Another myth bites the dust

[Lord of Planar]

Isn't that 80% to 90% poll question asked something like this:

Q) Do you believe than mankind's activities have contributed to Global Warming.

I have seen a few of these, and the ones I have seen were never worded to as if global warming was human caused. That's just the reinterpretation of it.

My answer would be yes also.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Apart from the one dodgy 2009 97% Doran Zimmermann poll what 'other' surveys are you talking about ?

I think he means this, :lol:


"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”.

 

[WCH]

Well, that, and their hope and belief that we hold the fate of the world in our hands. Pretty delusional if you ask me.

There's the 'control' part.

"If I just buy this coffin of a car, brainwash my children and agree to pay whatever taxes/fees you want from me, there's still time to save the planet" 8)

 

[OscarB63]

I blame this whole global warming fiasco on Captain Planet and the Planeteers.

 

[Visbek]

Talk about clutching for straws :lol:.The authors of the study and you are doing just that....

Let's try this again.

• The goal of this study was to figure out how positions in institutions -- like petroleum companies or governments -- influence the discourse scientists use to discuss global warming amongst themselves.
• The study was NEVER intended to determine "what percentage of scientists believe that humans are influencing global warming."
• Taylor misinterpreted the study.
• The authors corrected this misinterpretation.

Stating that "the authors have no idea what their own study means" just doesn't fly.

....the very fact that they reject the Kyoto protocol proves they reject the AGW theory.

No, it doesn't. If you read the paper, out of the individuals sampled -- who are not supposed to be representative of all scientists anyway -- many who believe in AGW do not believe the Kyoto Protocol will be effective. This point was DIRECTLY addressed in the author's response.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Let's try this again.

• The goal of this study was to figure out how positions in institutions -- like petroleum companies or governments -- influence the discourse scientists use to discuss global warming amongst themselves.
• The study was NEVER intended to determine "what percentage of scientists believe that humans are influencing global warming."
• Taylor misinterpreted the study.
• The authors corrected this misinterpretation.

Stating that "the authors have no idea what their own study means" just doesn't fly.



No, it doesn't. If you read the paper, out of the individuals sampled -- who are not supposed to be representative of all scientists anyway -- many who believe in AGW do not believe the Kyoto Protocol will be effective. This point was DIRECTLY addressed in the author's response.[/QUOTE]

The author showed his own bias with this editorial comment. It seems obvious the author is desperately trying to wiggle out of what came out in his study. It is these accidents that happen in studies that are looking for a certain conclusion that speak the loudest unbiased truth. There is the other link I provided too that was specifically about how less scientist all the time are buying into AGW. The study is a couple years old but I am sure the trend is continuing especially since it has now come out that the earth has not warmed in 15 years.

 

[Visbek]

The author showed his own bias with this editorial comment....

Please.

In order for your argument to work, you need to simultaneously support and bash the credibility of the study. You need to insist that its survey results are accurate, and that the authors are biased against their own published results. This position is beyond convoluted.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Please.

In order for your argument to work, you need to simultaneously support and bash the credibility of the study. You need to insist that its survey results are accurate, and that the authors are biased against their own published results. This position is beyond convoluted.

At some point you are going to have to wake up and smell the coffee. The warmer models have not panned out, the earth has not warmed in 15 years even though C02 has increased dramatically and scientist are bailing on the AGW theory in droves. Clinging to this false God of yours is mentally unhealthy. This study inadvertently found out that scientist are abandoning the theory and rejecting Kyoto, it's over. Time for a new sky is falling scenario. I have seen several of them come and go in my brief 60 years on this planet.

 

[ARealConservative]

Even scientist are smart enough

lolwut

 

[code1211]

Unsurprisingly, James Taylor misrepresented or did not understand the study in his Forbes blog post.

The authors responded directly to the Forbes article:

Dear Mr. Taylor -

Thank you for the attention you are giving to our research and continuing the discussion about how professional engineers and geoscientists view climate change. We would like to emphasize a few points in order to avoid any confusion about the results.

First and foremost, our study is not a representative survey. Although our data set is large and diverse enough for our research questions, it cannot be used for generalizations such as “respondents believe …” or “scientists don’t believe …” Our research reconstructs the frames the members of a professional association hold about the issue and the argumentative patterns and legitimation strategies these professionals use when articulating their assumptions. Our research does not investigate the distribution of these frames and, thus, does not allow for any conclusions in this direction. We do point this out several times in the paper, and it is important to highlight it again.

In addition, even within the confines of our non-representative data set, the interpretation that a majority of the respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of global warming is simply not correct. To the contrary: the majority believes that humans do have their hands in climate change, even if many of them believe that humans are not the only cause. What is striking is how little support that the Kyoto Protocol had among our respondents. However, it is also not the case that all frames except “Support Kyoto” are against regulation – the “Regulation Activists” mobilize for a more encompassing and more strongly enforced regulation. Correct interpretations would be, for instance, that – among our respondents – more geoscientists are critical towards regulation (and especially the Kyoto Protocol) than non-geoscientists, or that more people in higher hierarchical positions in the industry oppose regulation than people in lower hierarchical positions.

All frequencies in our paper should only be used to get an idea of the potential influence of these frames – e.g. on policy responses. Surely the insight that those who oppose regulation tend to have more influence on policy-making than the supporters of the Kyoto Protocol should not come as a surprise after Canada dropped out of the protocol a year ago.

But once again: This is not a representative survey and should not be used as such!

We trust that this clarifies our findings. Thank you again for your attention.

Best regards,
Lianne Lefsrud and Renate Meyer
Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis - Forbes

On a side note, pretty much every other survey of scientific opinion has put belief in human-caused global warming in the 80-90% range.

I know it's hard when the facts are not on your side, but: Please stop clutching at straws.

The activities of man have not changed in terms of the emission of CO2.

Why has the effect of these actions as reflected by the global temperature stopped rising?

Here is a link to a web site that has the various climate measuring organizations included. You can interactively plug in whatever dates you would like. Plug in dates from long ago and you will find a warming trend. The closer and closer you get to current, the less and less the warming is shown.

When you get to within a decade or a little less, you find cooling.

If what you say is true, we should be still be warming, but we are not.

Why not?

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

 

[Deuce]

The activities of man have not changed in terms of the emission of CO2.

Why has the effect of these actions as reflected by the global temperature stopped rising?

Here is a link to a web site that has the various climate measuring organizations included. You can interactively plug in whatever dates you would like. Plug in dates from long ago and you will find a warming trend. The closer and closer you get to current, the less and less the warming is shown.

When you get to within a decade or a little less, you find cooling.

If what you say is true, we should be still be warming, but we are not.

Why not?

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

You're yet again treating CO2 as if it is the only variable in play. Why do you insist on this dishonesty over and over again?

 

[Lord of Planar]

You're yet again treating CO2 as if it is the only variable in play. Why do you insist on this dishonesty over and over again?

Dare I say it here?

It's what their masters tell them to believe.

 

[Deuce]

Dare I say it here?

It's what their masters tell them to believe.

The climate denialist masters? Yes, I know. They come up with all sorts of bull**** for people to attack.

 

[flogger]

The climate denialist masters? Yes, I know. They come up with all sorts of bull**** for people to attack.

Just out of curiosity who would they be then ?

I've never known anyone to 'deny' climate .... have you ?

 

[Strucker]

:laughat: typical. anyone who doesn't toe the line and worship at the alter of AGW is either ignorant, politcally motivated or a shill for big oil. :laughat:

Clearly this cannot bother you...because this entire thread is devoted to the idea that all those who support the noton of AGW is politically and/or economically motivated.

That's the whole point of this thread.

 

[code1211]

You're yet again treating CO2 as if it is the only variable in play. Why do you insist on this dishonesty over and over again?

This was in response to the post to which it was a response. That post indicated that mankind is responsible for the warming of the Earth.

The quoted article presents that "...the majority believes that humans do have their hands in climate change, even if many of them believe that humans are not the only cause."

Since the options are to do nothing and allow nature to work its course or end civilization in a pointless effort to counteract CO2 induced climate change, it is important to isolate the cause and if there are many causes, then attribute the causal shares to each cause.

If, as you like to imply, CO2 is a major cause, then where is the evidence?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

But they attempt to ostracize/ discredit any scientist who doesn't agree. Which in itself is as anti scientific as fire is hot. Science is about theory, reproducible results and debate. Without debate science loses it's credibility.

My personal opinion is that the "climate change" scare is really environmentalists who care so much about pollution that they invented a crisis (or capitalized on a natural cycle) to effect change that reduces pollution. I agree that we should do everything in our power to safeguard the environment, but not at the point of lying to get there. Then people like Al Gore saw an opportunity to make a LOT of money by promoting it and governments saw an opportunity to gain more power through it... especially the UN.

It really has been, all along, all about The Emperor's New Clothes. Those who dare to come out and say that His Majesty is standing before us stark naked, have been declared hopelessly stupid or unfit for their positions; while the fools fall over one another praising how beautiful and magnificent the Imperial wardrobe is.

But the naïve child—too young and innocent to understand why he should be intimidated into going along with the lie—has been heard. The Emperor is naked, and the fools who refuse to admit it are falling into a shrinking minority.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

:laughat: typical. anyone who doesn't toe the line and worship at the alter of AGW is either ignorant, politcally motivated or a shill for big oil. :laughat:

And anyone who cannot see the spectacular new clothes that The Emperor is wearing is hopelessly stupid, incompetent, or unfit for his position.

 

[CaptinSarcastic]

Talk about clutching for straws :lol:.The authors of the study and you are doing just that.

Wait, what???

Are you actually, really, an truly arguing that the editorial conclusions inferred by an opinion writer has accurately analyzed the research and the authors of this peer reviewed research are wrong?

Talk about clutching for straws!!!

"Mr. Einstein, I'm an opinion writer for the Tribune, and this is what your research means..."

LMFAO

 

[Visbek]

That post indicated that mankind is responsible for the warming of the Earth.

You're missing the point.

The authors of the study are trying to correct Taylor's misinterpretation of their study. Part of it is that the authors are saying that "the majority of people in our polling group do, in fact, believe humans are causing some, if not all, of the global warming.

 

[American]

Does anyone remember the global cooling crisses

Yeah, the Russians have brought it back. They're ahead of the curve. :lol:

 

[Deuce]

Just out of curiosity who would they be then ?

I've never known anyone to 'deny' climate .... have you ?

It's a term used for the people who have outright lied to you. For example, literally fabricated temperature data and attributing it to NASA. But they put it in a "documentary" so your "skeptic" buddies took it as gospel.

 

[Deuce]

This was in response to the post to which it was a response. That post indicated that mankind is responsible for the warming of the Earth.

The quoted article presents that "...the majority believes that humans do have their hands in climate change, even if many of them believe that humans are not the only cause."

Since the options are to do nothing and allow nature to work its course or end civilization in a pointless effort to counteract CO2 induced climate change, it is important to isolate the cause and if there are many causes, then attribute the causal shares to each cause.

If, as you like to imply, CO2 is a major cause, then where is the evidence?

Where's the evidence that the sun affects temperature?

 

[OscarB63]

Where's the evidence that the sun affects temperature?

bizzaro superman say: Day hot, night cold. there proof

 

[flogger]

It's a term used for the people who have outright lied to you. For example, literally fabricated temperature data and attributing it to NASA. But they put it in a "documentary" so your "skeptic" buddies took it as gospel.

What skeptic buddies ? What lies ? Have I ever cited them ?