Readers may recall this survey announced at WUWT: An AGW opinion survey for your participation.
Some preliminary results were announced Monday. From Mike Haesler:
The Scottish Climate & Energy Forum has been conducting a survey on the background and attitudes of participants to online climate discussions. The survey had a massive response which will take time and resource to process. However initial analysis already shows that the actual views and backgrounds of participants are in sharp contrast with some high-profile statements being made about the participants. Therefore I felt we should make these initial results known as soon as practical to avoid further damage, both to the reputation of those involved in the online debate, as well as those making the unfounded and presumably mistaken accusations of “denial”.
As such, I am releasing the following statement regarding the survey.
A sceptical consensus: the science is right but catastrophic global warming is not going to happen
A recent survey of those participating in on-line forums showed that most of the 5,000 respondents were experienced engineers, scientists and IT professionals most degree qualified and around a third with post graduate qualifications. The survey, carried out by the Scottish Climate and Energy Forum, asked respondents for their views on CO2 and the effect it might have on global temperatures. The results were surprising. 96% of respondents said that atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing with 79% attributing the increase to man-made sources. 81% agreed that global temperatures had increased over the 20th century and 81% also agreed that CO2 is a warming gas. But only 2% believed that increases in CO2 would cause catastrophic global warming.
So what’s going on?
Above all, these highly qualified people – experts in their own spheres – look at the published data and trust their own analysis, so their views match the available data. They agree that the climate warmed over the 20th century (this has been measured), that CO2 levels are increasing (this too has been measured) and that CO2 is a warming gas (it helps trap heat in the atmosphere and the effects can be measured). Beyond this, the survey found that 98% of respondents believe that the climate varies naturally and that increasing CO2 levels won’t cause catastrophic warming.
What next?
Overwhelmingly participants in this large scale survey support the science, however this is not how they have been portrayed in the media and this has led to deep and bitter divides between those who hold different viewpoints. This debate should be based on the evidence and that not only includes the scientific evidence on the climate, but also the evidence of the real participants involved in the debate. Given the huge number of responses and detail of questions a full assessment will take up to one year to complete. This is a huge commitment from an organisation that has no outside funding and is reliant on one full-time volunteer (Mike Haseler). We will therefore be approaching the Scottish and UK government with a view to obtaining funding to complete the analysis.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Overwhelmingly participants in this large scale survey support the science…
Wouldn’t it be more accurate to simply say: “Overwhelmingly participants in this large scale survey support science“?
Good work
98% > 97%
Overwhelmingly participants in this large scale survey support the science…
In fact it would me more accurate to say that overwhelmingly the science supports them.
Surveys can say whatever they wish – or claim they are skeptics as can anyone taking that survey. No the science does not support CO2 driving temperature as per the AGW scam – science supports an 800 year plus/minus 200 years CO2 lag time.
Consistant with my TopFear road test…
http://fenbeagleblog.wordpress.com/2014/02/22/recycled-intention/
Good luck with your appeal to the Scottish Government, Mike, but I’d be shocked if you got any cash out of them. Salmond is a hypocrite, committing Scotland to an expensive, carbon-free lifestyle whilst selling North sea oil to whoever wants it. The result is that foreigners get to use cheap energy and the Scots get hammered once again, condemning thousands of poor, old people to a miserable winter and, in many cases, premature death.
Well done with the survey. Maybe it will change a few minds that haven’t already slammed shut.
@David
And the data too.
Off subject i no but m mann is at it again writing on twitter that andrew bolt is paid to lie about global warming by murdock.Bolt is pissed you can get the full story on andrewbolt blog mann has messed with the wrong guy this time.
Nothing particularly surprising about the main survey results.
What really matters is whose conclusions are supported by data (and whose aren’t).
That is all that needs to be shared with the general public.
Everything else is noise.
Kurt in Switzerland
This is in line with something that S McKintyre said about the “knowledge-producing community”… for which I have no reference.
He said that the contributors to Climate Audit were part of the “knowledge-producing community” just not necessarily directly involved with Climate Science.
That is in line with the findings of this survey.
It implies that “defending the science” is actually just a turf war by certain academics.
But do they acknowledge the processes that impact on the “earth’s energy budget”?
Sorry, but to whom are these results surprising?
Anybody reading the threads on a sceptic site would quickly realise that the vast majority think the evidence shows;
1. It’s warmer now than during the Little Ice Age.
2, CO2 is a warming gas.
3. A goodly percentage of the increase in CO2 is probably the result of human activities.
They have simply not been convinced that there is a problem due to finding Climate models that operate without proper Verification and Validation standards unreliable.
The funny thing is that when somebody calls me a “denier” I ask them what I’m supposed to be denying. They usually cannot answer.
“Wouldn’t it be more accurate to simply say: “Overwhelmingly participants in this large scale survey support science“?”
No, it wouldn’t.
we just had an x event on the sun. in the short video u see the earth scale. but based on unverified models i think a co2 deathstar is the main driver of climate and taxes is the only regulator……
But you’re all industry-funded shills the lot of you. Wait to Naomi Oreskes finds out, then you’ll be in trouble…
http://progcontra.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/gaia-industry-funded-denialist.html
But the survey failed to uncover the source of our vast, international funding. I get paid for these comments and taking surveys, right? /sarc
I follow a few blogs and would say that WUWT is “home” so to speak. Following the comments (general discussions) closely the make-up or demographics (if you will) of the participants to a survey linked to by WUWT as noted does not surprise me. Therefore the preliminary results of the views of those participants are not surprising.
Why does the headline state “skeptic survey”? “Climate survey” would make more sense.
I am an retired engineer and a former Chrtered Environmentalist who has always suffered from the affliction of needing to see and understand for myself. Also I do not suffer fools gladly, especially those who would seek to inflict their ignorant opinions and beliefs upon me.
I welcome the survey, although I would take issue with Anthony when he uses the term ‘the science’.
(Proper) science is done by objective experts who seek the truth, even if itheir findings overturn their hitherto beliefs. Anybody who refers to ‘the science’ is actually referring to the warmist belief system.
I would suggest that science shows that CO2 has increased and can also show that this trace gas is mildly ‘greenhouse’ in nature. Science also points to the man made proportion of the gas is very small, etc,etc.
I accept what science tells us (provided it has not been ‘adjusted’ to favour ‘the cause’), I do not accept what Miliband, Charles, Deben, Yeo and all the others would have us believe is ‘the (settled) science’.
I would ask that there be no suggestion in the final report that any of us thinkers and reasoners accept ‘the science’. Also that it be made clear that computer models are not science but projections, usually biased to deliver desired pre-determined outcomes.
It’s pretty simple a matter of trying to reconciling the Carboniferous age, the glaciation cycles and the current Interglacial of the Holocene. Even an extemely casual review and a bit of thinking over chocolate and coffee results in a convincing warmer and even more CO2 is a very good thing. Even tomatoes without PhD’s in climatology agree.
How was ‘catastrophic’ defined? It is just a value judgement. Unless you put a hard number to it, its just conversation.
bazza says:
February 25, 2014 at 12:31 am
Is too much to expect people to write conventional English these days?
Bazza’s, “i no”, slowed down my comprehension because he made it hard for me to understand that what he really meant to write was, “I know”.
Punctuation helps comprehension too. Bazza’s: “Bolt is pissed you can get the full story on andrewbolt blog mann has messed with the wrong guy this time.” is a really crappy sentence.
Also Bazza, it’s Murdoch, not Murdock.
Please lift your game because most people reading this site are educated.
What is ‘the science’ that skeptics overwhelmingly support? GCM’s? Heat hiding in the deep ocean? Putative atmospheric residence times of greenhouse gases? Regional long term forecasting?
Four percent of respondents don’t agree that CO2 levels are increasing – WUWT?
To Scottish Skeptic: Take your time. Nail it down.
‘This is a huge commitment from an organisation that has no outside funding and is reliant on one full-time volunteer ‘
Say, maybe Dana could contribute towards this…. never mind. Then people would be yelling about ‘Big Oil’ involvement…..