Real survey of scientists about Global Warming

[NeoV]

Article Here

Various types of Geoscience scientists surveyed.

Overall, 82% agreed that human activity has played a significant role in the increase of global mean temperatures (90% agreed with a rise in global mean temps).

Interesting that 97% of climatologists - people that actually study this stuff, agreed that humans are playing a role.

Only 64% of meteorologists, and 47% of Petroleum Geologists, agreed that humans are playing a role in this increase.

Good line from one of the survey's authors "The more you know about the field of climate science, the more likely you're to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it".

Before any of you closet PHD's in climatology chime in - oops, that's right, NO ONE on AT P&N is one of those - these are people that know more about this stuff THAN ALL OF US PUT TOGETHER.

IF that isn't a consensus, I don't know what is.

This doesn't mean the issue isn't open for debate, but it does mean that ANY of the psudo-science that the anti-gw crowd likes to pull out of their arses, like "it's a solar issue, the temp on Mars is increasing as well" - these scientists are pretty much giving you the finger, they know this stuff and have actual data and research behind their opinions, not talking points BS and outright lies.

Put aside your hatred of all things Gore, and ask yourself - what's so bad about reducing pollution and lowering our dependence on foreign oil? There might be some painful steps to get there, like corn-based ethanol, but it's a step in the right direction, and although it's 30 years later than it should have been, I'm happy to see these things are finally front and center, and not election year jokes (Bush mocked Gore's proposal to give tax credits to owners of electric or hybrid cars in 1999 btw).

 

[Slick5150]

I've been working with a number of climatologists over the past year or so, and agree that once you start learning more about this stuff and go beyond the talking points on either side, the evidence is pretty overwhelming. I went into this with a fairly limited knowledge on the subject other than what you see on TV, but its amazing the research that's been done on the subject and what they've come up with.

 

[GoPackGo]

Especially when their jobs and funding are at stake.

 

[fskimospy]

I love how when the overwhelming majority of the most knowledgeable people in the world say that they accept man made global warming, they are simply being paid off. When a small minority of climatologists (who have frequently gotten money from anti-MMGW sources) state differently, it's PROOF.

If you have decided that you can't believe what nearly 100% of the world's climatologists state as their professional opinion, what you're really arguing for is the abolishment of climatology.

EDIT: Oh, and color me shocked that this isn't up on Dailytech.

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: NeoV
Good line from one of the survey's authors "The more you know about the field of climate science, the more likely you're to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it".

Do they have statistics that support that statement , as well?

Before any of you closet PHD's in climatology chime in - oops, that's right, NO ONE on AT P&N is one of those - these are people that know more about this stuff THAN ALL OF US PUT TOGETHER.

Good for them. It won't stop me from thinking for myself, though

IF that isn't a consensus, I don't know what is.

Concensus, yes. Science, no.

This doesn't mean the issue isn't open for debate, but it does mean that ANY of the psudo-science that the anti-gw crowd likes to pull out of their arses, like "it's a solar issue, the temp on Mars is increasing as well" - these scientists are pretty much giving you the finger, they know this stuff and have actual data and research behind their opinions, not talking points BS and outright lies.

No, they're making logical, rational, and thoughtful arguements that you happen to disagree with. In essece, it is you who is giving them the finger by brushing aside their arguements. It has been established that a number of AGW models do not include solar activity as a factor.

Put aside your hatred of all things Gore, and ask yourself - what's so bad about reducing pollution and lowering our dependence on foreign oil? There might be some painful steps to get there, like corn-based ethanol, but it's a step in the right direction, and although it's 30 years later than it should have been, I'm happy to see these things are finally front and center, and not election year jokes (Bush mocked Gore's proposal to give tax credits to owners of electric or hybrid cars in 1999 btw).

I personally wouldn't care if Jesus Christ made manifest in the flesh was pushing an AGW agenda - the fact remains that the world is suffering from a massive economic crisis, which, in turn, creates a massive humanitarian crisis. It has been well established that the cost to begin curbing Carbon Emissions is economically prohibitive even in a favorable economic climate. Factor in all the opposing arguements, and it seems a bit prudent to take our time and let technology advance at its own pace and expense.

Call me when one of these guys creates a model that can accurately predict past and future events, and demonstrates that the benefits of their agenda outweigh the costs associated with it, and maybe I'll buy into it.

Until then, throwing around 'percentages of people who agree with me' just seems kinda desparate.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Especially when their jobs and funding are at stake.

Yep... global conspiracy by climatologists to keep the funding flowing.

They aren't making boatloads of money doing this research. And it is actually in their interest to disprove current models and come up with a better model since in the process they'll make a huge name for themselves.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: NeoV
-snip-
...ask yourself - what's so bad about reducing pollution and lowering our dependence on foreign oil? There might be some painful steps to get there, like corn-based ethanol, but it's a step in the right direction, and although it's 30 years later than it should have been, I'm happy to see these things are finally front and center, and not election year jokes (Bush mocked Gore's proposal to give tax credits to owners of electric or hybrid cars in 1999 btw).

I'm all for reducing pollution - but prefer we focus on mercury, sulfur etc.

Seems to me that focus has been lost on CO2, which is plant food.

Oh, and corn ethanol is a terrible idea. First of all burning your food for fuel is completely stupid (and hasn't anybody else heard of food shortages in various places around the world?), and CO2 reduction is highly suspect.

Corn ethanol production has also released a tremendous amount pollution (nitrogen fertilizer) into the Gulf of Mexico from runoff in the MS river and caused an enormous 'dead zone' killing all acquatic life.

The emotionalism and support of 'cures worse than the decease' by people like yourself cause me to hope the brakes will put on the 'blind rush' forward in your anti-CO2 crusade.

Fern

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: inspire

Call me when one of these guys creates a model that can accurately predict past and future events, and demonstrates that the benefits of their agenda outweigh the costs associated with it, and maybe I'll buy into it.

If you insist on waiting for that, it may be too late to do anything about saving humanity. In fact, it may already be too late, but don't let little things like the facts like strong evidence that human activity is causing global warming get in the way of your preconceived misunderstanding of science or that, if you're wrong, the alternative could mean the end of our existence.

Great thinking, there. :roll:

Originally posted by: Fern

Seems to me that focus has been lost on CO2, which is plant food.

It is until there's too much of it in the wrong places. When it's concentrated in the upper atmosphere, it isn't feeding any plants, but it IS trapping heat below it and knocking holes in the ozone layer, allowing more UV radiation to reach the earth's surface.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Especially when their jobs and funding are at stake.

amazing the bitterness and mistrust that those completely ignorant of the scientific community have for those who actually work in science.

The argument is tired and irrelevant. There is spurious data on both sides, and it doesn't really bare repeating that the most doctored agenda-driven reports have come from the oil industry-driven reports. It's really not such a factor anymore.

Bottom line: If you have no appreciation for the scientific method, let alone an actual ability to properly scrutinize a primary source journal article as an experienced scientist would, one really doesn't have a valid opinion in the matter.

Why assume that scientists who depend on proper analysis, who must pass peer-review and face excommunication from the community with only the slightest hint of doctored reports are in any why interested in publishing dishonest data? It's really mind-boggling the laymen crowd that absolutely distrusts the real work that goes on b/c of some unfounded paranoid delusion that the people that do this work are willing to risk their careers over fudged data.

Mind-boggling. If you're not part of that community, you wouldn't understand, I suppose.

Just because Rush or whoever else translates a paper into their own language doesn't mean they are a valid resource for reporting the research.

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: Harvey

If you insist on waiting for that, it may be too late to do anything about saving humanity. In fact, it may already be too late, but don't let little things like the facts like strong evidence that human activity is causing global warming get in the way of your preconceived misunderstanding of science or that, if you're wrong, the alternative could mean the end of our existence.

Great thinking, there. :roll:

Thanks! It's proven to be right more often than the AGW doomsday scenarios. Call me a Bayesian, but I'm just playing the odds.

Like I said, call me when your 'models' can actually predict past and future events. Until then, you can insult my thinking if it keeps you warm on the freezing winter nights.

Cheers! :beer:

EDIT: You're reaching pretty far here, too - even if AGW is true, the idea of an irreversable doomsday scenario is not supported by mainstream scientists, and is an emotional red herring, at best. Show me data, and models that work, not buzzwords and science via democracy.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: NeoV
Overall, 82% agreed that human activity has played a significant role in the increase of global mean temperatures (90% agreed with a rise in global mean temps).

Interesting that 97% of climatologists - people that actually study this stuff, agreed that humans are playing a role.

Only 64% of meteorologists, and 47% of Petroleum Geologists, agreed that humans are playing a role in this increase.

...

IF that isn't a consensus, I don't know what is.

Then you don't know what a "consensus" is.

Concensus
Climatology
Meteorology

What you are describing is a majority percentage of those polled. We need to know how many were polled from each field, and what the exact question was. We need a quantifiable range assigned to "significant" and need to find out if that was defined for the contributor to the poll or if it remained ambiguous.

So here we go:

- according to a recent U.S. survey based on the opinions of 3,146 scientists
conducted by academics from the University of Illinois, who used an online questionnaire of nine questions

- The scientists approached were listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments

- Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels,

- and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?

90% of total scientists said Yes to question 1. 82% said Yes to question 2.

Interesting that for question 1, 100% didn't say yes. It either did or didn't - this wasn't a question about opinion. This question is probably gaging the person's knowledge in the field.

And for question 2, they didn't define significant. This was purely a question of opinion. If we only consider 90% of the 82% (since obviously 10% didn't really know what they were talking about), then that leaves us with 73.8% who feel that mankind has been a significant factor in altering this average.

Questions that I don't see in the article or know if they asked would be - do you believe there would be any change in average temperature without human activity? Do you believe human activity will cause a runaway greenhouse effect?

This survey is full of fail.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: SagaLore
-snip-

Good post :thumbsup:

Fern

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Especially when their jobs and funding are at stake.

Yep... global conspiracy by climatologists to keep the funding flowing.

They aren't making boatloads of money doing this research. And it is actually in their interest to disprove current models and come up with a better model since in the process they'll make a huge name for themselves.

You're right they aren't making boatloads, but they make just enough to pay their mortgage and put food on the table. All the more reason to have a bias and keep the funding flowing.

 

[Jaskalas]

I see the religious devout are in full force at P&N even though temperature has dropped since 1998.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
I see the religious devout are in full force at P&N even though temperature has dropped since 1998.

10 years in geological time scales is like a day.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511
10 years in geological time scales is like a day.

In that case, it has only been 4 days since we were all terrified of the next ice age.

Whatever happened to Al Gore's hockey stick?

 

[eilute]

Originally posted by: NeoV
Various types of Geoscience scientists surveyed.

Overall, 82% agreed that human activity has played a significant role in the increase of global mean temperatures (90% agreed with a rise in global mean temps).

Interesting that 97% of climatologists - people that actually study this stuff, agreed that humans are playing a role.

You're just talking about the observed increase. The whole basis for observed human induced global warming, is that CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere. The theory it's self is never attacked.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: NeoV
Overall, 82% agreed that human activity has played a significant role in the increase of global mean temperatures (90% agreed with a rise in global mean temps).

Interesting that 97% of climatologists - people that actually study this stuff, agreed that humans are playing a role.

Only 64% of meteorologists, and 47% of Petroleum Geologists, agreed that humans are playing a role in this increase.

...

IF that isn't a consensus, I don't know what is.

Then you don't know what a "consensus" is.

Concensus
Climatology
Meteorology

What you are describing is a majority percentage of those polled. We need to know how many were polled from each field, and what the exact question was. We need a quantifiable range assigned to "significant" and need to find out if that was defined for the contributor to the poll or if it remained ambiguous.

So here we go:

- according to a recent U.S. survey based on the opinions of 3,146 scientists
conducted by academics from the University of Illinois, who used an online questionnaire of nine questions

- The scientists approached were listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments

- Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels,

- and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?

90% of total scientists said Yes to question 1. 82% said Yes to question 2.

Interesting that for question 1, 100% didn't say yes. It either did or didn't - this wasn't a question about opinion. This question is probably gaging the person's knowledge in the field.

And for question 2, they didn't define significant. This was purely a question of opinion. If we only consider 90% of the 82% (since obviously 10% didn't really know what they were talking about), then that leaves us with 73.8% who feel that mankind has been a significant factor in altering this average.

Questions that I don't see in the article or know if they asked would be - do you believe there would be any change in average temperature without human activity? Do you believe human activity will cause a runaway greenhouse effect?

This survey is full of fail.

holy pwnage

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Especially when their jobs and funding are at stake.

You're projecting your corruption onto honest scientists. They're not like you.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: JS80

You're right they aren't making boatloads, but they make just enough to pay their mortgage and put food on the table. All the more reason to have a bias and keep the funding flowing.

You're projecting your corruption onto honest scientists. They're not like you.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: inspire

Thanks! It's proven to be right more often than the AGW doomsday scenarios. Call me a Bayesian, but I'm just playing the odds.

No, you're not. When the worst case down side if you're wrong is so huge, it's worth pursuing viable solutions, especially since improved energy efficiency and a cleaner environment also save us money. The only ones bitching about it are those with entrenched interests in the current models.

:beer: :thumbsup: Back at ya.

 

[smokeyjoe]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: JS80

You're right they aren't making boatloads, but they make just enough to pay their mortgage and put food on the table. All the more reason to have a bias and keep the funding flowing.

You're projecting your corruption onto honest scientists. They're not like you.

I guess we need to do a morality survey on the ~3,000 scientists too.

http://www.climatescienceinter...k=view&id=37&Itemid=54

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: smokeyjoe

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: JS80

You're right they aren't making boatloads, but they make just enough to pay their mortgage and put food on the table. All the more reason to have a bias and keep the funding flowing.

You're projecting your corruption onto honest scientists. They're not like you.

I guess we need to do a morality survey on the ~3,000 scientists too.

http://www.climatescienceinter...k=view&id=37&Itemid=54

You can start here,
here, or here.

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Especially when their jobs and funding are at stake.

QFT

true scientists believe in fact not popular opinion; futhermore, true scientists believe in allowing different views when all the facts are not known

EDITED: but scientists are people too

<---- scientist (chemist)

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Especially when their jobs and funding are at stake.

QFT

true scientists believe in fact not popular opinion; futhermore, true scientists believe in allowing different views when all the facts are not known

EDITED: but scientists are people too

<---- scientist (chemist)

So, what scientific issues have you lied about for money? Since you say that's what scientists do.