From the Hockey Schtick:
The 97% “Consensus” is only 76 Self-Selected Climatologists
The graphic [directly above] comes via our friends at skepticalscience, assuring us that while 97% of “climate scientists think that global warming is ‘significantly’ due to human activity,” a shocking 72% of news coverage does not reflect this “consensus” and similarly 74% of the public are not convinced.
However, close examination of the source of the claimed 97% consensus reveals that it comes from a non-peer reviewed article describing an online poll in which a total of only 79 climate scientists chose to participate. Of the 79 self-selected climate scientists, 76 agreed with the notion of AGW. Thus, we find climate scientists once again using dubious statistical techniques to deceive the public that there is a 97% scientific consensus on man-made global warming; fortunately they clearly aren’t buying it.
========================================
From the EOS article
Results show that overall, 90% of participants answered “risen” to question 1 and 82% answered yes to question 2. In general, as the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement with the two primary questions (Figure 1). In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and whoalso have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewedpapers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2. This is in contrast to results of a recent Gallup poll (see http://www.gallup.com/poll/1615/Environment.aspx) that suggests that only 58% of the general public would answer yes to our question 2.
The two areas of expertise in the survey with the smallest percentage of participants
answering yes to question 2 were economic geology with 47% (48 of 103) and meteorology with 64% (23 of 36).
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Ohh!! And Loved the Cats too……….. Now if you take a ball of wool, you can entangle them 😉
polistra says: “Where in the WORLD do they get ‘72% of news coverage doesn’t reflect the consensus’?”
There were several hundred thousand articles about Lindsey Lohan that didn’t mention the global warming consensus. I’m not sure why. Maybe those must constitute the 72%. It’s a travesty.
I would have answered both questions “yes,” but I don’t think they are the most important questions. The questions I would ask as a follow up would be:
* How wide do you think the range of future temperature increases might be, for a doubling of CO2?
* The satellite record suggests that warming is proceeding at a rate of less than 2 degrees per century, but the land based record suggests more. Which do you think is the record with the least amount of error, and why?
It seems clear to me that if you double CO2 and equivalents (including black carbon) and if you keep reducing sulfates (which cool the planet), you will increase warming. But that isn’t the issue — the issue is, is it bad enough to take steps harmful to our economy?
So the question is this: Will the temp increases we will see until alternatives are cheap enough to deploy without major harm to the economy (my estimate: 25 years or so) be so harmful that we have to take steps in the very near future that will throw more people out of work? Or as Roger Pielke Jr. so eloquently suggests, should we put our $ and incentives into R&D to hasten the day of non-carbon technologies that are affordable?
I don’t think the current rate of warming for the duration of the satellite record justifies major harm, and the current trend to start shutting down cheap coal plants. That view stems from the satellite temp record.
I’ve noted an interesting aspect of the climatologist community. Like bears, they hibernate in the winter and come out squealing about global warming in the sweltering days of August. I heard little of this during “Snowmegadon” this winter. Probably southern hemisphere climatologists were carrying the alarmist load at that time, but they are probably quiet right now, with widespread deaths from what is being reported as an unusually cold winter.
Whatever you do….
JUST DON’T LOOK INSIDE THE BOX!!!!
” and similarly 74% of the public are not convinced”
Ney York is frozen and under water,
we’ve reached a tipping point,
the Arctic is ice free,
billions of species have gone extinct,
it has stopped snowing
we are all flying around in jet cars,
we all have personal robots,
war is a thing of the past,
we are all eating synthetic food,
don’t eat eggs,
do eat eggs………….
from a non-peer reviewed article
Ooooooh, that’s a no-no!
I am not a scientist and barely made it through my elementary science courses for my BA (History and Political Science). But I do not believe in AGW, primarily because I do not trust or believe those (Al Gore, et al) who promulgate the theory. Occam’s Razor applies.
“…an online poll in which a total of only 79 climate scientists chose to participate”
And here are the names of the respondents:
1. Al Gore
2. Albert Gore Jr.
3. Alberto Gorre
4. A. Gore
5. Algo Re
.
.
.
Agreed on the public’s concensus: They only want to tax us to smithereens while pretending to be doing something.
C002: license to tax & pollute.
Great picture of cats. It appears their reaction is intensly ambivalent.
Wouldn’t “signficant” mean “within the digits of measurable significance” to a scientist. Sans feedbacks, many skeptics agree that a doubling of CO2 (and the amount increased from 1800 until now) would be within the significant digits. (c.f. Monckton, Lindzen) of the measureable increase.
1. Risen. It has warmed since 1800
2. Yes, a portion of the warming greater than the measurement error can reasonably be attributed to human influence.
Yes to 2. doesn’t not imply important or catastrophic, just greater than error. Signficance is interesting word choice, as outside of a narrow scientific reading it is read as “importance.”
I would suggest a little light reading for these folks from a real scientist.
http://www.amazon.com/What-Care-Other-People-Think/dp/0393320928/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1280795135&sr=1-1#
What Do You Care What Other People Think?: Further Adventures of a Curious Character by Richard P. Feynman
“I notice that Anderegg black list is getting promoted by these characters of dubious lineage. You’d think they’d have the common decency to skip over that PNAS skidmark. Oh wait, it’s SkepticalScience. Scratch that.. it’s perfectly in-keeping with their scratty mentality. They have absolutely no shame.”
Statistics, damn statistics.. and oh yea.
There is no shame anymore on either side of the debate anymore. We will all do our best to make the other side look like chimps. I prefer chimps in lab coats that make accurate predictions better then NOAA.
But you know what? I like cats. Cats eat mice, which are bad and spread disease. What are we talking about again?
“The two areas of expertise in the survey with the smallest percentage of participants
answering yes to question 2 were economic geology with 47% (48 of 103) and meteorology with 64% (23 of 36).”
Yay for economic geologists!
I’m reminded of the election participation figures in the old Soviet Union. And it means about as much.
Heck, if the definition of the consensus is about:
1) temperature is increasing, &
2) anthropogenic CO2 is a significant contributor,
then I qualify as a believer.
What about:
3) it’s a problem that needs fixing?
The problem with this survey isn’t the sample size; it’s the questions. The whole thing smells like bait and switch. They aren’t using this survey result to justify 1 & 2; they’re using it to justify ACTION on 3.
ShrNfr says:
August 2, 2010 at 3:55 pm
Indeed the quantum phenomena must be examined in this process.
Data smashers are used to render measurements into subinformative particles called morons. Near absolute zero, these coalesce into a Schmooze Condensate; they act as one.
They are the fundamental elements of ignorance. (google ‘fundament’)
The consensus among 97% of bears is that the eagle was an AGW red herring: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgxoibbPtac
Remember.. Nine of ten cats ‘probably’ prefer Shrodinger..
the manipulation never ceases:
a top australian newspaper – sydney morning herald – had the following by its Environment Editor, Ben Cubby:
29 July: SMH: Ben Cubby: Most want action now on emissions
The two-year emissions trading scheme study found the majority of the 7000 randomly selected people wanted to see carbon trading operating before 2012, even though it would be likely to lift some of the costs of living…
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/most-want-action-now-on-emissions-20100729-10wdr.html
29 July: Australian Climate Madness: Poll: Most Australians want tough action on climate – really?
Sounds pretty compelling, doesn’t it? A little research and an email to Prof Louviere elicits more information about the study (see here for PDF). It was different from most surveys in that it required participants to choose between alternative emissions reductions scenarios, rather than answering Yes/No questions….
But what is the obvious flaw with all this? Clearly, it is the assumption that the requirement for an ETS is not up for question, and that implementing one will somehow be beneficial for the environment. The choice is only between different types of ETS, and, naturally, respondents are going to choose the one which they are informed will hurt them least….
http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/?p=4388
there were some clues way down in Cubby’s article that something was up with this poll, so a big thanks to the folks who got to the bottom of it, even though most of the readers of SMH remain ignorant.
Ditto, the cats, though I wonder if observing them will kill them worse than the fact that they’re sitting in the middle of a road.
I know I have posted this link before but this scene from Yes Minister perfectly encapsulates the disingenuous nature of surveys:
As an economist (mineral economist) by training, my natural inclination would be to ask the client “what would you like the answer to be?”*
* Yes, I jest, but you get the drift…
PS> Not so much a cat lover as dog lover, but I must agree the LOLCatz are appropriate and somewhat droll.
I also heard recently that at least 97% of priests believe in God. Interesting..
Lew Skannen says:
August 2, 2010 at 4:16 pm
Now that science is being done in this way maybe we can finally get a result on the Riemann Hypothesis.
Can we have a quick vote and resolve this century old problem?
Personally I think that all the zeros ARE on the x=-1/2 line. …
____
I concur, it is my “belief” that all the zeros ARE on the x=-1/2 line. You want proof ??? You mean actual proof? Now that’s a bit trickier.