see!
I did a science degree, then engineering, then applied science in graduate school. Engineering really requires an intellectual reservation to accommodate the unknown. I am so aware of my high level of ignorance on things for which I am responsible. Maybe it is the reality of responsibility combined with ignorance on really important matters which has made me skeptical of myself first, and most other things. Stuff I create MUST work with high reliability. Theoretical astronomers and climate wonks never have to assume any responsibility for their work. I get sued when I screw up.
I am an engineer and I am constantly amazed at the utter idnorance of an engineer’s formal scientific education by those who put ‘climate scientists’ on an intellectual pedestal.
My way of explaining the difference between engineering and science is that engineers are ‘peer reviewed’ by Mother Nature and if she does not like your work she just smashes it and kills everyone in the vicinity.
That tends to tighten the intellectual sphincter somewhat.
It is little surprise that the responses of those from ‘engineering’ regarding the causes of AGW are the least convinced although I suggest there has been some pre-filtering of those questioned.
One more statement about their method of surveying – many did not respond; I know I wouldn’t because an engineer in my position would put their careers at risk if identified as a skeptic. It’s the same reason I don’t use my real name on this site. When I retire, I’ll proudly use my own name.
Heck, you can get sued even when you don’t screw up!
D.J. Hawkins…
And I have been the proud recipient of one of those as well. 🙂 So nice.
M. Seward… I do have my creative outlets where I release boundaries, sphincterily speaking.
Djozar, My field of interest and expertise makes me immune to politics. Even possible my public skepticism has helped me. The tyranny over free thought and expression in this day an age makes one depressed.
M. Seward: Very true about the “utter idnorance” as these particular “scientists” try to slip in something freudulant …
+1 more Engineer – water and pollution – and I have trouble believing CO2 is a pollutant. After all, plants use it to make the oxygen we breath. Seems rather necessary.
In wastewater treatment the goal is to take large molecules and break them down into small molecules.
One of those small molecules that may be produced is CO2.
So now treating pollution is causing pollution?
Plants put oxygen into the air from the water they take in, not from CO2. The latter is however needed for them to make the sugars we and other animals eat.
@ur momisugly Lady Gaiagaia: this depiction of the Calvin cycle disagrees with you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis#/media/File:Simple_photosynthesis_overview.svg
H2O, CO2 and light energy are inputs; O2 and sugars are outputs.
“Photosynthesis occurs in two stages. In the first stage, light-dependent reactions or light reactions capture the energy of light and use it to make the energy-storage molecules ATP and NADPH. During the second stage, the light-independent reactions use these products to capture and reduce carbon dioxide.
n CO2 + 2n H2O + photons → (CH2O)n + n O2 + n H2O
carbon dioxide + water + light energy → carbohydrate + oxygen + water
This equation emphasizes that water is both a reactant (in the light-dependent reaction) and a product (in the light-independent reaction), but canceling n water molecules from each side gives the net equation:
n CO2 + n H2O + photons → (CH2O)n + n O2
carbon dioxide + water + light energy → carbohydrate + oxygen
……from Wikipedia article on photosynthesis.
The fields which are closest to farming have less belief in humans contributing to climate change.
I thought the ” Greenies ” wanted to ” GREEN ” the planet ?? Do they not realize that CO2 is plant food ??
As a farmer who spent last winter up to my ass in SNOW, I heartily concur!
This is not science nor statistics, it is politics. This is purely an attempt to marginalize.
Yes, it’s just to support the narrative. Now they’re saying the ‘pause’ didn’t really happen.
It’s OK to lie if it helps their noble cause.
Very odd that in the body of the study they talk about 1) A larger sample size, 2) 2000 faculty members contacted by email, but there’s nothing about cooperation rate or the ‘n’ usable responses for any of the items. Seems like the classic dodge in obtaining and reporting on a biased sample. If a commercial survey firm did this they would be out of business in about 10 minutes
Another example is Georg Ohm’s law which also was disparaged because he wasn’t part of the elite.
“The media probably do this for good reasons: They want to give each side of a story to try to be balanced.”
That has to be the biggest load of hogwash from a person completely out of touch with the media…..
I laughed my @ss off when I read that !!!
The authors’ are forced to claim that the media presents a balance view. If they hadn’t, the survey could be interpreted as evidence that most people’s (and scientists’) opinions on climate change are a regurgitation of alarmist views presented in the media.
“People’s interpretation of information can also be influenced by their cultural and political values, worldview, and personal identity.”
and
““when it comes to climate change, scientists are people, too,”.
We are all fallible and our opinions are often shaped by the society around us.
Has there ever been a scientific poll done similar to a presidential poll? A random sample of scientists are chosen to respond to a set of questions. When a survey is sent out to everyone and anyone can reply if they desire the results are not meaningful, unless a very high percentage of those chosen reply. I have never seen the results if there has been one.
After more reading I see that 1868 scientists were selected but only 698 replied. The results are not meaningful.
Why ruin a good STORY with inconvenient FACTS?
“but only 698 replied.”
Or were dumped due to cherry picking.
Haven’t looked at the survey instrument, but it might well employ push polling or other deceptive tactics. For example, I might ask:
“Do you believe temperatures now are higher than during the Little Ice Age?”
and of course I’d get a very large proportion of “yes” answers. Then I might follow up with:
“Do you believe human activity contributed to any of the temperature difference?”
and I’d expect another high proportion of “yes” answers.
From there it’s a matter of technique, an careful crafting of the language in the press release.
If you’ve been here long, you already know my position of global warming.
I would have answered yes to both of your questions.
Well put Patrick. You could replace the question with “do you believe cows affect climate” and of course cows farting does release methane and the rise in the number of cows matches the increase in the number of humans, also the amount globally would correlate with CO2 levels at least in recent decades and with modelled temperatures so cow farts run the climate, 90% of scientists agree!
IIR, those are the two questions in the Doran/Zimmerman study; with the same two faults.
What thinking person (scientist or non scientist) would NOT agree that “average global temperatures are higher than pre-1800s levels” , e.g. the Little Ice Age?!? (Just who are the 10% that DON’T believe this?)
And they are surveying scientists. What does a scientist mean when he/she says “human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.” Two key words here, “significant” and “contributing factor”. To me the first says any human impact is at least measurable above a level that could occur by chance (deforestation, UHI – check), and the second says man’s impact is included among other possible causes (oh, let’s say, natural variation).
And the worst is that neither of those two questions address whether that increase, regardless of cause is catastrophic – which of course all politicians and pundits will gleefully and without foundation add when referencing this study (Obama, Pope Francis et al)
George, I agree with you completely! The problem is that the politically-minded then equate the fact that we humans have caused at least a little warming, to “global warming is catastrophic and we must blindly follow the liberal ideologues’ plans for mitigating it.”
Long live the Pedants!
They used sloppy questions, then used the answers to mean what they wanted.
I wonder why they didn’t ask if CO2 was the cause of climate change?
Because they wouldn’t like the answers they’d get to THAT one!
All it shows is that the purge of academia by the climate alarmists has almost completely succeeded. The only people who can actually question the-word-according-to-Al-Gore (all hail the Great Prophet!!) are those who have retired from academia or those who are funding their own research.
Why don’t the ever ask meaningful questions with accompanying data?
Most of the questions are asked in such a way even skeptical individuals would give an answer making it look like everyone is drinking the kool aid.
agreed!
The authors of the posts appear to commit two logical fallacies: Appeal to Authority (*scientists* concur) and Appeal to the Crowd (the *vast majority* concurs). Neither claim makes the premise necessarily true. http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/rgass/fallacy3211.htm
ah but that can be a good indicator as to how well the propaganda war is progressing.
Another worthless survey using meaningless terms like “significant”. In addition, about half of the respondents stated their research was related to climate. These are people who should have been eliminated immediately.
There is a great disconnect in patterns of weather (“cycles”, if you like; I don’t) and climate change. How many folks in the survey can intelligently discuss the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation? Do they know about the PDO, what it is, and what it isn’t?
In any case, the question isn’t about change in weather and climate, local, regional, or global. The question is whether or not there is a human caused catastrophe currently in progress (or real soon now)? If there is, what should be the response? How many think wind turbines and solar panels and electric autos will be the solution – if there is a problem? Those folks in the disciplines listed ought to be able (using pencil & paper, slide rule, Bowmar Brain) to show the path of folly now in progress.
Why is it they NEVER perform a survey asking these two questions, which by far are the most important with respect to public policy and access to abundant and affordable energy.
1) It is widely accepted that warming has occurred since the LIA, a time during which crop losses due to cold weather were immense. Therefore, with respect to this warming, would you agree that it has been more beneficial than detrimental so far?
2) It is also widely accepted that CO2 can conribute to the net warming of the atmosphere. Would you agree that warming due to man’s emissions of CO2 are nearly certain to be catastrophic leading to massive crop failures and worldwide famine, and a meter or more of sea level rise before the year 2100?
If the answer is predominantly YES to Q1 one and NO to Q2, then cancel the Progressive war on CO2 and cheap energy.
Alcheson, they never ask intelligent questions because the whole point of their survey is to be able to show a slant in favour of their own preconceived ideas. All the questions in the survey are loaded so that in summing up the answers the fudge factor is so large that you can get agreement from both sides. Like in this survey I find myself in a position where I must agree with it all. So the outcome of the survey is meaningless.
Which may explain why 2/3rds of the respondents didn’t even bother to reply.
And why half of those who did respond worked in fields related to climate change, despite the fact that the authors claimed they were surveying those outside the climate change field.
Purdue – they do chicken, right?
After last year, I’m not sure.
Brilliant! We have just been given a list of scientific fields that the experts at Purdue define as “non-climate disciplines”!
Ocean/Marine sciences
Geological and Earth sciences
Engineering
Atmospheric science, Meteorology
Astronomy
Biological Science
Physics
Agricultural Science
Chemistry
Natural Resources
I can’t wait to point out to certain scientists weighing in on climate that they are only part of the “broader scientific community”, and do not qualify as “climate scientists”!
Aphan,
Exactly the point. Most of the listed disciplines are key elements in the study of climate. How did the Purdue authors define climate scientists? Climate modelers only? LOL.
As near as I can tell, a climate scientist is someone that other climate scientists acknowledge as being part of the clan.
Well, let’s see if we can guess based on who they left out:
Cartoonists turned Climate Communicators (John Cook…and GO JOSH!)
Social Scientists (Like the authors)
Experimental psychologists (Lewandowsky)
Science Activists
Historians of Science (Neeeiiigh omi Oreskes)
Climate modelers
But no M.E. Mann (some math, but mostly Physics), James Hansen (atmospheric sciences), Gavin Schmidt might be a “climate scientist” as both his degrees are in Mathematics…No Dana Nuttycelli (physics) no Greg Laden (anthropology although he claims to be a climate communicator) who else am I missing?
698 respondents??
How about 31,487 who don’t believe CO2 is a problem including 9,029 PHDs.
Wonder how these guys managed not to find these people again??
http://www.petitionproject.org/
My guess would be that anyone listed on your petition would have been stricken from these guys list, automatically.
Attribution, she’s a bitch;
Don’t know why just scratch that itch.
Puff the Magic Climate,
Lived by the CO2;
Nature turned and bit him, someplace rich.
==================
beautiful
This is of course a classic case of asking a loaded question. We know that the temperature around 18th century was well below previous norms as it was at the peak of the little ice age and of course the presence of 6 billion humans has had some effect on the final temperature.
However this does NOT mean
1) That this is in fact harmful – frankly the weather here is nicer than in 1750.
2) That current temperatures are unusually high, in this part of England there used to be vineyards.
3) That we should spend billions of pounds and trash our economy.
Personally I am more concerned about the possibility of a cooling phase given how much of our capacity to keep warm using fossil fuels we have destroyed in the name of combatting climate change.