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).
wow and here I thought skepticalscience was firmly in the pro-AGW camp, but they just produced a graphic showing that 97% of climate scientists surveyed hold the same position as deniers. Nearly all deniers agree that temperatures have increased since the 18th century. Who’d of thunk it.
Here in Australia, we see this graphic and statistic spattered across the media almost every day. It’s interetsing to discover the poll sample size is only 79!!!! LOL You just just can’t make this stuff up.
Question #2
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing
mean global temperatures?”
When you think about it most here at WUWT would agree that “human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures”
Let’s see there is:
#1 Urban Heat Island Effect:
#2 Measuring Station Drop out
#3 “homogenizing”
#4 “adjusting”
#5 Switch from whitewash to latex Stevenson Screens
#6 switch to automated stations
#7 relocating to Airports
Yes I can certainly see human fingerprints all over the “changes in mean global temperatures”
“Shouldn’t the number of of folks answering “risen” to question #1 be close to 100%? Is there a strong argument that we haven’t warmed somewhat since the LIA?”
What LIA?
mpaul: August 2, 2010 at 3:45 pm
So I’m surprised it wasn’t 100%. Actually the raw data probably was 100%, but they adjusted it becasue they didn’t like the way it looked.
The respondents were 1,200km apart — the 97% is an artifact of the smoothing…
Bulldust: August 2, 2010 at 9:46 pm
Not if you glue their paws to the bottom of the boxes.
I am going to pay for that, aren’t I?
Looped strips of duct tape, sticky side out…
I bet if they polled 79 retired climate scientists the result would be almost the opposite.
Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies.
So, after thirty years the sceptics are ready to answer yes to
questions 1 and 2, as compared to the Hansens of this world
who got it right way back?
But wait a minute, a recent post by Berman and Pielke Sr.
indicated that there is still no clarity in your ranks, even
on the basic question of CO2 as a greenhouse gas?
So the reasonable form of climate scepticism, outlined
by e.g. Pielke Sr., S.Mosher and others, seems to be out of your
reach. The movement cannot/will not go there and even if you
could, you would find that the pertinent questions
(sensitivity, feedbacks, model skills etc) are critically
examined by the majority scientists (AGW, if you must)
to an extent you are not aware of.
Your scientists (Lindzen, Michaels etc) have just wasted
time by choosing the Heartland tours for adulation.
Re Bill Tuttle says:
Looped strips of duct tape, sticky side out…
—
Or Photoshop. Digital reality > reality. 97% of polar bears say their paws prefer it!
Fame at last!
Glad you got my best side…
Consensus is not proof of the validity of the science; it is political influence of public opinion. As many of the above writers above have pointed out pushing back the frontiers of science ignores consensus. Many of the poll respondents had their own self interest in mind. The ambiguity of the second question makes any of several possible interpretations possible as also has been pointed out above. The previous article in this BLOG summarizing Ross McKitrick’s assessment of the quality of temperature GHCN data is the case in point. I also refer you to Gail Combs comment.
1. Gail Combs says:
August 2, 2010 at 10:47 pm
“Question #2
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing
mean global temperatures?”
Any of the possible reasons for global temperature anomalies are reason enough to answer in the affirmative. However the responders were manipulated by the EOS authors to mean CO2 influence on global temperature.
On the other hand politicians use polls and other statistical data on demographics to influence the public. Poll results are influenced by the responders own self interest. The questions are chosen by the pollster to incite a given response in favor political position. When the results are presented the politicians tell what the results mean. What amazes me about the current political climate is that the politicians are ignoring the polls. Do they think that the results are tainted and can be ignored?
If this or any other environmental group were to ask me today what I think about the global warming due to CO2, my answer would be no one really knows. The temperature data is tainted. This precisely why I am a skeptic about AGW
This and other poll “science” or rather “science polls” are quite entertaining. Of course it would have added to the confusion if they had added the question if the respondents believed “if a significant part of the warming was attributable to factors other than human activity” which should have hit the 100% “Yes” answers in both groups.
“Pre 1800’s levels” that covers most (over 99,9999%) of the earths geological history during which surface temparatures have varied from over several hundres of degrees Celcius to complete freezing of the snowball earth so how can anybody give a meaningful answer to this ridiculous question? Most of the geological history the earth was ice free so average tempartures are now without a shadow of a doubt below average for the pre 1800’s average.”
The same logic applies to the second question: in view of the pre-1800’s history of earths climate human presence and activity are futile as both sceptics and alarmists will agree. You only need to go back to the more recent ice ages to acknowledge this. Both the timescale and the use of the undefined “significant” and the fact that is is a poll make this excercise a complete waste of time. Still, for psychologists and sociologists it may be interesting material.
I still think it would be interesting to run a poll asking people in the general public to say, off the top of their head, how much they think average global temperatures have changed over the last 100 years. Perhaps this could be compared to what various news reporters and government officials are willing to say as well.
In case anyone wants to comment – the original graphic was here: http://renegadeconservatoryguy.co.uk/global-warming-the-debate/ .
76.5436% of statistics are made up on the spur of the moment.
Slightly off topic but has anyone else noticed that when you talk of empirical evidence ,and past observed recorded data beyond 200years ago on the Guardian newspapers(uk) enviroment blog you get blanked by warmists who dont seem to want to talk about it.Strange that.
The flaw seems to be in the original experimental methodology.
It should have read – “If you put 79 self-selected climate scientists in a box…”
“Question 2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing
mean global temperatures?”
Of course. Don’t they use a hockey stick for that?
True scientists wouldn’t even respond to such a ridiculous, agenda-driven “poll”.
Cats-22.
It is unlikely that any of the consensus were British, as they will all have had access to the information on this page of the MET office website :-
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/extremes/
which shows that it has been seven years since a new record temperature has been set in the British Isles – a very disappointing result for the narrative of AGW in the light of this statement :-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/aug/10/weather.uknews
made in 2007 by the Hadley Centre and the interesting observations of Phil Jones which may well be haunting him today.
Oh! and before some wretched troll points out that the MET office header proclaims that the last update was 24.11.08, be so good as to scroll down to Rainfall records where you will find that these were updated in November 2009 and record the Cumbrian flooding of that time.
Bill Tuttle says:
“The respondents were 1,200km apart — the 97% is an artifact of the smoothing…”
Thanks Bill, I needed that laugh 🙂
‘Nuff said.
To all those who are picking apart the questions asked, remember the first law of polling: if you want the right answers remember to ask the wrong questions.
You can tell how serious people are about global warming by looking at a money question. So I did a search. You will not believe what I found:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/17/americans-not-inclined-to-pay-more-to-fight-global-warming/
Jimmy Haigh says:
August 2, 2010 at 3:35 pm
I love the picture of Shrodingers cats…
Theys doin’ a cat scan.
Well , I reckon that the vast majority of the people in Britain , if asked whether they would like to have global warming would say “yes please , now would be good ”
The warmists know they are onto a loser as the ‘ordinary people’ have now had their horrendous heating bills from trying to keep warm last winter – and would really like the warming to kick in as soon as possible !!