Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
There’s a new survey out by the Pew Research Center folks that’s getting lots of press. Much of the coverage mentions the following claim that the claimed 97% consensus is real but it’s only 87%. The survey reports a:
• 37-percentage point gap over whether climate change is mostly caused by human activity – 87% of AAAS scientists say it is, while 50% of the public does.
So what’s not to like? Well, the first oddity of the study is that we have absolutely no guarantee that the scientists are … well … scientists.
The study was done “in collaboration with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)”. Here’s the description from the Pew Center of the method used:
The survey of scientists was conducted online with a random sample of 3,748 U.S.-based members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) from September 11 to October 13, 2014. AAAS is the world’s largest general scientific society, and includes members from all scientific fields. Founded in 1848, AAAS publishes Science, one of the most widely circulated peer-reviewed scientific journals in the world. Membership in AAAS is open to all.
Sounds good … until you realize that not only is membership in AAAS “open to all”, but in addition anyone who subscribes to Science magazine is a member of AAAS … and for years Science magazine has been a strong supporter of the hypothesis that “climate change is mostly caused by human activity”, whatever that might mean.
So we are already dealing with a self-selected group of people, many of them not scientists, who read a magazine that for years has strongly supported the “anthropogenic global warming” (AGW) hypothesis.
But wait … it gets worse. For starters, you’d think that the Pew Research folks would have made a selection of scientists that weren’t subscribers to a magazine that has an axe to grind. And you’d also think that they would have picked … well … scientists.
But failing both of those, once the Pew Center folks had foolishly chosen to sample from AAAS members, surely they would make their own random selection of the AAAS membership? … well, think again. Their methods section cited above goes on to say:
A simple random sample of AAAS members was selected for participation by the staff of AAAS.
At this point, I’ve got to assume that the good folks at Pew have lost the plot entirely. They let the staff of the AAAS, a group which by and large seems to have swallowed the climate koolaid without demur, choose a “random sample” of which “scientists” the Pew folks would interview. Yeah, that’s the ticket, that inspires confidence …
And it gets worse yet, because the self-selection increases:
A total of 19,984 members were mailed a letter requesting participation in the survey.
And out of those, how many were actually sampled?
A total of 3,748 members completed the survey for an overall response rate of 18.8%.
Then there’s the matter of the poorly worded question. They asked if “climate change is mostly due to human activity”, with 87% of “scientists” saying yes versus 50% of citizens. I hate this kind of vague question, with no time frame on it, no definition of “climate change”, and no definition of “mostly”. For example, the IPCC defines “climate change” as being human caused … but under the general definition, the climate has been changing forever. This means that the well is poisoned before we even start. And what period of time are they talking about? The last ten years, during which there has been no statistically significant warming? The last century? The period since industrialization? And is 51% “mostly” or not? A vague question like that means nothing even if the rest of the survey had been handled perfectly.
I gotta say … I used to respect the Pew Research folks, and I’ve looked at their methods in other studies without finding much that seemed odd.
But this survey? On my planet, this one goes directly into the circular file … at the end of all of that, I gotta figure that their study is 87% horse feathers, and 13% unicorn-generated methane …
Best to all, and don’t believe everything you read.
w.
AS ALWAYS: If you disagree with someone, please have the courtesy to QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU DISAGREE WITH so that all of us can understand the exact nature of what you object to.
And in the interests of full disclosure, I am a member of AAAS … but somehow they didn’t ask my opinion. I figure my invitation got lost in the mail …
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
2 per cent of scientists don’t believe in evolution?
What? You think it should be 0%, Harry?
Good Lord, yes.
Good Lord?
Monckton?
Must be. That is the least senseless answer.
Didn’t a number of disgusted members also quit because of the CAGW cheerleading, removing themselves from the possibility of being surveyed?
‘Mostly’ could be any number as long as it’s more than any other contributor to ‘climate change’. So, if ‘human causes’ (which are varied and include a lot more than just industrial CO2) contribute 25% of ‘climate change’ (whatever that actually means) and solar variability 10%, volcanoes 2%, AMO/PDO 5%, etc then ‘Human causes’ are ‘mostly’ responsible.
Exit polling from the past November election offered this interesting result. On the question: “Do you think climate chance (or global warming) is a serious problem?”, 70% of the self-reported Democrats responded “Yes” while 84% of the self-reported Republicans responded “No”. I wonder how the membership of AAAS breaks down by political party.
“change” not “chance” Sorry about that. Cold fingers.
Most professional scientist get their publications (such as Science an Nature) from their library. They rarely buy an independent subscription. Hence, they are unlikely to be members of AAAS.
Speaking of self-selection, I was recently reading the results of a shareholder’s vote for a public company whose executive receives in excess of $10 million in salary and perks.
The question asked shareholder’s to approve executive compensation. The shareholders are made up of a large number of mutual funds, insurance companies, and hedge funds.
Guess what the yes vote was?
Yup…97%
I guess all this media crap about outrage over executive salaries is bunk, since we have proof that 97% of a certain population approves.
Why don’t the warmists do what the Petition Project has done and have scientists who believe in CAGW sign a petition with their names published for all the world to see. http://www.petitionproject.org/
The won’t because there’s only 75 of them.
Elmer,
Exactly right.
There is only a small clique of self-serving scientists in on the scam. I’ve repeatedly challenged anyone here to produce the names of even 10% of the OISM’s numbers; 3,000 names. They can’t.
Then I challenged them to come up with a mere 300 names of scientists who contradict the OISM statement. They can’t.
They cannot produce even one percent of the OISM’s numbers, which absolutely destroys their silly claim of “consensus”. Like every other claim they’ve made, that one has been falsified, too.
Instead of totally bogus propaganda like this Science BS, give us NAMES! Find scientists who will put their names on a statement contradicting the OISM Petition. Because if the OISM statment is accurate — that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere — then all their demonizing of ‘carbon’ is stupid.
It’s no different than finding a $100 bill on the sidewalk, and saying that’s a bad thing. The biosphere is starved of CO2! More is better. CO2 has been up to 20X higher in the past, with no ill effects.
If they can get more names on a statement contradicting the OISM statement, they win the ‘consensus’ point. But we know they can’t. Like everything else they assert, their claims of ‘consensus’ are a bunch of carp.
The UK Met Office did a poll in the wake of Climategate and got nearly all their employees to rubber-stamp it.
In genuine science, it is not enough to say “ew conducted a random sample.”
You have to say where your list of subjects came from, then the specific randomization/selection process.
Here’s another study, which of course is ridiculous because the blog posts here are more accurate and reliable than peer-reviewed “science”:
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.abstract
Barry,
What do you suppose a survey of “highly published” authors in the field of nanotechnology might say about the importance of their field? GMO scientists? Plastic surgeons? Munitions manufacturing? Cold fusion?
Obviously, society and it’s elected officials should make decisions exclusively on the basis of what “highly published” (and self-interested) practitioners in the field say.
John M…
…
Imagine you are feeling ill.
You visit 10 doctors, and they examine you and do tests.
9 out of the 10 say you have cancer, the other one gives you some aspirin and sends you away.
..
What do you do?
9 out of 10 say you have cancer? And they prescribe very expensive medicine (hmm).
But you don’t feel any different. Would you ask to see the test results?
You can’t see them. “Why should I show you the test results when you’ll only try and find something wrong with them?”
The other guy, he’ll show you that there’s nothing unusual going on but the cancer Docs? No. They are screaming for their money.
So do you pay up or do you ask for the two sides to debate? The cancer Docs won’t debate. It’s not in their interest. The other guy is beneath them.
So do you pay up?
And if you pay up this time what else will you be willing to pay for?
After nearly eighty years on this planet I have learned that Armageddon scenarios have a compelling fascination for mankind, which leads to irrational judgements. They are always ‘just over the horizon’ for their protagonists, but In reality they are always so far over the horizon that they just don’t seem to happen.
A second thing that I have learned is that analogies are always flawed and represent a cheap shot in any worthwhile debate.
David S
To elaborate on your analogy:
5 dentists, 2 cardiologists, and 2 endocrinologist all received a bunch of grant money to offer an unsolicited assessment of your health; they did this with little to no input data (they collected a little bit of spittle that flew from your mouth when you said good morning to them).
One of the endocrinologists said he didn’t have enough information to make an informed assessment and said that you probably shouldn’t subject yourself to chemo.
The second endocrinologist said you looked bad and that I should pay him $40k for more tests and you would likely die if you didn’t eat half as much as you currently do (and that your cancer was a contagion… you will pass it on to your grandchildren) … the other doctors agreed with him (knowing that they would also receive more grant money).
What would do with the two differing recommendations?
Suing for malpractice and stripping the 9 Docs of their medical licenses would be my preference.
10 out of 10 doctors tried to send me home from hospital after x-rays showed I’d suffered no spinal/cervical fractures resulting from a car accident I was involved in.
As a long time sufferer of Ankylosing Spondylitis, I knew better.
That 10 out of 10 doctor quickly left the room after she almost paralysed/killed me.
David Socrates…
But what if you are NOT ILL ???
Imagine you are walking down a street feeling fine.
You go to your doctor’s office, get a blood test, blood pressure taken, get a physical, temperature, all the data. Everything’s relatively normal given your previous results, some higher some lower. All perfectly natural changes in your life. The doctor sits down with you and goes over everything, all the numbers, explains his interpretation. He omits no data just because he thinks you don’t need to see it, or it could make you question his opinion. Instead he encourages your questions.
On the way home you pass some guy on the corner who says he’s a doctor and tells you you have cancer and if you don’t have very expensive therapy you will start having symptoms in 50 years.
At the next corner is another “doctor” who tells you you have cancer and if you don’t have very expensive therapy you will die in 100 years and your cancer will be inherited by your children.
You turn on your television and there’s a news report that there’s a cancer crisis going on and its real because they found 9 doctors on the corner outside their studio with terrible predictions of unbelievable cancers…
What do you do?
Why of course you listen to your doctor, because your doctor is an expert in diagnosing the cause AND providing a remedy.
A climate scientist is an expert in diagnosing the cause. But he has ZERO expertise in providing a remedy.
Sure he can say reduce c02.
But he has no expertise in regulation, none in tax, no expertise in evaluating alternative power generation.
No experience in economics. In treaties. In treaty compliance. no expertise in evaluating the future technologies. No experience in choosing between mitigation and adaptation. None .zip. zero.
in short, I have no issue listening to experts on the SCIENCE. yup, c02 is a problem.
Now you want to talk policy? take an example. james hansen. calls for more nuclear.
is there a climate science consensus on that? Is his solution part of climate science? do 97% agree to that?
or does the solution belong in the hands of other people. Why is a climate scientist talking about policy?
Bottom line; climate scientists should just shut up about policy.
For example. if your doctor said: You got cancer, you should go long on Oil futures, you’d probably tell him to mind his own business and stick to medicine and leave the financial questions to your accountant.
And if you doctor said ‘but I have the freedom of speech to tell you what I think about policy” you would
not be out of line to tell him that you pay him to do medicine and quit wasting your money by talking about finance.
@Mosher The list of scientist opposing CAGW (and the models and methodology) include Roger Revelle, Hal Lewis and Freeman Dyson as well as Ivar Giaver and Bill Happer. This should give you great pause. These are some of the most able scientists of the 20th century. If you are appealing to authority — they are at least three or four orders of magnitude more authoritative than Hansen and the others. Dyson made a detailed study and gave a fully informed professional opinion.
Mosher –
But climate scientists are diagnosing a non-problem if the Earth isn’t even “ill”. Where’s the proof Earth is “ill” in the first place? Should we believe climate scientists are better equipped to determine Earth’s health and life-sustaining ability than historians, geologists, anthropologists, physicists, biologists, etc..? I don’t see the great bulk of the world’s scientists proclaiming illness in the first place, so why should we believe “climate scientists” are diagnosing anything more important than a hangnail? What doctor has proclaimed Earth to be ill in the first place other than James Hansen the Venus specialist???
Absolutely, all important policy decisions should be made by random internet bloggers rather than experts in the field.
Since the “random internet bloggers” are being told to foot the bill for the policy decisions, you’re damn straight we should have a say.
I didn’t say anybody shouldn’t “have a say”. What is it about this site and straw man arguments?
Unfortunately, Harry, they (important policy decisions) are being made that way – based on the random ramblings of the ranters on RC and SkS. But I support DJ Hawkins’s position: as long as I have to pay I’ll choose who I like to make those decisions.
Re: strawman argument:
“Absolutely, all important policy decisions should be made by random internet bloggers rather than experts in the field.”
Lol ok but that was less straw man and more straight up sarcasm.
Best I can figure, with only 1 out of 5 bothering to respond, that implies that 4 out of 5 would have a statistically different composite opinion. I would also guess that those 16,000+ non-respondents do not believe in AGW at all or have a very low belief level, or they would have put their dog in the fight. Looked at from that point of view, I would say there are more people in the general public that still “believe” than do members of the AAAS.
” that implies that 4 out of 5 would have a statistically different composite opinion”
…
No, it implies that 3 out of 5 are too busy to respond, and the other one threw the letter away thinking it was junk mail
David both you and Tom O are correct. You said 3/5 were to busy to respond…hmm that is like saying the house is on fire but you don’t call the fire department or rather the doorbell rings and its a evangelist . Either way they determined it was not worth their time. And as for the 1/5 who thought it was junk mail; you couldn’t be more right. Very astute of you and that 1/5
michael
David Socrates,
Imagine you go to the doctor and your blood pressure is 140/90. He tells you that you must immediately eliminate all salt in your diet and go on blood pressure medication for the rest of your life.
What do you do?
Harry Flashman, how about policy decisions be made by policy experts and elected officials? I know climate scientists and their supporters are all geniuses, but I suspect their approach to political policy-making is a bit…self-centered.
Just like in my previous post, you get a 2nd opinion…..However, you could follow the example of my post and get 9 other opinions and then make a decision.
Yes, I could make a decision.
Why should I let you make it for me?
Nine opinions are worth less than one fact.
Show the evidence.
M Courtney
..
Hedge
..
Take the aspirin, and get treatment for the cancer
Hedge
..
Take the aspirin, and get treatment for the cancer
Yes, treat the cancer. But only IF you actually have cancer.
“We have been paid 92 billion dollars to study foot cancer in 110 year-old people.
We think you might get cancer in your big toe in 50 years because you might get a dark spot on your foot in 20 years.
Therefore we are going to cut off both of your legs. “
See, there is NO harm from ANY temperature change (natural or man-caused) 2 degrees or below.
So, “No cancer, no treatment needed. We will not cut off your legs.”
There is very little harm to very few people in very few places IF temperature increases by 3 degrees in 85 years.
But, there is great benefits to billions of people worldwide and tremendous benefits to the world’s biologies IF temperatures do increase by 3 degrees in 85 years.
So, small chances of small harm, but absolute certainty of great good. And that ONLY IF global temperatures do change AND ONLY IF global temperatures do increase because of CO2 increases. Do not cut off off the patient’s head if there is a small threat to the toenail on the big toe.
John M
..
I never suggested that anyone other than you makes the decision.
Good, then we have no disagreement.
…other than your choice of analogy.
RACookPE1978
..
How many doctors do you need to tell you that you have cancer before you are convinced?
if 9 out of 10 isn’t enough, do you need 15 out of 16 or 44 out of 47 ?
And if those opinions were based on models rather that real world???
I love it science by analogy. I’ll give it a try. So if you’re getting back surgery and 9 of the 10 surgeons won’t let you see your xrays or MRI reports or tell/show you exactly what’s wrong with your back you’d let them operate?
Get the treatment for the cancer?
That depends on the price if the cancer. What if I’m now infertile?
It would be like the man who had terrible headaches. Skullsplitters! He’d stand up and agony. He’d sit down and thrumming daggers through the mind.
Medicine couldn’t help him. Aspirin, no. Codeine, no. Heroin and a whisky chaser, no.
The same pain he’s had since he was thirteen.
Eventually he found the world’s leading neurologist. A Dr so eminent his office had a double-door just to fit the letters after his name. And this expert, this genius, he knew a cure. A most desperate cure.
It seemed his spinal column was being dragged down by the weight of his genitals – this crushed his brain on the edge of the rear of his skull. Agony! It could be cured but with a price.
He needed to lose his testicles.
Much consternation. Much quandary. But the poor man was desperate. He said “yes”. And the operation went ahead. Chopity chop.
Freedom. Like light and laughter and love, such a grace above… no pain. The Dr was right. It worked! Hallelujah!
He walked out happy as Larry the Happyman. Skipping and whistling – wanting a new life of comfort and calm. He dances past a grocers, leaps past a barbers and waltzes past a tailors. Then he thinks, new man – new clothes. I’ll buy a suit.
In he walks and requests new threads (he gives his measurements because he knows his own body). But the tailor says “Yes, collar right, waist right but inside leg NO!
I’ve tailored my whole life and my father and grandfather before and we would know if that was the case – its too short.
My, oh my. If you wore trousers that length your under-volume would be so crushed you wouldn’t have room for your children’s pre-nursery.
You’d have to be a eunuch if you wanted to fit those measurements.”
Can society afford the guess you make?
Thanks for the civil reply. I agree scientists of any stripe shouldn’t be making policy decisions, but the experts should be the key people informing those decisions. If policy makers and elected officials are rejecting the mass of scientific opinion because the facts are unpopular with their constituency, that’s a problem.
That’s very unlikely to be the case in China. Or in Egypt. Or even in Mexico, Australia or the UK.
Every government around the world agree that the correct response to cAGW is nothing.
They may talk about it. They may watch out for it.
But they won’t prioritise it. Because it isn’t a problem now. And it may never be a problem.
Asian dictatorships. Middle Eastern Monarchies. European Social Democracies. North American Republics. They all agree. The science isn’t worth acting on.
It’s not due to fear of their constituency. It’s just the logical response.
Except the “mass of scientific opinion” is that the earth is warming and CO2 is causing “most” of it. That does not suggest any particular policy action. Nor does it say how serious the problem is. In fact, since there are many other more immediate problems, inaction may in fact be the right policy decision. It’s sort of like trying to ban the automobile in 1910 because some people were convinced it would become ubiquitous and lead to all kinds of unpleasantness, without allowing a discussion or consideration of the benefits.
Climate activists, and indeed, many climate scientists, are too quick to proclaim that a “97% consensus” immediately points to some specific action. Even those who are part of the “97%” and advocate for adaptation over mitigation are demonized and have the “97% consensus” waived at them.
I agree, we don’t have certainty that the outcomes of continue greenhouse gases will be catastrophic, at least not in a timeframe that has meaning to humans. But it very well could (yes, I know noone on this site thinks that, you don’t need to tell me, everyone), and since the cost would be essentially infinite at that point, mitigation makes sense.
I’m also of the opinion that switching to a low carbon society is good for all kinds of other reasons – wind and solar are already cost-competitive fossil fuels for electrical generation in most jurisdictions, and those costs are only coming down as the technology improves. In a few years when the issues around storage are worked out, building new fossil fuel plants is going to be as viable as opening a buggy factory would have been in 1930. It’s only the companies with trillions invested in reserves and infrastructure and their political shills who want to keep the party going until they’ve sucked every last drop out of the planet.
My response was to sir Harry.
Sir Harry,
If fossil fuel companies go the way of buggy factories so be it. Automobiles didn’t beat out buggies because of government subsidies. They did the job better than buggies.
When renewables get to that point, they will win. Whether fossil fuel executives are evil or not has nothing to do with it.
Maybe you should find David Socrates’ witch doctor and have him but a hex on an oil executive.
Renewables are already at par with fossil fuels without government support in some places and on track in many others within the next few years. That of course, doesn’t account for for environmental costs and the massive subsidies paid to the oil folks (substantially larger than renewables globally, and noone ever talks about how they need to be eliminated to create a “fair” market.) . Renewables will certainly win, it’s just a matter of whether we get on the train in the west or let Asia own this latest industrial revolution.
http://cleantechnica.com/2014/10/16/wholesale-grid-parity-achievable-coming-years-says-report/
http://www.iisd.org/GSI/fossil-fuel-subsidies
And don’t put words in my mouth – I didn’t say oil company execs were evil; merely that like you and me and most everyone else, they’re self-interested. And my self-interest doesn’t include unnecessarily digging up and burning half the planet and letting our kids worry about the consequences.
“It’s only the companies with trillions invested in reserves and infrastructure and their political shills who want to keep the party going until they’ve sucked every last drop out of the planet.”
Sorry for interpreting that as “evil”. What could I have been thinking.
If you are of the opinion that renewables are now capable of competing on their own, I hope you will agree with me that they no longer need any special subsidies.
Please enumerate the subsidies fossil fuel companies receive. I think you will find that most of the worldwide “subsidies” are in fact policies by two-bit dictators to keep consumer gasoline prices low so that they can stay in power. As far as the US is concerned, the “subsidies” include purchases to stock the strategic oil reserves and heating oil support for the poor (over a billion dollars last year). You are welcome to propose those be eliminated.
I also find your comment about “environmental costs” somewhat puzzling, coming so soon after you spoke glowingly of the automobile making buggy factories obsolete. No doubt, if we’d had an over-educated, under-worked elite class “analyzing” that competition in the early 20th century, buggy factories may indeed have been a good investment. The rest of the economy would, of course, be in the pits.
SHF, that continued GHG water vapour could be truly catastrophic.
Tell me specifically what is wrong with my analogy?
CO2 is not a carcinogen and the Earth has not been clinically proven to have cancer.
I see your point.
..
You completely misunderstood the analogy.
That can happen when someone uses a bad analogy.
Fine..
..
Then the next time you feel ill, you are free to consult the local witch doctor for help. Bloodletting and leeches will most certainly cure your ills.
Not sure how you get from my “I don’t think the Earth has cancer” to “fine, go see a witch doctor.”
But then you seem to be the type that goes from “CO2 is a greenhouse gas” to “OMG, we’re all going to die” at the drop of a hat.
Given your disposition, I’d suggest you stay away from the hemlock.
OK….let me explain it directly instead of using an analogy.
..
When you have a question about something you are not an expert in, you consult an expert.
..
See? It’s not that complicated.
That’s why I occasionally talk to a stock broker.
I’d be a fool to blindly follow his advice though.
You seem to be having trouble getting away from the cancer analogy. Not everything is life or death.
Your mileage may vary.
Try this
…
Imagine your foot hurts..
You visit 10 doctors, and they examine you and do tests.
9 out of the 10 say you have a broken bone , the other one says they’ll have to amputate.
What do you do?
It’s a simple question with a simple answer. I wouldn’t amputate.
Does the Earth have a broken leg? Can you show me the x-ray?
Aren’t analogies fun?
Does the earth have a “broken leg?”
…
What do the experts say?
I’d say I’ve never heard an expert say the Earth has a broken leg.
What do you hear?
You asked the question. Maybe you are asking the wrong question.
I asked it and I answered it.
Hey, it was your analogy. Don’t come whining back to me about it.
Hopefully you will not ever get cancer, break a bone, or get sick.
I wish the same for you. CO2 of course, will have nothing to do with it, one way or the other.
Your opinion is noted.
I’m quite comfortable having the opinion that CO2 doesn’t cause cancer or bone breakage.
Is your opinion different?
It might be causing a fever
From cancer to a fever. I’ll take it.
David S
To elaborate on your analogy:
5 dentists, 2 cardiologists, and 2 endocrinologist all received a bunch of grant money to offer an unsolicited assessment of your health; they did this with little to no input data (they collected a little bit of spittle that flew from your mouth when you said good morning to them).
One of the endocrinologists said he didn’t have enough information to make an informed assessment and said that you probably shouldn’t subject yourself to chemo.
The second endocrinologist said you looked bad and that I should pay him $40k for more tests and you would likely die if you didn’t eat half as much as you currently do (and that your cancer was a contagion… you will pass it on to your grandchildren) … the other doctors agreed with him (knowing that they would also receive more grant money).
What would do with the two differing recommendations?
Suing for malpractice and stripping the 9 Docs of their medical licenses would be my preference.
David First your reply ” Then the next time you feel ill, you are free to consult the local witch doctor for help. Bloodletting and leeches will most certainly cure your ills.” Ahem Bleeding was the established medical practice in the 1700s. Not by “witch doctors”. G. Washington was being treated for a fever he contracted, by the medical experts of the time, their treatment was to bleed him. He died. Next leeches or rather maggots; they were used by doctors for the Confederate States army during the ACW. They did this not out of preference but due to medical shortages. Their records show a decrease in infection rates and an increase survival rates.
So are we in fact seeing a repeat in treatments? The medical experts of the time called for bleeding as the remedy for ailments real and imaginary . And today modern “climate” experts” diagnose a fever and proscribe “bleeding” as the treatment. Oh and if you wish to compare the fossil fuel industry to the leeches and maggots, just remember how many people survived without having to lose limbs to gas gangrene. We learn as we go David, we learn as we go..
michael
John M says:
From cancer to a fever. I’ll take it.
Now we’re on the right track. The original alarmist analogy is bogus, because there is no cause to believe there is any problem. None at all.
You don’t even have a fever, John M. It’s more like you got a hangnail, and since you’re a little bit crazy you think you should go see a doctor, pronto. You’re referred by your friend Mr. Chicken Little to Dr. Duck, a quack who starts billing you for endless tests — for your hangnail!
That is an accurate analogy, not the bogus ‘cancer’ scare. There has never been any global harm demonstrated due to the rise in CO2. None at all. The entire climate scare is a giant head fake, promoted by ignorant folks who have bought into the Narrative. Cancer is a real threat; but CO2 is completely harmless. In fact, CO2 has been up to twenty times higher in the geologic past, without causing any problems.
So the correct analogy of the two is the hangnail. That’s the extent of the problem. The cure is to disregard it. But with the big bucks involved, the global warming scare is being kept on life support. As we see from this article, every year the numbers go more and more toward the skeptics’ view.
It’s only a hangnail, folks. It isn’t ‘cancer’, except in the fevered imaginations of the alarmist lemmings.
David Socrates
You clearly are as impressed with the prowess of the medical profession as you are with the academics of climatology.
Not surprising then that all you need for cementing your belief is the knowledge that 87% or 97% are singing from the same hymnal.
You might or might not be interested to look at historical life expectancy statistics and ponder just how much is contributed by physicians, how much by pharmaceutical companies and how much by civil engineers.
Whereas a new-born in the US in 1850 had a life expectancy of about half the 76 years of a baby today, a sixty-year old man now only does 5 years better than his counterpart from 1850. That’s according to some experts somewhere!
I dare say your ten second opinions will likely be very similar; it doesn’t mean they can do a damn thing for you.
This particular poll is probably beyond redemption in every way. However my guest post at Climate Etc. today examines general US poll data on attitudes to climate change, and why folks answer what they do to differently worded questions. It challenges previous analyses by the Consensus-influenced, with psychologist Dan Kahan as a detailed example. The fact that CAGW is a strong culture in its own right explains many climate change poll results, and reveals the high likelihood that a majority of Democrats are *allied* to this culture for political purposes, but don’t truly believe in the narrative of catastrophe themselves. Given that social-science / psychology professionals don’t acknowledge CAGW as a culture, they remain permanently puzzled regarding poll results and fail to see some obvious cultural effects (which their own fields describe adequately outside of the climate domain).
http://judithcurry.com/2015/01/30/climate-psychologys-consensus-bias/
The 87% number is quoted in todays Nat Silver’s FiveThirtyEighth blog
“There’s A Gap Between What The Public Thinks And What Scientists Know”
First, the word ‘Mostly’ is misleading. To me it would mean if 51% of warming can be attributed to man. Which I agree with. I think that the issue is land use changes, temperature reconciliation, soot and particulate matter, and possibly the increase in CO2 would all be a factor in the increase in temperature that is MORE than 51% meaning it is ‘Mostly’.
Has they asked the question ARE YOU CONCERNED about the increase in temperature the answer would be ‘No’.
This is frustrating because I would then be one of the 87% even though I do not agree that there is 1 ) a concern, or that the temperature is anything more than man’s miscalculation added on top of other factors which may cause an impact.
Purley a PR study. Terrible sampling methodology results in terrible sample and idiot results. Unfortunately it happens all the time even in medical research!
Forget the sloppiness of this Pew poll, and the fact that hypotheses aren’t confirmed via vote, the question still remains whether a majority of scientists think doubling CO2 will cause catastrophic climate consequences.
Even if one were to assume that 51% of the 0.75º of global warming since 1850 were caused by CO2, this would only be 0.38ºC of warming over the past 164 years. Since CO2’s forcing effect is logarithmic, any incremental increase of CO2 from here on will have less and less of a forcing effect…
Suppose for the sake of argument, we get another 2ºC (highly unlikely as it would require a trend of 0.24ºC/decade for the next 85 straight years starting from tomorrow) of global warming by 2100, of which, 51% was from CO2. That would only add up to a total of about 1.4ºC of CO2 induced warming from 1850~2100…
Is 1.4ºC of CO2 induced warming by 2100 considered catastrophic? I don’t think so…
Political hacks wish to waste $10’s of TRILLIONS on CO2 sequestration policies to avoid 2ºC+ of CO2 induced warming by 2100….
Color me crazy, but wouldn’t it be mo’ bedda to not waste a DIME and enjoy 1.4ºC of warming, booming economies, higher living standards, rapid 3rd-world economic development, higher crop yields and forest growth and peace on Earth towards men of goodwill, at business as usual fossil fuel consumption???
Why is CAGW not already in the trash bin by now?
CAGW is not in the trash bin yet because it fits the anti-development “humans are a cancer on the earth” philosophy of far too much of the political left. It also gives people a cheap way to assuage their inchoate guilt at being among the 1% richest people on a planet stuffed to the brim with desperately poor people, as they can e.g. bicycle to work and believe that they are saving the planet.
w.
The science of AGW is not “CAGW”…… moving the goal posts doesn’t help your argument.
Socrates: The science of AGW is ENTIRELY FUNDED BY politicians who need the control that only “CAGW” provides……
And it gives politicians a new taxation target to collect more money to cover the increasing subsidy demands of their last few schemes. The really great thing about CAGW for politicians is they are not accountable to actually do anything to stop or slow down climate change because it will take care of itself. It’s not like health care or housing or retirement income where you have real people demanding to get the services they’ve been promised.
So what if you take the money and the climate continues to warm? No problem; just shift funding away from studies showing how dangerous any change is toward studies showing how everyone benefits from a “managed climate”. If you make up the problem in the first place, it’s a whole lot easier to convince people you’ve also solved it.
David Socrates,
But the politics of AGW is “CAGW”.
If AGW is not catastrophic why bother?
Most science is interesting. If you pay attention it’s exciting. But policy isn’t affected. Because it isn’t the end of the world.
But CATASTROPHIC (Arghh!)/AGW is the end of the world. So it needs action.
No-one minds what’s just in your head – the actions are seen and so the actions – they count.
There is no moving the of goal posts by identifying catastrophic AGW as AGW in public discourse.
M Couirtney
“But the politics of AGW is “CAGW”.
…
If you say so, I prefer not get involved in political discussions.
“If AGW is not catastrophic why bother?”
…
Because a lot of people don’t understand the science and are led astray by the politics.
You post “There is no moving the of goal posts by identifying catastrophic AGW as AGW in public discourse. …..yes there is…..the science of AGW does not include “catastrophe” If you introduce that word to the debate you are politicizing the science. It is best not to include it when discussing the science because it involves value judgements which you know are not a part of the science. .
Inserting the word “catastrophic” into your question is a tried and true method of asking a “leading” question in a polling study. It requires the respondent to do two things which despoil the results of the poll. It requires them to make a value judgement, which the actual science does not address, and it requires the respondent to predict the future which is inexact at best.
Then the proper way to handle this issue is to add additional questions worded differently to test bias and its significance. It surely cannot be to maintain a single ambiguous question, and then divine meaning from the results.
Kevin Kilty,
The alarmist cult absolutely must use the qualifier “catastrophic”. The reason is obvious: if they admitted that for whatever reason that global T had risen by only a minuscule 0.7ºC over the past century and a half, how would that continue to shake the taxpayer money tree?
No, just reading the alarmist comments is all we need to do to see that alarming the public is their deliberate tactic. They must try to scare people with stories of fast rising sea levels, ocean “acidification” wiping out oysters, and disappearing polar ice. Of course, it’s all BS.
Without their constant false alarms, their grant money would soon be cut. So they continue to beat the ‘runaway global warming’ drum. They have no choice. Their only other choice is to tell the truth. But they can’t at this point. So they lie. It’s in their nature.
Why would any reputable polling agency let the group being polled select a sample within the universe of membership. Never heard of it. The breakdown of participants says it all. Now let’s do a real poll.
I wonder if someone from Pew will respond to Willis’s critique. It would be vastly more interesting than the idiotic tweaking by trolls like David Socrates that are cluttering up this thread (remember, “Don’t Feed the Trolls!”). But I won’t hold my breath. . .
/Mr Lynn
Aw c’mon Mr Lynn. I’m just having a little fun with him. He’s harmless.
And PEW itself is an advocacy group with an in-house research effort along the lines of labor union research efforts at labor policy centers. Collectively, they represent advocacy messaging with low-level “research” efforts and press releases of “studies.” It is all third rate research around and inside the beltway conducting questionable work, where frequency of messaging is more important than quality of the effort.
This has been my impression of Pew as well… very much in tune with the current meme of “all climate change caused by man”,
They take online courses in how to most succinctly obliterate history and still be home in time for dinner.
Since at least 1998, PEW has maintained a strong advocacy branch, thinly-disguised as “bipartisan”, with a single motive wrt climate change.
http://www.c2es.org/about/history
Pew in Australia
‘However, this draft plan was strongly critized by environment groups. Burke, doubtless under considerable pressure from the Australian Greens, which had entered into a deal with the Labor party to form minority government after the 2010 poll, ended up producing a final plan which banned anglers from more than 2.3 million square kilometres of Australian waters. He also distanced himself from initiatives such as wilderness zones and C&R fisheries that he had previously supported.
This final plan was lauded as a “major victory” by Pew and other environment groups but caused significant disquiet and anger amongst the rec fishing community.’
http://www.fishingworld.com.au/news/analysis-pew-politics-and-fishing
I’m not a religious or church going person, but …amen, brother Eschenbach.
If I remember correctly Benji (consultant to Mr Watts) may be a voting member.
If so, I’d like to know how he voted on this poll or am I barking up the wrong tree?
Kenji is/was a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
My bad.
Wrong tree.
Water it anyway, Kenji.
How to get the poll result you want – ‘Yes Minister’ a BBC comedy series.
Mrs Thatcher said this was not comedy, but a documentary series !!
Ahh, they don’t make comedy like they used to…
R
As usual Willis does an amazingly thorough job of probing the facts behind the story. I am amazed Pew research, which I have always respected, fell into the clearly totally invalid AAAS manipulation. Thanks Willis for the well presented facts.
As usual the commenters on WUWT have broadened, probed and debated the numbers and the meaning of it all with skill and thoroughness.
Thanks to all involved. I am a better informed and educated person thanks to your efforts.
The other side of the poll received little notice here and I find it the most interesting. Only 50% of the general public at this point accept the human induced climate change campaign. I think that represents significant progress on the part of all my climate change skeptic heroes. Despite billions of dollars in U.S. government funding, despite total support by one of the two major political parties in the United States, despite the continuing campaign by the United National Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, despite the vigorous efforts of several of our U.S. government agencies (NOAA, NASA, EPA), despite the loud and well funded efforts of AlGore, Greenpeace and the Sierra Club and the total “the sky is falling” support for all of this by the media, only 50% of the general public accepts the alarmist fear mongering.
I encourage the bright, engaged group that populates WUWT to spread your knowledge via Facebook, Twitter, media comment pages, letters to the editor, blogs, talks to community groups and what ever other means of communication you can find. When we tip the scale of public opinion, the media and politicians will follow. We can eventually correct the bad science behind the climate change hysteria based on the totally failed carbon dioxide greenhouse effect theory.
And, again thanks for the amazing education your posts and comments provide on this site.