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.
PaulH says:
August 2, 2010 at 3:46 pm
Yes, but it’s the *quality* of those who said yes, not the quantity. ;->
Paul, you are correct, the same old manipulators up to the same statistical shenanigans. Having secretly manipulated the data, hidden declines, blocked non partisans of the CAGW love-in, they are now stuffing the ballot box in a survey. Paul, I know you are not a scientist (sociologist or political scientist are you?). If you were a scientist you would understand that consensus in science is anathema to progress. Einstein was once the only believer in his theories when the consensus was all Newtonian physics – there was widespread disparagement of Einstein in the early days. As the testing of his theories progressed through experimentation by skeptics, they came more and more to accept his theories. A poll, were it conducted a few years after his theories’ publication would have had, perhaps, 97% against it. Now, even though much of his theoretical stuff is still current, there is debate about his gravity theory and quantum physics – even Einstein himself had reservations about it, being aware of its incompeteness and shortcomings. Scientists are still picking away – its what they do and certainly Einstein’s work is considerably more advanced than flegeling climate science (climatologist was underlined in red on MS Word as recently as 2007 and it wasn’t in Oxford Dictionary on line at the time). The state of climate science is at the phlogiston stage of physics. The terrible thing for these ‘quality scientists’ is that there is a good probability that the public may turn out to be right and we will know it in the coming 20 years of cold weather.
To Frederick Michael at 5:45 pm:
Your point #3 is exactly what I meant, only you said so in fewer words….
Fascinating that for the ‘Media Coverage’ section of the graphic, the graphic’s creator at skepticalscience cites Boykoff. I believe that’s one of the two Boykoffs here http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1978 at the ironically named Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting web site. At that web page, notice how they say, “Balanced coverage does not, however, always mean accurate coverage. In terms of the global warming story, “balance” may allow skeptics—many of them funded by carbon-based industry interests—to be frequently consulted and quoted in news reports on climate change. Ross Gelbspan, drawing from his 31-year career as a reporter and editor, charges in his books The Heat Is On and Boiling Point that a failed application of the ethical standard of balanced reporting on issues of fact has contributed to inadequate U.S. press coverage of global warming…..”
That would be the same central figure, Ross Gelbspan, in my 7/6 article, Smearing Global Warming Skeptics http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/07/smearing_global_warming_skepti.html
Seems like supporters of AGW can never separate themselves from Gelbspan…..
And people wonder why MSM is dying fast. The internet can not be controlled and the real (un-managed) climate (as opposed to realclimate) data is available to anyone who wants to look.
EOS – Environmentalists on Steroids
I have a delayed choice eraser. Are the cats gone yet?
“90% of participants”
There’s even more damning commentary to be made about the “survey”. Who were those “participants”? They were only 3,146 of the 10,257 “Earth scientists” who were invited to participate. So 7,111 (69%) of Earth scientists regarded the survey and probably the subject matter as a right load of old cobblers. After all, no effort was spared to make their response as easy as lifting a finger. To quote from the paper
“To maximise the response rate, the survey was designed to take less than two minutes to complete, and it was administered by a professional online survey site that allowed one-time participation by those who received the invitation.”
galileonardo,
I like your post very much. But you should take them to task more. One of the questions should have been: “What is your confidence in Michael Mann’s hockey stick thesis expressed on a scale of 1 to 10?”
Pielke Sr. would have answered Yes, because he believes that land-use changes have had the most impact on the climate. (E.g., deforestation, agriculture, irrigation, river-damming, etc.) Question 2 should have asked only about CO2.
Of course man has contributed to this warming. Didn’t we move the stations to warmer places like airports and urban centers? Didn’t man “adjust” the data? The apes didn’t do it. Duh!
or was it Mann?
What amazes me…. Is that they got three cats to stay in their boxes long enough to take the picture….. Quite a feat if you ask me. 🙂
So…If you ask 100 astrologers if they believe in astrology I wonder if at least 97% would answer “Yes”?
People sometimes ask why I am an AGW skeptic. Their eyes glaze over long before I get to the good stuff. In the future I will just have them read my cautionary tale-
The Danger of Rhubarb
A recent article in Super Science by Dr. Manic Michael reports the results of a three decade long study on the trigger mechanism for turning an individual into a serial killer. The indisputable results of the study show that the feeding of rhubarb to children under the age of three will result in their random murdering of people by the age of 30.
Mr. Stefan McSkeptic, a retired probation officer, has criticized the study claiming that the sample size was too small. Mr McSkeptic suggests that more than one serial killer should have been studied and that other factors should have been considered, such as the individual becoming an alcoholic by age 8 and a heroin addict at age 11. Dr. Manic Michael’s team has dismissed Mr McSkeptics comments as being unworthy of rebuttal due to the fact that he does not have a graduate degree in Serial Killing.
This epic study by the highly esteemed Dr. Manic Michael was funded by a $3 million grant from the Incredible Tings foundation. Dr. Horace Michael, the director of the Incredible Tings foundation, has praised the work of his son Manic. Since Mr. McSkeptic has confused an insignificant number of people, however, an independent review has been ordered by Dr. Horace Michael. Dr.Forest Michael conducted the review last Tuesday morning and submitted his report on Tuesday afternoon. He confirmed the validity of the study based on the fact that it had been peer reviewed by his wife. He also said 97% of the rest of his family agreed.
what is connecting the picture and article?
a shocking 72% of news coverage does not reflect this “consensus”
Reporting that there is a possiblity other than anthropogenic warming is not the same thing as reporting evidence that contradicts anthropogenic warming. A shocking 100% of news coverage is the former and not the latter.
I guessed one of the two Boykoffs in my comment a few spots above about the skepticalscience graphic for Media Coverage balance. After letting my fingers do a bit more walking around the internet, it’s Max Boykoff, the paper is “Lost in Translation? United States Television News Coverage of Anthropogenic Climate Change, 1995-2004” seen here http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/people/boykoffmax.php
In that paper, Boykoff takes an obligatory swing at skeptic Pat Michaels about his alleged corruption which led him “to downplay human’s role in climate change and confuse public understanding of anthropogenic climate change…” Boykoff’s source for that? A 2006 ABC news report “ABC News Reporting Cited As Evidence In Congressional Hearing On Global Warming” http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/story?id=2242565&page=3 in which guess who was cited? Ross Gelbspan, ” ‘This coal industry disinformation campaign is a repeat of a similar campaign launched in the early 1990s by Western Fuels and other coal interests,’ said Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and author Ross Gelbspan.”
Remember, however, Ross Gelbspan never won a Pulitzer, and he did not discover the so-called disinformation campaign he is so widely credited with, but he is at least responsible for an amazing set of repeated talking points http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/07/the_left_and_its_talking_point.html which pop up in all places, a cute graphic that says the media gives too much balance to skeptics……….
The “survey” results were reported in January 2009. Regardless of the poorly worded questions and the rather dubious manner in which the highest concurrence was determined – i.e. amongst the 79 (of a total of 3,146) who “listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change” – one has to consider this an incredibly shrinking consensus.
After all, the authors were talking about “detection and attribution” were they not?
According to Mike Hulme (June 2010), such a “consensus judgment” was reached by “only a few dozen experts” [of the IPCC].
http://hro001.wordpress.com/2010/06/18/honey-i-shrunk-the-consensus/
And at one time 97 percent of astronomers thought the earth was the center of the universe. Science has never run on consensus. “My theory must be right because everyone said it was right, but Galileo and Kepler” didn’t cut it in the 17th century and it shouldn’t cut it in the 21st. Consensus is important in politics, not science.
>> JJB MKI says:
August 2, 2010 at 6:09 pm
I also heard recently that at least 97% of priests believe in God. Interesting..
<<
Touche'
The sun coming back into focus:
http://www.news.com.au/technology/arctic-trees-provide-link-between-solar-radiation-and-global-warming/story-e6frfro0-1225900419394
The question all those polled need to be asked is this:
‘If you were openly skeptical about AGW, what would be the % growth or decline in your newly won grant income?’
If you want the “right” answer you have to ask the “right” questions in the “right” way and of the “right” people.
I have hit this sort of thing quite often in tests and questionnaires, which I will either ignore or just stop answering. This can cause trouble but it makes life interesting.
Ps our cat has a thing about boxes as well.
So 9 out of 10 ‘climate scientists’ who believe in Anthropogenic global warming believe in AGW? Wow, I didnt see that coming!
Now call me stupid but if these ‘scientists’ have a vested financial interest in AGW and precious grant/research monies depend entirely on these ‘climate scientists’ looking for and finding evidence of AGW, then call me cynical but would they not do their best to keep the monies rolling in?
If you livelihood depends on AGW it would be unwise in the extreme to do yourself out of a job, a career and any chance of future employment, obviously moral integrity and duty to the wider truth has to take a subordinate role because for most people putting bread on the table comes first and only a brave few would risk the spiteful wrath of the priests of the orthodoxy. That is what the priesthood have counted on for years and it has proved very effective, it carried the USSR for years.
J.Hansford says:
August 2, 2010 at 7:07 pm
What amazes me…. Is that they got three cats to stay in their boxes long enough to take the picture….. Quite a feat if you ask me. 🙂
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Not if you glue their paws to the bottom of the boxes.
I am going to pay for that, aren’t I?