When 'real world data' fails....
Chinese official pushes 'one child' policy in Copenhagen
Global Warming on Free Republic
Posted on 12/19/2009 4:49:08 PM PST by neverdem
These are hard times for climate scientists who want government action on global warming. Not only has the Copenhagen summit largely produced discord, but an embarrassing public release of private e-mails exposed attempts by a group of climate scientists to hide scientific evidence that didn't conform to their beliefs or pronouncements.
As CBS News put it, the scandal, called "Climategate," is "casting doubts on the very science on which this summit is based." In a widely noted Washington Post column, former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin argued, "the documents show that there was no real consensus" among climate scientists. And a new ABC News poll finds that only 29% of the public now place "a lot" of trust in what scientists say about the environment.
The question of whether there is a scientific consensus on human-induced global warming has long inspired heated debate among both scientists and politicians. The most recent assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change describes global warming as "unequivocal" and "very likely" caused by human activity. But skeptics have argued that the IPCC, which is tasked by the United Nations with evaluating the risks of climate change, is itself influenced by political considerations and "pre-conceived agendas."
In a broader effort to measure scientific opinion, one scholar analyzed peer-reviewed journal articles on climate change and concluded that over 75% supported the notion of anthropogenic (human-induced) warming. But critics argued that the analysis was itself skewed toward finding such a consensus.
So how do you know what scientists really think about global warming? Well, you could always ask them. That's precisely what the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS), which I direct, did in 2007 when it hired Harris Interactive to survey American climate scientists.The results won't entirely please either the Climategate correspondents or their critics.
The STATS...
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
I don’t know if anyone picked it up yet.
But AP/Stanford are running a poll from Oct. Trying to get people to believe it is current.
Just a heads up.
If you poll “climate scientists” who are feeding very nicely off the public teat with climate research funds, you are going to get a majority saying AGW is a problem. Poll all ‘hard’ scientists and you will get a very different answer.
Polls are not relevant for science. If there is a causation between CO2 and temperature, produce the facts that support it.
The Vostok ice core data for the past 400,000 years show the rise of CO2 FOLLOWS a rise in temperature.
Don’t think that you need to read the article much further than this, since it was a 2007 survey:
“So how do you know what scientists really think about global warming? Well, you could always ask them. That’s precisely what the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS), which I direct, did in 2007 when it hired Harris Interactive to survey American climate scientists.”
When 'real world data' fails....
Chinese official pushes 'one child' policy in Copenhagen
Global Warming on Free Republic
Exactly correct. If you pick the sample you want, you can pick the results.
This guy (Ben Santer) thinks his climate model data looks beautiful.. just the way he looks in the mirror.
Since this poll was done before climategate and the exposure of the corrupted data and the destruction of the raw data the poll from 2007 means little.
Bingo. The cynicism toward the notion that computer models of a chaotic dynamical system found among my colleagues in mathematics is almost palpable. The people most cynical about 'climate science' in my department besides myself are the two who actually work in dynamical systems. My one colleague who had been in the AGW camp went to a conference on climate modeling and came back just as cynical as the rest of us once he saw how absolutely terribly the stuff that passes for mathematical modeling in climatology actually is.
Exactly, AGW is entirely based on a positive feedback system stoked by CO2. It has never been observed. Ever. There is no, as in zero, evidence, supporting it and taking a poll ain't gonna change that inconvenient fact.
There is a “Truth” out there that exists outside of the desire of the “GW Doomers” and the “Deniers”. Will we ever figure it out? I’m afraid that this well has been poisoned, and we may not know for many decades.
This is a piece of crap article about a piece of crap survey and crappy analysis / interpretation of that piece of crap survey.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
