Drexel University study on AGW deniers

[IanC]

here is a release from a poll of actual skeptics-

A sceptical consensus: the science is right but catastrophic global warming is not going to happen
The Scottish Climate & Energy Forum has been conducting a survey on the background and attitudes of participants to online climate discussions. Thanks to the generosity of all who participated, the survey has had a massive response which will take time and resource to process. However initial analysis already shows that the actual views and backgrounds of participants are in sharp contrast with some high-profile statements being made about the participants. Therefore I felt we should make these initial results known as soon as practical to avoid further damage, both to the reputation of those involved in the online debate, as well as those making the unfounded and presumably mistaken accusations of “denial”.

As such, I am releasing the following statement regarding the survey.

A sceptical consensus: the science is right but catastrophic global warming is not going to happen

A recent survey of those participating in on-line forums showed that most of the 5,000 respondents were experienced engineers, scientists and IT professionals most degree qualified and around a third with post graduate qualifications. The survey, carried out by the Scottish Climate and Energy Forum, asked respondents for their views on CO2 and the effect it might have on global temperatures. The results were surprising. 96% of respondents said that atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing with 79% attributing the increase to man-made sources. 81% agreed that global temperatures had increased over the 20th century and 81% also agreed that CO2 is a warming gas. But only 2% believed that increases in CO2 would cause catastrophic global warming.

So what’s going on?

Above all, these highly qualified people – experts in their own spheres – look at the published data and trust their own analysis, so their views match the available data. They agree that the climate warmed over the 20th century (this has been measured), that CO2 levels are increasing (this too has been measured) and that CO2 is a warming gas (it helps trap heat in the atmosphere and the effects can be measured). Beyond this, the survey found that 98% of respondents believe that the climate varies naturally and that increasing CO2 levels won’t cause catastrophic warming.

What next?

Overwhelmingly participants in this large scale survey support the science, however this is not how they have been portrayed in the media and this has led to deep and bitter divides between those who hold different viewpoints. This debate should be based on the evidence and that not only includes the scientific evidence on the climate, but also the evidence of the real participants involved in the debate. Given the huge number of responses and detail of questions a full assessment will take up to one year to complete. This is a huge commitment from an organisation that has no outside funding and is reliant on one full-time volunteer (Mike Haseler). We will therefore be approaching The Scottish Climate & Energy Forum has been conducting a survey on the background and attitudes of participants to online climate discussions. The survey has had a massive response which will take time and resource to process. However initial analysis already shows that the actual views and backgrounds of participants are in sharp contrast with some high-profile statements being made about the participants. Therefore I felt we should make these initial results known as soon as practical to avoid further damage, both to the reputation of those involved in the online debate, as well as those making the unfounded and presumably mistaken accusations of “denial”.

I would like to add a qualifying statement. the basic science is right. most people would or should agree that warming has taken place, and that CO2 is increasing, and CO2 affects radiative transer of energy in the atmosphere. Skeptics disagree with the catastrophic predictions of doom for specific reasons. faulty selection and manipulation of data being the most important one. unsupported conclusions drawn from inconclusive data is another.

 

[mamooth]

A sceptical consensus: the science is right but catastrophic global warming is not going to happen

The deliberate inclusion of the word "catastrophic" and the deliberate failure to define "catastrophic" makes it a bullshit poll. I would have said no as well, given the common meaning of "catastrophic".

 

[gnarlylove]

The Earth is going to exist whether humans roam or not. The Earth is not going to cease existence due to pollution. There may be a sharp decline in the population resulting from effects of climate disruption, and this is worth doing something about. Throwing our hands up is not by any means addressing or dissolving the real issues we are facing and will face down the road.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

A sceptical consensus: the science is right but catastrophic global warming is not going to happen

The deliberate inclusion of the word "catastrophic" and the deliberate failure to define "catastrophic" makes it a bullshit poll. I would have said no as well, given the common meaning of "catastrophic".

Another clear signal that one is losing the argument: nitpicking of semantics.

 

[Abraham3]

Then tell us Helen, how bad do you think the world is going to get? Do you think it'll get so bad that we really suffer or will it be okay for most folks?

Sound like a good question?

 

[HelenaHandbag]

What is the benefit to be gained by answering such a question, one way or the other?

 

[Abraham3]

It was intended to show you that it can be valid to complain about semantics.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Well, you failed.

Care to go for three in a row?

 

[gnarlylove]

LOL! Helena offers the most lively discussions by avoiding discussion. What a fabulous technique. Make a comment that supposedly undermines everything said then refuse to clarify one's own point. Brilliant. It enables Helena to say the least amount of words with the biggest effect (in Helena's view).

Of course to any rational observer, Helena has no interest in defining their terms so this completely halts discussion in a convenient place: where Helena thinks Helena has made some crucial and valid point. Sadly, that point is unclear to everyone else and it turns out it's pretty evident Helena doesn't want to participate anymore.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Brevity is the soul of wit. A shame you can't pull it off.

Refusing to answer a loaded question is not avoiding anything, except for falling into a cynical trap of arguing over petty semantics.

 

[Abraham3]

In surveys, semantics is a crucial factor. Two questions that on their faces ask for precisely the same opinion, can garner widely divergent results. Phrasing questions accurately and objectively in order to get the desired information is an art form. And along the way to learning that art, pollsters and surveyors learn how to phrase questions, not to get the information they want, but the results they're looking for. When dealing with polls and surveys, either as a subject or as a potential user of their results, it's always good to have a good look with a critical eye at the questions that were asked and to whom they were put.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

As though I needed any help to prove my point, along comes a yeoman's effort.

Thanks

 

[gnarlylove]

Brevity is your friend when facts are not.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

I briefly pointed out that when the facts are not on your side, then the arguments over semantics ensue.

Thanks again for the help.

 

[Abraham3]

Helen, are you thinking the facts are on your side?

What facts would those be?

 

[HelenaHandbag]

IanC, flacaltenn, westwall and others have thrown all the science and facts needed.

Yet clowns like you two need to degenerate into arguing semantics and personalities.

I'm feeling good right where I sit, here with that Feynman guy.

 

[gnarlylove]

"Two clowns"=Personality

Keep to your own game of wit, don't encroach on my apparent game of "semantics and personality" assessment.

When you reference people who are demonstrably not peers in the climate science community to defend your positions on climate science, you are engaging in an infantile defense. You don't even claim to have a reasonable defense. No wonder you attacked a comment that ran counter to your beliefs and then refuse to discuss it. You stick to brevity as a curtain you hide behind that I now see is your excuse for making insults, not witticisms.

 

[flacaltenn]

A sceptical consensus: the science is right but catastrophic global warming is not going to happen

The deliberate inclusion of the word "catastrophic" and the deliberate failure to define "catastrophic" makes it a bullshit poll. I would have said no as well, given the common meaning of "catastrophic".

Take that up with your serpent Sec State Kerry who calls it a "Weapon of Mass Destruction"..
Without "definitions" ---- I might add. You PRETEND that AGW is innocent of invoking FEAR and using scare tactics --- but the evidence is overwhelming that without a CATASTROPHE, they (and YOU) have no power..

 

[bripat9643]

"Two clowns"=Personality

Keep to your own game of wit, don't encroach on my apparent game of "semantics and personality" assessment.

When you reference people who are demonstrably not peers in the climate science community to defend your positions on climate science, you are engaging in an infantile defense. You don't even claim to have a reasonable defense. No wonder you attacked a comment that ran counter to your beliefs and then refuse to discuss it. You stick to brevity as a curtain you hide behind that I now see is your excuse for making insults, not witticisms.

Appeal to authority - a logical fallacy.

 

[gnarlylove]

bri, an appeal to authority only applies when a conclusion is drawn. No conclusion was drawn. I didn't claim climate scientists are right, I only accused Helen of poor defense.