Originally posted by @kazetnagorra No single survey is ever going to ask "all" climate scientists their opinion about anything.
You know very well what the consensus is among climate scientists.
Ridiculous!
Are you saying there is no way to contact all climate scientists? Are some of them hiding and hoping to not be found? What the heck are you saying specifically?
Even if what you say is true it is not acceptable to send a poll by mail to climate scientists and accept anything less than a majority of them replied to. Following up with phone calls to those that didn't reply is what is needed. Getting at least two thirds would be better than less than a third. Less than a third is pathetic and all that does is omit those climate scientists that are indifferent. Only an idiot would think that is anywhere near accurate. You are not that stupid, just dishonest in an effort to save face.
It could also be that certain climate scientists were deliberately left out of the mailing because they are known skeptics. That is unacceptable. You are just defending flawed polls because that is all you have to cling to. An honest scientist would promote a real poll that cannot be used to mislead. I suspect that has already been done and suppressed because the results were not what they wanted.
Originally posted by @wildgrass No, I'm not going to point that out. This study isn't interested in whether a scientific consensus exists or not. This study is interested in policy. I am going to point out (again) that "Comply with Kyoto" is the largest group of respondents. This study does not ask data-driven question, instead dividing everyone into 6 groups based on "feelings" rather ...[text shortened]... 0% of global warming. I don't see anything here that refutes that. If I'm wrong, please show me.
The majority of them don't know anything about Kyoto. Most people don't know anything about the Paris Accords either. All nations set their own goals in the Paris Accords. Most don't know that.
Originally posted by @metal-brain The majority of them don't know anything about Kyoto. Most people don't know anything about the Paris Accords either. All nations set their own goals in the Paris Accords. Most don't know that.
I didn't author the study, just reporting the findings. You seem to think it proves your case about a scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. It does not.
Originally posted by @metal-brain https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/02/15/97-an-inconvenient-truth-about-the-oft-cited-polling-of-climate-scientists/#38ca70c4205a
What does this add? This is an opinion journalist's opinion that the real number of scientists that agree with the IPCC consensus might maybe be less than 97%. From the studies and data you've posted here, now we know the real number is closer to 65-67%.
Conservatives love talking about how Al Gore (who's not even close to a scientist) is wrong. Strawman.
Originally posted by @wildgrass What does this add? This is an opinion journalist's opinion that the real number of scientists that agree with the IPCC consensus might maybe be less than 97%. From the studies and data you've posted here, now we know the real number is closer to 65-67%.
Conservatives love talking about how Al Gore (who's not even close to a scientist) is wrong. Strawman.
Al Gore goes to the White House to convince sitting presidents with his lies. He talked to Trump about it too. If you agree Gore is full of it why is he a representative of GW alarmists? He has no credibility, yet it is considered normal for him to have a strong voice on this issue. He is nothing more than a propagandist, but he started the whole movement! When the guy that started the whole movement did it by intentionally misleading people and nobody calls him on his lies how can anybody take alarmists seriously? Alarmists are driven by ignorance, but they refuse to condemn Gore for promoting that ignorance.
Will you condemn Gore for intentionally misleading people into ignorance? If not you are part of the problem.
Originally posted by @metal-brain Al Gore goes to the White House to convince sitting presidents with his lies. He talked to Trump about it too. If you agree Gore is full of it why is he a representative of GW alarmists? He has no credibility, yet it is considered normal for him to have a strong voice on this issue. He is nothing more than a propagandist, but he started the whole moveme ...[text shortened]... emn Gore for intentionally misleading people into ignorance? If not you are part of the problem.
He's a propagandist by definition. All lobbyists are.
Originally posted by @wildgrass I didn't author the study, just reporting the findings. You seem to think it proves your case about a scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. It does not.
A fair poll would ask them if they knew anything about Kyoto before asking them their opinion about it. All they know is how other people say they feel about it. That is how they form their opinion about it. Their perceived consensus determines the actual consensus. Ignorant followers should not be part of the poll. Just plain common sense.
The news media forms peoples opinions about GW, yet their is still resistance to this influence even from common people. Climate scientists are less affected by this propaganda from the news media.
I am very confident that a fair poll would reveal most climate scientists believe man is NOT the main cause of global warming. Until that is done you have no proof that man is the main cause. That would explain why alarmists have no interest in a fair poll. They know it would prove most climate scientists are skeptics of an anthropogenic cause and the carbon tax would die as it should.
Originally posted by @metal-brain A fair poll would ask them if they knew anything about Kyoto before asking them their opinion about it. All they know is how other people say they feel about it. That is how they form their opinion about it. Their perceived consensus determines the actual consensus. Ignorant followers should not be part of the poll. Just plain common sense.
The news ...[text shortened]... ate scientists are skeptics of an anthropogenic cause and the carbon tax would die as it should.
You posted the study in response to a request for a peer-reviewed article that supports your position. It's already been pointed out that this study does not do that.
Again, you are undermining the results of your own references.
Originally posted by @metal-brain You brought up Al Gore, not me.
Will you condemn Gore for deliberately misleading the pubic?
Yeeeikes. Did you read the Forbes article you posted? It brings up the former Supreme Court defendant in nearly every paragraph. We've moved beyond the 97%. The science is clear, but it isn't that settled.
Originally posted by @wildgrass What does this add? This is an opinion journalist's opinion that the real number of scientists that agree with the IPCC consensus might maybe be less than 97%. From the studies and data you've posted here, now we know the real number is closer to 65-67%.
Conservatives love talking about how Al Gore (who's not even close to a scientist) is wrong. Strawman.
You got it wrong. I am in that 97% and that estimate is not likely lower as you claim. Try reading the article in detail next time.
I don't doubt the 97% estimate since I would be part of it. It just isn't what some people think it is. Any negligible amount of AGW would put me in that 97% and since there is a negligible influence in my opinion even a skeptic like me belongs in that 97%.
Originally posted by @wildgrass You posted the study in response to a request for a peer-reviewed article that supports your position. It's already been pointed out that this study does not do that.
Again, you are undermining the results of your own references.
Originally posted by @metal-brain Have you forgotten what my position is?
Your position is that there is no scientific consensus that the fraction of global warming caused by humans is >50%. This article does not not address that.
Originally posted by @metal-brain You got it wrong. I am in that 97% and that estimate is not likely lower as you claim. Try reading the article in detail next time.
I don't doubt the 97% estimate since I would be part of it. It just isn't what some people think it is. Any negligible amount of AGW would put me in that 97% and since there is a negligible influence in my opinion even a skeptic like me belongs in that 97%.
If you're trying to win an argument, try to be consistent with exactly what you're talking about. It sounds like you're changing your own definition of what a primary cause of global warming is. We spent pages coming to an agreement on that, and now you're changing it?
Originally posted by @wildgrass Your position is that there is no scientific consensus that the fraction of global warming caused by humans is >50%. This article does not not address that.
Right, but you have no proof otherwise. You have proved nothing despite claiming so with flawed polls that omit more than two thirds of all that were (maybe) sent poll questions. Keep in mind that those that did not send back poll questions might have not received them in the first place. That is a deeply flawed poll!
Anthropogenic global warming myth
22 Nov '17 18:11
Back to Top