Real survey of scientists about Global Warming

[NeoV]

Holy ownage? Can you even read something and comprehend it?

"Interesting that for question 1, 100% didn't say yes"

97% of the scientists WHO STUDY CLIMATOLOGY answered yes.

Other scientists polled - like meteorologists and petroleum scientists, had far lower percentages - 64 and 47 % respectively - Hence the comment -"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". The fact pointed out in the survey is that 97% of climatologists - the scientists that know these facts/studies/theories inside and out, agree that humans are influencing the warming trend we are experiencing.

Thanks Sagalore, what was I thinking - you of course know more about how to conduct a survey of scientists than the people involved here - they should have just contacted you.

Some of you are so blinded that you can't even comprehend what you are reading - mods included - Fern - I was pointing out that Corn-based ethanol was an example of a 'painful step', but I do believe that the work done in that field of research will lead to more promising uses, such as switchgrass, but if we don't start now, we'll never get there.

 

[ericlp]

Now that bush is out of the picture maybe we can see the "REAL" numbers.

That being said, maybe some of you nah sayers should watch six degrees on national geographic channel. A real eye opener.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: ericlp
Now that bush is out of the picture maybe we can see the "REAL" numbers.

That being said, maybe some of you nah sayers should watch six degrees on national geographic channel. A real eye opener.

It's going to be a harsh reality that all of the world's problems and mysteries don't stem from Bush.

 

[silverpig]

The truth as to what is happening with the earth is independent of what anyone, scientist or not, thinks is happening.

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: 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.

I haven't since I work for a private company that doesn't need government money. However, scientists are people too. Scientist like any other group of people can and will do what it takes for funding.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: 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.

Nuclear power is currently the most viable option and it largely being ignored by those that claim that GW is a big problem. This basically tells me there is no serious problem, because if there was this is the obvious solution.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

-snip-

I'm sorry Sagalore, but your post is full of fail.

Why would 100% of scientists answer yes to question 1? We don't have entirely reliable data from pre-1800's times on global temperatures. Most scientists look at the available evidence and conclude that temperatures have increased, but there is certainly room for uncertainty, thus the less than 100% mark. You're right it either did, or it didn't, but because you don't know enough about this topic you don't understand why someone might answer no, or at least be unwilling to say yes.

As for your analysis of question 2, your first problem is that you inexplicably distribute the 10% that you incorrectly decided didn't know anything across both fields. Don't you think there's a significant possibility that the people who don't feel they can say the earth was warmed are more likely to disagree with mankind having played a role in the temperature change that they don't even think happened? Why would someone answer 'no' to question 1, and then 'yes' to question 2? Your decision to do that throws logic in the trash can.

As for your dismissal of question number two because it was an opinion question... I can only say 'duh'?. It's a survey. What did you think they were going to be asking if not opinions? You seem to view a climatologists opinion on the state of the science as equivalent to asking you paper or plastic at the supermarket. Their opinions are based on a lifetime of research into the subject, so when they say something, it means something.

The reasons you didn't see one of other questions you posed is because the answer to it is considered so obvious that it goes without asking. Many factors influence global temperatures, and everyone who knows even the slightest thing about the climate knows this... so 100% of people would have said yes to your first 'new' question. The second question posed is a bit better, but misses the point. With or without a runaway greenhouse effect, the effects of global warming are still really really bad.

Shame on all the right wingers who think her post was anything other than an epic failure.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: NeoV
Holy ownage? Can you even read something and comprehend it?

"Interesting that for question 1, 100% didn't say yes"

97% of the scientists WHO STUDY CLIMATOLOGY answered yes.

Other scientists polled - like meteorologists and petroleum scientists, had far lower percentages - 64 and 47 % respectively - Hence the comment -"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". The fact pointed out in the survey is that 97% of climatologists - the scientists that know these facts/studies/theories inside and out, agree that humans are influencing the warming trend we are experiencing.

Can you?

Your entire argument depends on the premise that Global Warming is real, and you're picking numbers that match your belief, and disregarding the rest as anomalous. My reply has nothing to do with your argument. I'm simply picking apart the survey, which is worthless. I can also ask a bunch of Computer Engineers "Do you believe that QWERTY keyboards have a significant contribution to the growth of the Internet?" and we'll come up with similar statistics for the same moronic reason.

I believe global warming is real. I believe we contribute to global temperature fluctuations by cutting down rain forests and burning fossil fuels. I don't believe our contribution is permanent or will make significant changes long-term. I believe this survey was poorly created and presented to the reader. I believe you were their target audience.

 

[daniel49]

me too, pass me a blanket and turn up the furnace will ya?:thumbsup:

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Why would 100% of scientists answer yes to question 1? We don't have entirely reliable data from pre-1800's times on global temperatures. Most scientists look at the available evidence and conclude that temperatures have increased, but there is certainly room for uncertainty, thus the less than 100% mark. You're right it either did, or it didn't, but because you don't know enough about this topic you don't understand why someone might answer no, or at least be unwilling to say yes.

You might want to discuss this with NeoV. We're talking about science here. Or are we? No wait, we're talking about a survey of mixed scientists and global warming. Are you saying that the climatologists have no factual basis for believing in global warming?

As for your analysis of question 2, your first problem is that you inexplicably distribute the 10% that you incorrectly decided didn't know anything across both fields. Don't you think there's a significant possibility that the people who don't feel they can say the earth was warmed are more likely to disagree with mankind having played a role in the temperature change that they don't even think happened? Why would someone answer 'no' to question 1, and then 'yes' to question 2? Your decision to do that throws logic in the trash can.

You just pointed out why I think this survey is worthless. :thumbsup:

 

[Budmantom]

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.

:beer:

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Why would 100% of scientists answer yes to question 1? We don't have entirely reliable data from pre-1800's times on global temperatures. Most scientists look at the available evidence and conclude that temperatures have increased, but there is certainly room for uncertainty, thus the less than 100% mark. You're right it either did, or it didn't, but because you don't know enough about this topic you don't understand why someone might answer no, or at least be unwilling to say yes.

You might want to discuss this with NeoV. We're talking about science here. Or are we? No wait, we're talking about a survey of mixed scientists and global warming. Are you saying that the climatologists have no factual basis for believing in global warming?

As for your analysis of question 2, your first problem is that you inexplicably distribute the 10% that you incorrectly decided didn't know anything across both fields. Don't you think there's a significant possibility that the people who don't feel they can say the earth was warmed are more likely to disagree with mankind having played a role in the temperature change that they don't even think happened? Why would someone answer 'no' to question 1, and then 'yes' to question 2? Your decision to do that throws logic in the trash can.

You just pointed out why I think this survey is worthless. :thumbsup:

No, not at all. What I'm saying is that you have incorrectly characterized the first question as one with no room for disagreement. Climatologists certainly have a factual basis for accepting global warming, but only a fool would say that they have complete knowledge of temperatures since the 1700's. As with all science, climatologists take their understanding of the facts available and draw the best possible conclusions based upon them. With incomplete knowledge there is room for disagreement, and that's certainly a plausible reason for less than 100% of people surveyed to say 'yes' to question #1. Your characterization of it as a basic knowledge question that would discount further opinions was false and irresponsible of you. It is particularly bad considering you were attempting to critique the survey and were using such poor logic to do it.

I'm sorry that you think the survey is worthless due to false attributions on your part, but that's not my fault, nor is it the fault of those doing the survey.

 

[Squisher]

I have no problem with GW being attributed to man made causes. However, this does give credence to the notion that changing man's behavior is the best solution to the problem and this is just not always the case. I prefer that anything done is done so as to provide the greatest return on investment. Common sense most often leans to treating the cause rather than masking the symptoms, but with GW this not always the best solution.

 

[glenn1]

Originally posted by: 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).

Yeah, forget that old fashioned scientific method, it's far more preferrable to use opinion polling to address the question of Global Warming.

 

[smokeyjoe]

Originally posted by: 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.

Look, I can do that too! Real?, Fake?, Scam?.. What hockey stick?

Did you know there was a Global Cooling scare in the 1970's? OMG! Terror Alert, Code Blue! And maybe it's happening again! Brrrr

I am anti pollution and pro clean energy.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: 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).

Imagine how much coal demand would decrease for the production of electricity, if everyone in the world would quit using computers, and moniters, and printers, and televisions, and radios, and mp3 players, and cell phones, and artifical lights, and refrigerators, and freezers, and home heat, and air conditioning, and on and on, and on and on.......

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Yeah, forget that old fashioned scientific method, it's far more preferrable to use opinion polling to address the question of Global Warming.

Or maybe they are using the opinion polling of people who spend their lives using the scientific method on the subject as a quick way to convey information on informed evaluation of the science.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: smokeyjoe

Originally posted by: 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.

Look, I can do that too! Real?, Fake?, Scam?.. What hockey stick?

Did you know there was a Global Cooling scare in the 1970's? OMG! Terror Alert, Code Blue! And maybe it's happening again! Brrrr

I am anti pollution and pro clean energy.

Did Al Gore invent that one too?

 

[kylebisme]

You can always find a few idiots who'll argue against reality, many are paid quite well to do so.

 

[irwincur]

I think the fact that Global Warming went from a $100 million dollar industry to a $30 billion dollar industry in a decade has a lot to do with the scientific opinion. Of course they will agree with it - it pays them a fortune in grant money and R&D contracts.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: irwincur
I think the fact that Global Warming went from a $100 million dollar industry to a $30 billion dollar industry in a decade has a lot to do with the scientific opinion. Of course they will agree with it - it pays them a fortune in grant money and R&D contracts.

negative

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: irwincur
I think the fact that Global Warming went from a $100 million dollar industry to a $30 billion dollar industry in a decade...

Is that even a fact? Regardless, that is still far less money than in in the pollution industry.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Well you have Obama as President, a majority of the house and senate.. FIX IT!

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Well you have Obama as President, a majority of the house and senate.. FIX IT!

I imagine they will. I fully anticipate some comprehensive climate change legislation in Obama's first term.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: 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.

I haven't since I work for a private company that doesn't need government money. However, scientists are people too. Scientist like any other group of people can and will do what it takes for funding.

Your ethics are appalling. Luckily, most scientists are not like you.