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.
Im in the camp of people here who object to the definitive article before the word, ‘science’. Is it only climate alarmists who talk about “the science”? Do scientists working in chemistry, physics, biology, astronomy, etc, ever talk about, “the science”?
Maybe they do. I don’t know. I suspect not because they are real scientists.
Have atmospheric CO2 levels risen over the 20th century?
We actually do not know. The report favoured by the IPCC to ”prove” their claim that they have is that done by Callender but he only used reported past figures below 280ppmv and ignored those of higher figures. These were as accurately taken by known scientists using known, accepted methods so there is no reason to believe that the high, up to 550ppmv, figures were wrong.
Knowing the correct past CO2 concentrations would change the minds of many who took the survey.
Billy Liar says:
February 25, 2014 at 2:10 am
Four percent of respondents don’t agree that CO2 levels are increasing – WUWT?
It’s the 4 percent of warmists that took the survey just to try to ridicule the skeptics positions, pretending to be one without having ever tried to understand what skeptics actually think.
To decide whether a field is sinking into pseudoscientific practices or not, it is counterproductive to ask experts in that very field. In cases like that one prefers expert judgement from neighboring disciplines, from those who are qualified to evaluate methods, but do not have a dog in the fight.
Therefore a group of genuine climate scientists is the least appropriate choice to seek opinion on merits &. flaws of reductionist computational climate models, on the contrary, they are the first and foremost bunch to be excluded.
I am quite confident the overwhelming majority of homeopaths support theories about memory of water and such to the extent remedies are supposed to have a beneficial effect even if diluted until not a single molecule of the agent remains in them. They also possess all formal attributes of a proper scientific field, like schools, conferences, peer reviewed journals, etc. Still, it is crap.
The way we know it is, is not by establishing an Intergovernmental Panel on Water Memory, tasked with demonstration of said effect in its charta.
PJ Clarke. says:
How was ‘catastrophic’ defined? It is just a value judgement. Unless you put a hard number to it, its just conversation.
‘Catastrophic’ is an alarmist scare word. It is their word. They own it.
There is no catastrophic AGW. That is complete nonsense. Always has been.
Antonia: I figure ‘Bazza’ was ‘typing’ on a tablet device. I parsed his sentence as saying “I note that Mann….”
Bazza is probably quite literate but suffers the problem of failing to proof-read his comments and, because it’s a tablet, even if he wanted to alter the text can’t be a*sed because it’s a hassle. Shame, really.
Many years have rolled by since I succumbed to late onset scepticism, and age related degenerating eyesight precludes me from differentiating the fraction of a degree of reported warming that until recently was the cause for concern.
Climate change from my elderly perspective and experience remains within the observed parameters of my lifetime.
We seem to be locked into a Ground Hog Day scenario of which the late lamented Harold Ramis might have been proud.
The alarm goes off every morning; same old tune, same old arguments.
Yet nothing changes………………….
This survey seems to have been undertaken with the most colossal lack of understanding regarding this subject.
Anyone who reads ANY of the sceptic boards knows that everyone agrees that the temperature has risen since the 1970s, and that CO2, in lab conditions, can increase ‘radiation capture’ in air. But the AGW hypothesis takes these undoubted facts, and then pretends that they mean that the atmosphere will undergo a runaway heating experience, carefully ignoring and brushing aside all the more detailed phenomena that we know about which render our atmosphere quite stable.
It’s as if someone had pointed out that a pedal cycle works by a chain connecting the pedals to the wheels, and a particular cyclist is increasing his pedaling rate – therefore he’s going to break the sound barrier. The mechanics, in this case are settled, in just the same way as the science is, but the projected speed is NOT going to be achieved…
By now I don’t believe that this misunderstanding is a simple error. I think it is the result of willfully ignoring clear facts because there is a lot of social pressure to do so since there is a lot of money at stake…
That survey is won’t pass muster academically. There is no way to tell that people told the truth about their qualifications/experience and there was no neutral ‘neither agree, nor disagree’ option, so it’s a ‘push poll’. For example: The question “CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming”, the only choices were strongly disagree, disagree, agree, or strongly agree. For myself, I could not answer this with any of the options.
To johnmarshall :
You write “Knowing the correct past CO2 concentrations would change the minds of many who took the survey.”
Just like there are MANY “scepticts ” that are not at all sceptic about CO2 data before around 1960 as they should be. At some point when – hopefully – the whole AGW glasshouse cracks completely, also this corner of the debate will regain focus. I had personal contact with Ernst Georg Beck in his last days and the later stuff he made about REAL CO2 data from before 1960 deserves much more attention, I will write about this on http://www.hidethedecline.eu soon.
But nice to see that there are still a few sceptics not brainwashed also when it comes to real CO2 concentrations! As you know, a lie do not become truth just because it is repeated endlessly.
K.R: Frank
“98% of respondents believe that the climate varies naturally and (NON SEQUITER) that increasing CO2 levels won’t cause catastrophic warming”
Billy Liar says at February 25, 2014 at 2:10 am
I can think of 4 contributions to that 4%.
1 People not reading the question properly.
2 People trying to spoil the survey.
3 People who don’t trust any measurements made by climatologists because of adjustments to the historical temperature record and the lack of integrity demonstrated in thte Climategate emails.
4 People who take a long term view and say that CO2 levels have been higher in the (very distant) past.
4% isn’t many so it seems to be a reasonable finding to me.
…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. …
Compare this with the demonisation of the Germans by the British and American authorities during the First World War. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-German_sentiment refers.
No, Climate change sceptics do not bayonet babies and feast on the livers of raped women.
Maybe the results would have been different if the question was –
1. Given that fossil fuel burning is causing global warming through the release of CO2 into the atmosphere, then all North Sea oil wells must be capped immediately?
Yes []
No []
The ‘science’ is wrong. Over a hundred years ago Angstrom said infrared absorption by CO2 is saturated. Meaning adding more will not make any difference.These slight warming and cooling trends since then have other causes. Cooling since 2010, expect more.
…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….
As Bruce says earlier, “Good luck with that”.
That would be roughly akin to asking the Ukraine to fund a survey into why the Russians are really quite nice peace-loving chaps who have been driven to war by continuous foreign aggression…
The preliminary results are very encouraging and paint a picture of REASONABLE skepticism of the ALARMIST and WARMIST nonsense that Global Warming is any kind of a catastrophic threat,
— while, at the same time, also rejecting the DISBELIEVER error of totally dismissing the undoubted moderate warming of the past century and the role of rapidly rising CO2 partially due to human activities as part of the cause of the warming. —
In other words, as I recently wrote here at WUWT, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/12/global-warming-is-real-but-not-a-big-deal-2/ GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL, BUT NOT A BIG DEAL.
We tend to be well-informed, science-savvy SKEPTICS (or perhaps LUKEWARMERS) who take what I would call a fact-based “engineering” approach as opposed to an “emotional” or “political agenda” or “save the world mission” stance. So far, our views and conclusions best match the actual measured observations of the ever-changing climate, mostly due to NATURAL CYCLES and PROCESSES (but partially due to the unprecedented burning of fossil fuels). Good work!
Ira Glickstein
“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”
Surely these results were not surprising. As these are known and accepted scientific facts, so why should they feature in the survey? The statement tends to rather dilute the all powerful message and overwhelming support for the sceptics cause –
” But only 2% believed that increases in CO2 would cause catastrophic global warming.”
This is surely a devastating figure for the AGW fanatics to have to swallow, and is a figure that we should throw at them at every opportunity.
I also believe “the science” is wrong. I think we can all say, at the least, that “the science” is not settled. How can it be settled? Climatology is a very, very young science and we have little access to honest, complete data. For example, I don’t know that we really know the global CO2 levels before 1960 to any degree of accuracy. What if the reports of various scientists before ’60 of higher levels than we normally accept were true?
To say CO2 in the atmosphere has a “warming effect” on the surface temperatures of planet earth does not say to what extent that warming is. What if it is very small? What if we are getting all the “extra” warming we can from that absorption band right now?
What if various reports from climatologists are biased and unreliable? What if there are a lot of Dr. M. Manns out there?
So, I guess I don’t believe “the science” has it right just yet.
But the models are failing so which science are we talking about? Global warming will happen this century but it’s nothing to worry about, in fact it will be net beneficial. Maybe re-phrase the end to
there is no global warming
in fact it has been cooling globally
there is no AGW, except there where land becomes greener due to more trees, lawns and crops i.e. increasing biosphere, due to more water (distributed by humanity) and due to more CO2 in the air. there is no CAGW
the sooner we all get this and realize that global cooling is real, the sooner we will realize what will be up coming up next:
i.e major problems related to the physical aspects of global cooling, i.e. less precipitation at certain areas and latitudes and realtively more precipitation elsewhere, in the path of more weather systems at lower latitudes
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
So to put it simply:
Of the 98% whole believe global won’t/can’t lead to catastrophe, only 19% likely disagree with the consensus.
What is the subset of people who don’t believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas or concentrations are largely man made or there has been no warmng? (Any of these conditions independently could be considered “denial”.)
…What is the subset of people who don’t believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas or concentrations are largely man made or there has been no warmng? (Any of these conditions independently could be considered “denial”.)
Not believing the mechanics of how CO2 ‘absorbs radiation’ (simplified) might be considered ‘denial’. But I don’t think that there’s any overwhelming agreement that CO2 concentration is largely man-made – we only have models for this. And the amount of ‘warming’ is hugely subject to dispute due to various ‘corrections’ – and the idea of a ‘global average temperature’ is a dodgy idea anyway. So both these issues can be reasonably debated.
JohnB says:
February 25, 2014 at 12:49 am
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.
Sorry John, 1 and 2 are OK 3 NO 3.27% of co² results from human activity. Doesn’t look like a majority.
“20th century has warmed” is not precise enough. First, it warmed, cooled and warmed. Second, based on the models, only the last warming period caused by increase of CO2. However, models do not explain the early century warming, which was even stronger than the late one.
If we start at 40ties and end up in 2040, we can say it cooled, while it cooled, warmed and cooled.