Sea level rise

@deepthought said
Well, a rational argument might be to point to self-selection bias. One could argue that a hypothesis such as the following hasn't been ruled out:

"Climatologists who think global warming is due to anthropogenic causes are more likely to answer polls about it.".

The difficulty with a poll with a random email is that those that do hold a minority position might feel ...[text shortened]... ding to it. I haven't read the paper and don't have any kind of intuition about how likely that is.

There you go. I guess you can be open minded at times.

A majority must be polled to begin with. Anything less is suspect.

@deepthought said
Well, a rational argument might be to point to self-selection bias. One could argue that a hypothesis such as the following hasn't been ruled out:

"Climatologists who think global warming is due to anthropogenic causes are more likely to answer polls about it.".

The difficulty with a poll with a random email is that those that do hold a minority position might feel ...[text shortened]... ding to it. I haven't read the paper and don't have any kind of intuition about how likely that is.

Point taken. But then there is the possibility of climatologists who think global warming is NOT due to anthropogenic causes are actually the one's more likely to answer polls about it! So, yes, So, yes, that may well cause some (inadvertent) sample bias, but it is difficult to guess which way that would bias the estimate, up or down.
I don't know what we can do about that source of uncertainty because I don't see how we realistically make a poll ask literally ALL of them and FORCE every one of them to answer the question!
But, since we don't know the amount of the bias from that source nor which way the bias goes, at least until if or when we have new relevant information and/or have reason to think the contrary (which we yet to have), I assert that our most rational DEFAULT best guess should be the result of those polls do show approximately what proportion think this. This is because, at least for now, the polls are our ONLY good source of relevant information to make such an estimate.

@humy said
Point taken. But then there is the possibility of climatologists who think global warming is NOT due to anthropogenic causes are actually the one's more likely to answer polls about it! So, yes, So, yes, that may well cause some (inadvertent) sample bias, but it is difficult to guess which way that would bias the estimate, up or down.
I don't know what we can do about that sour ...[text shortened]... least for now, the polls are our ONLY good source of relevant information to make such an estimate.

Any idea what the exact results for this poll was? metalbrain is saying it's 60 out of 200 possible respondents so if there were no majority one would have at least 100 climate consensus skeptics - I'm assuming the question was: "Is there a consensus" rather than "I believe the theory.". If 100% of them replied positively and there's no source of bias the probability the null hypothesis below is true is astronomically small. So we need to examine this bias a bit.

Null hypotheses: "The likelihood a climate scientist responds to this theory does not depend of what his or her answer is. There are at least 100 climate scientists who will respond negatively."

If it's plausible that if those who didn't think the evidence was quite good enough to put the anthropogenic theory at the level of "it's a done deal." also didn't want to risk their answer being misunderstood and used as ammunition by climate denial websites then there's a systematic problem, so I wonder how they controlled for it, if at all.

Drawing an analogy with particle physics there's a 0 - 5 scale of how much proof you feel you need to agree with a statement along the lines of:

0 - "I've just had an idea, what if..."
1 - "This is my pet theory which has not been shown to be phenomenologically consistent with the standard model at energies we've probed and gives plausible results at higher energies."
2 - "I believe the theory and it's someone elses"
3 - "the theory is good"
4 - "this is the new standard model.".
5 - "This is the unique Theory of Everything: Fundamental physics is solved.".

The climate scientists might have felt that they were being asked to give 4 on that scale and that's a very high standard of proof.

@deepthought said
Any idea what the exact results for this poll was? metalbrain is saying it's 60 out of 200 possible respondents so if there were no majority one would have at least 100 climate consensus skeptics - I'm assuming the question was: "Is there a consensus" rather than "I believe the theory.". If 100% of them replied positively and there's no source of bias the probability the ...[text shortened]... ve felt that they were being asked to give 4 on that scale and that's a very high standard of proof.

What gets me is where the skeptics of any science would readily admit the scientific method behind any random science, physics, say, or organic chemistry, is totally acceptable but the science involved in a particular conspiracy theory is totally false, like RJ Hinds' tirade against the old Earth idea, where he maintains Earth is 6000 years old PERIOD, no argument accepted.

Then you point out carbon dating and all of a sudden THAT discipline is bogus since it can show things near ten times older than the 6K years old he thinks Earth is.
Kelly put out two video's about abiogenesis where now the science behind Origin Of Life (OOL) studies are bogus because they go against the teachings of the bible even though I point out OOL studies are still in kindergarten so to speak and cannot see that scientific knowledge is growing exponentially and the argument they think they have today is not going to work against science that will undoubtedly advance to in say 100 years from now.

It matters little to them that science advances and one dude HAD to point out to me, Ok, then you have 'faith'. Like now seeing that science advances is just faith, implying your religion is science.

https://principia-scientific.org/greenhouse-gas-theory-is-false/

@metal-brain said
60 out of 200 is 30%.

I am not aware of any poll of climate scientists that polled more than 30%
Are you?

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

97%

@athousandyoung said
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

97%

Do those 97% say man is the cause? Nope!

You might be able to find a poll from science organizations, but those are not climate scientists. You do not even have to be a scientist to be a member of some science organizations.

You need to read the original peer reviewed article to know you are not being mislead. For example, scientists are not always climate scientists. People can become members of some science organizations without being a scientist at all. Also, the IPCC is a political organization, not a science panel.

You do value climate scientists' opinions more than the uninformed, right?

Here is an article from 2014 that might be of interest to you.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/02/climate_consensus_con_game.html

@metal-brain said
Do those 97% say man is the cause? Nope!

You might be able to find a poll from science organizations, but those are not climate scientists. You do not even have to be a scientist to be a member of some science organizations.

You need to read the original peer reviewed article to know you are not being mislead. For example, scientists are not always climate scientis ...[text shortened]... interest to you.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/02/climate_consensus_con_game.html

Here is what a lot of people think of American Thinker. They call it American STINKER.

And you go back to SINGER as your authority? What is he in 2014, 112 years old?

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/American_Thinker

@sonhouse said
Here is what a lot of people think of American Thinker. They call it American STINKER.

And you go back to SINGER as your authority? What is he in 2014, 112 years old?

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/American_Thinker

Name calling? That is all you have?

I guess that is one way to avoid facts.

@metal-brain said
Name calling? That is all you have?

I guess that is one way to avoid facts.

Name calling? I just bring out the fact he stopped real science decades ago and the rest of the scientific world has gone way past him and he can't see that.

@sonhouse said
Name calling? I just bring out the fact he stopped real science decades ago and the rest of the scientific world has gone way past him and he can't see that.

Who stopped real science and how?

@metal-brain said
Who stopped real science and how?

It's just that Singer lost the ability to do real science. Most advances come from the 20 or 30 year old set. Look at Einstein, relativity was finished when he was 26 not 84.
That said, in my own case, my much lower level of general intelligence has still produced more creativity at age 77 (in music anyway) than I had when I was 30.
At that age I was playing in an Irish band and was more interested in just learning my craft, that is to say, learning as many new Irish tunes as I could given the fact I also had a tech job.
Now I am still doing tech jobs but now have 84 tunes on Soundcloud, about 50 of them my own compositions, acoustic guitar, mandolin, and keyboards.
But it seems I am perhaps a bit unique in that. Not many 70+ year olds do that.
From Singer, all I see is the repeat of his old work from 40 years ago not new work say based on the latest sat images and such.
If you think I am bullshyting about my tunes, I can PM who I am on Soundcloud and you can listen for yourself.
I had a really good teacher, a genius on acoustic country blues, he knew backwards and forwards the guitar work of the genius of the early 20th century artists like Mississippi John Hurt, Rev. Gary Davis, Robert Johnson, Blind Blake and the like. His name, recording name, that is was in fact BACKWARDS Sam Firk.
He got that from his buddies noticing the initials of his real name, Michael A. Stewart, is SAM spelled backwards. So later someone tacked on Firk and it stuck.
He recorded with John Fahey very early on which shows just how much of a virtuoso he actually was for that field of country blues.
He recorded on Adelphi records with another virtuoso, a guy with a Phd in economics, Stephan Michaeson, AKA Delta X.
Sorry to go off track, just trying to say who my main mentor was in music.

@sonhouse said
It's just that Singer lost the ability to do real science. Most advances come from the 20 or 30 year old set. Look at Einstein, relativity was finished when he was 26 not 84.
That said, in my own case, my much lower level of general intelligence has still produced more creativity at age 77 (in music anyway) than I had when I was 30.
At that age I was playing in an Irish ba ...[text shortened]... Michaeson, AKA Delta X.
Sorry to go off track, just trying to say who my main mentor was in music.

That is narrow minded of you. Some people are late bloomers.

@metal-brain said
That is narrow minded of you. Some people are late bloomers.

How is that narrow minded? I admitted I am more creative now at 77 than I was at 30, for whatever reason. Some scientists work into their 90's but that doesn't mean they are doing their best work at that age.