U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-19-2009, 08:40 PM
 
39,203 posts, read 40,587,898 times
Reputation: 16081

Advertisements

You have less than 1/3 of returns on the survey. That by itself invalidates it as the people with strong feelings would be the ones returning it. For example lets say we send out a survey to the general public about their feelings on the Catholic Church. An overwhelming number of Catholics would respond to such a survey skewing the results.

Having said that this bit of information if true completely destroys any credibility the survey has:

Quote:
Surveyed experts see human role in climate - Climate Change - MSNBC.com
The survey was conducted online by experts who were e-mailed invitations. Computer IP addresses of participants were recorded and used to prevent repeat voting, Doran and fellow researcher Maggie Kendall Zimmerman noted.
Completely and absolutely unreliable. I believe I remember reading another article about issues with how this was conducted

Here's your video:

 
Old 06-19-2009, 08:41 PM
 
2,834 posts, read 3,922,510 times
Reputation: 3206
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlchurch View Post
I'm going to stop you right here because it's getting painful. Let me reprint the salient segment from the article. It helps one's comprehension when one reads the article.
I read the article thoroughly. The climate scientists made up only 5% of the 3,146 who returned the surveys. What percentage of them are climate change scientists (important difference)? If you are using those who reported that >50% of their research involved climate change science, then that was only 8.5% of the 3,146 who returned the surveys. It doesn't indicate what the 7,111 thought, those who didn't return the surveys.

Now, what does the term climate change scientist indicate? That they believe in climate change? And, don't you think that climate change scientists, who believe in climate change, are going to answer question #1 with a resounding: RISEN, and #2 with a clear YES! I am surprised that it wasn't 100% for climate change scientists.

I would never ask a scientist who billed himself or herself as an Evolutionary Biologist whether or not they believe in evolution. Pretty self-explanatory, don't you think?

But you make these broad claims based upon either a poor understanding of the underlying reporting, or else you have another motive, which is usually true of policy wonks. They are pushing someone's agenda.

Man, I thought that you and I agreed that humans have contributed to climate change, but your posts are starting to embarrass me.

 
Old 06-19-2009, 08:52 PM
 
2,834 posts, read 3,922,510 times
Reputation: 3206
Let me explain how the results of the survey that you linked to could be reported by policy wonks on the other side of the argument.

Out of 10,257 scientists surveyed, only 76 reported that the climate is truly changing. The others didn't know. (Truthfully, only the 79 had significant experience with climate change research, how would the others know?) Hahahahaha......

It isn't any worse than your claim, made in an above post, that : 97% of scientist who are actively researching and publishing on climate change agreed with the proposition that "human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures. Come on, only 76 believe that according to the survey! Did it measure what the other 7,111, or 2 million, or 5 million think??

Last edited by Teak; 06-19-2009 at 08:53 PM.. Reason: addition
 
Old 06-19-2009, 09:05 PM
 
2,834 posts, read 3,922,510 times
Reputation: 3206
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlchurch View Post
Where do you think the denial of this is coming from. It's not the scientific community. You'd know that if you had read the survey!
Another bogus claim: The denial is not coming from the scientific community. Actually, it is.

Since global warming fear-mongers have taken to hiding behind climate change now, the following list shows some pretty relevant members of the scientific community who don't buy into Al Gore's Nobel-prize-winning proposition. Some of these views could be construed as denial. And they are members of the scientific community.

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Old 06-20-2009, 07:55 AM
 
Location: Washington DC
5,915 posts, read 7,244,659 times
Reputation: 948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teak View Post
Probably the best post within this thread by far. How about it, rlchurch?? Can you keep religion and republican bashing out of it??
Nope

Quote:
Originally Posted by Teak View Post
And thanks to GregW, we got a reminder of one volcano that made a much greater impact with an eruption than probably a few thousand years of human existence.
And the duration of that cooling episode? 3-4 years are most. CO2 stays in the atmosphere a lot longer. Superficial analysis of events is really a silly approach to policy formulation.
 
Old 06-20-2009, 08:03 AM
 
Location: Washington DC
5,915 posts, read 7,244,659 times
Reputation: 948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teak View Post
I read the article thoroughly. The climate scientists made up only 5% of the 3,146 who returned the surveys. What percentage of them are climate change scientists (important difference)? If you are using those who reported that >50% of their research involved climate change science, then that was only 8.5% of the 3,146 who returned the surveys. It doesn't indicate what the 7,111 thought, those who didn't return the surveys.

Now, what does the term climate change scientist indicate? That they believe in climate change? And, don't you think that climate change scientists, who believe in climate change, are going to answer question #1 with a resounding: RISEN, and #2 with a clear YES! I am surprised that it wasn't 100% for climate change scientists.

I would never ask a scientist who billed himself or herself as an Evolutionary Biologist whether or not they believe in evolution. Pretty self-explanatory, don't you think?

But you make these broad claims based upon either a poor understanding of the underlying reporting, or else you have another motive, which is usually true of policy wonks. They are pushing someone's agenda.

Man, I thought that you and I agreed that humans have contributed to climate change, but your posts are starting to embarrass me.

LOL 79 scientists who are researching climate change responded to the survey. 97% of those believe global climate change is a problem. The survey was sent to all geoscience researchers. Most of those aren't actively involved in climate research as the article indicates and tabulates. I don't know how many PHD research climatologist we have, but it isn't 7 thousand. But all surveys, regardless of methodology have declines. 30% participation rate is about what the national survey organization deal with.

Moderator cut: No flaming

Last edited by vec101; 06-21-2009 at 06:37 PM..
 
Old 06-20-2009, 12:52 PM
 
2,255 posts, read 4,884,055 times
Reputation: 771
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlchurch View Post
LOL 79 scientists who are researching climate change responded to the survey. 97% of those believe global climate change is a problem. The survey was sent to all geoscience researchers. Most of those aren't actively involved in climate research as the article indicates and tabulates. I don't know how many PHD research climatologist we have, but it isn't 7 thousand. But all surveys, regardless of methodology have declines. 30% participation rate is about what the national survey organization deal with.

What I have is an understanding of statistical inference. Moderator cut: No flaming .
The above highlighted phraze ("Global Climate Change")most likely would be a better terminology than "Global Warming" , since the indication is that other areas can be colder and rainier.

Several posts back you mentioned to someone if they knew the difference between Anthropogenic CO2 and Volcanic CO2 ?

I remember the Greek word "anthropoi" for the biblical translation to the English words 'humans' or 'men'. On the point of Volcanic CO2, I do remember observing over the decades that such eruptions of that large volcano near Mexico city, Mount St Helens, Mount Pinatubo and others which blew tons upon tons of debri into the upper atmosphere actually brought more rains to Southern California. Despite the sad destruction and even loss of life, my part of the world benefitted somewhat, though at times we did get very bad flooding.

On another note, here is an older article, but is an ongoing subject in the news here in Europe because of the border reexamination by Italy & Switzerland. The interesting thing here is that there is no need for any researcher from either side of the issue to fuzzy up or blurr evidence and fudge on any intellectual research report of climate change. The beauty here is that the average Joe/Jane Q world citizen can see and observe for themselves minus the bloated egos from either Political Kamp of a drastic change in the environment inside the heart of Europe.

I only mention it because it was on CNN Europe News today over here in Sweden. The latest thing now is that France and Italy will be redrawing their borders also because of the disappearing Glacial ice pack between their borders. Once again, there are no geniuses needed from either of the political Left/Right wing pundits. Regular folk don't need them to help them to see and what to think as they seem quite capable on their own.

Melting snow prompts border change between Switzerland and Italy - Europe, World - The Independent

Last edited by vec101; 06-21-2009 at 06:38 PM..
 
Old 06-20-2009, 12:53 PM
 
23,860 posts, read 11,851,588 times
Reputation: 10068
Reposted for posterity.

Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus
 
Old 06-20-2009, 03:07 PM
 
Location: Washington DC
5,915 posts, read 7,244,659 times
Reputation: 948
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-310 View Post
1992 article. Sweet. Very current.
 
Old 06-20-2009, 03:10 PM
 
Location: I think my user name clarifies that.
8,293 posts, read 23,105,592 times
Reputation: 3888
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-310 View Post
Hey now - we are NOT interested in things like this. We just want to run around screaming, "THE SKY IS FALLING!!!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:49 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top