alpine
Gold Member
- Sep 13, 2012
- 3,535
- 809
- 130
- Thread starter
- #41
The authors sent emails to 7,555 individuals gathered from a few similar sources: those who had published papers or assessment reports that included the keywords “global warming” or “global climate change” during the period from 1991 to 2011, a separate database of actively publishing climate scientists, and a separate review of climate science papers from 2009 to 2011. A total of 6,550 people were successfully contacted, and 1,868 questionnaires were returned, resulting in a response rate of 29 percent.
The survey’s first question asked these scientists “[w]hat fraction of global warming since the mid-20th century can be attributed to human induced increases in atmospheric GHG [greenhouse gas] concentrations?” There were several possible answers, allowing respondents to choose a specific range of contribution to warming. The combined group that pegged the contribution as above 50 percent — meaning, greenhouse gases have accounted for more than half of the observed warming — was considered to agree with the consensus. A total of 1,231 people agreed with the consensus, or 65.9 percent of the 1,868 respondents.
But Verheggen said the authors found a consensus of between 79 percent and 97 percent. How did he arrive at that range? Two of the possible responses to the first question were “unknown” and “I don’t know,” which the authors called “undetermined” responses. A large number of people selected these options: 9.9 percent said “unknown,” and 8.8 percent said, “I don’t know.” But undetermined responses do not mean the respondents don’t believe humans are the primary driver of climate change. Pinpointing the specific amount of human contribution is a difficult task.
The study authors argue that these answers should not be included in the analysis of the consensus, resulting in Verheggen’s range. The lowest possible value after excluding undetermined responses was 79 percent (see table S3 of supplemental information), among 278 respondents who had published only zero to three papers on climate science. The highest possible value was 97 percent, among 142 respondents who were authors on the IPCC’s scientific report published in 2007. Among all 1,868 respondents, the rate was 84 percent that agreed with the consensus.
You have to be really brain damaged not to understand all this
Severely damaged indeed........
Another Cook type paper done like a poll and with leading questions which looked for a specif result.
If you believe polling and targeting only those who think like you want them too is real science in any manner.. your high on something. Its like the democrat party polling themselves to see if they are winning...
The paper is crap! (and I have read it too) You want to try again?
So scientists should have polled some message board junkies, rather than scientists themselves, to come to scientific conclusions ha
I see........
Says the idiot who trys to back up the AGW cult with a thread called"
Most Non-Climate Scientists Agree on Global Warming Too"
Yea if you put Grant money in front of biologist I am sure they will agree the moon is made of green cheese....
Ohh, so you claim there is a lobby trying to destroy the poor oil companies out there, ha
Your stupidity is beyond epic levels my friend.....
