You don't say...
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
Because those 'one third' of studies were the ones that were actually relevant to the subject of the consensus.
Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.
So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.
Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.
That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)
The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation?
Source:
Forbes Welcome
So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.
Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.
That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)
The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation?
Source:
Forbes Welcome
Ya but...........It's not "Official"
Probably. Have you ever heard of "psychology"? Researchers usually test people and stuff to challenge an hypothesis.
It is comical that YOU, Mr. Cannot-be-bothered-to-even-put-your-OPs-about-a-particular-topic-into-one-forum-topic, should be the one to post Einstein's famous quotation.
Was the quote profound for you?
1998 huh! Hehehe. Is it any wonder why the AGW deniers seem to be losing the debate?
The study is not the problem, usually, it is the conclusions that usually are the problem.
Psychology is a soft science and not on the same level of credibility as something like physics.
I don't think that quote is profound but I'm sure there are some intelligent people that do.
The old debunked talking points are still making the rounds.
hehe Well, 32 out of 33 is. One can twist stats if one uses loose definitions.
hahaha See what I mean, Jin?
There's no twisting.
You don't look at studies that do not address the question of a consensus lol
You don't look at studies that do not address the question of a consensus lol
Oh, crap. You just had to bring climate up, huh? You do know that it will likely sprout yet one more thread about climate and posters will waste more of their time arguing about that than sticking to the real topic, right?
Because the mysteries of the mind are vast in comparison to the tangible universe. Either way, the process is the same: question, hypothesis, testing, reproducing, analysios, concluding, reporting.
Interesting. Personally, I would have used the word "stupidity" rather than "insanity".
In here, it seems to be a habit.
Really? It is interesting that you think so.
uhuh "If you cannot dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshtt". - W C Fields
