Surveys of Scientists

[questioner]

You yourself have said that a tone of denigration in a post (such as you now display) indicates that the poster has lost the argument.

Let me remind you of the post which lead me to call the amateur climate experts without education "dabblers":

All those climatologists have career and grant driven obsessions with competing narrow specialisms and none of them know enough about the big picture to put their own bits of knowledge in a global perspective.

That is why the current climate debate has been abandoned by all those grant supported professionals and it is now only the independent (minded and financial) generalists who have any useful contribution to make.

Now you go on to state:

Of course, if all those wonderful scientists ever actually manage to predict a change in trend then I would be happy to take them seriously.

In return I should be taken seriously having predicted the recent changes in trend both as regards global temperature and Arctic ice and having put forward plausible mechanisms.

It is now for the planet to diverge from the expectations raised by my theories and if it does then I will acknowledge that.

What would be your position if the planet continues to do as I expect ?

Enough said.

Of course amateur climatologists, who have no real scientific education or expertise, and no reputation to protect, are free to make predictions about the immediate future, based on less knowledge and the luxury of nothing to lose. No one in authority would pay any attention or hold them accountable for mistakes.

[curious]

Mr. Anderson (Hartlod on Sun Oct 26, 2008 12:25 pm ), you still do not reply to the substance of my pointing out how your graphs all show increases in global temperatures. That is, the very plots you cite as the basis for your claim that the globe has recently been cooling, actually seem to show the opposite.

[curious]

Stephen Wilde (Stephen Wilde on Sun Oct 26, 2008 1:26 pm) writes:

After a 30 year warming trend it does need a while to demonstrate that any oserved change in trend is significant and not just a temporary 'blip'.

How about a 150 year 'while'? Here is a Wired news article, and the scholarly journal source, which should stand on their own merits:

Climate Change Destroying Walden Pond's Flowers

Climate change is devastating the flowers of Walden Pond, picking off those species that cannot react to rising temperatures.

...Harvard biologists report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that more than a quarter of Walden's plant species have already been lost.



The average temperature around Walden has risen by more than four degrees over the last century as increasing greenhouse gas concentrations from burning fossil fuels changed the earth's climate.

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/10/climate-change.html

The PNAS article is here: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/10/24/0806446105

Phylogenetic patterns of species loss in Thoreau's woods are driven by climate change

1. Charles G. Willisa,
2. Brad Ruhfela,
3. Richard B. Primackb,
4. Abraham J. Miller-Rushingb, and
5. Charles C. Davisa,1

-Author Affiliations

1.
(a) Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University Herbaria, 22 Divinity Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02138; and
2.
(b) Department of Biology, Boston University, 5 Cummington Street, Boston, MA 02215

1.

Edited by Michael J. Donoghue, Yale University, New Haven, CT, and approved September 19, 2008 (received for review July 3, 2008)

Abstract

Climate change has led to major changes in the phenology (the timing of seasonal activities, such as flowering) of some species but not others.

[ceyda]

Just read this:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/27/e ... -minority/

Another survey, probably not as skewed as the one this thread is about.

[curious]

Mr. Anderson, it seems that you are the one 'responding to previously given info' again, and again. You post the same graphics as before; re-posting them only reinforces their significance! Which is, by inspection, to confirm the gross warming of the planet, and the relative insignificance of the several brief periods of plateau in temperatures or slight cooling, during the preceding century and more.

This time you commit the sin of presenting a plot and labelling it - intentionally or by mistake is not clear - as something it is not. I refer to 'Cyclic warming and cooling trends in the past 500 years_s.JPG' which actually shows something else entirely. This graph, to be very clear, does not show temperatures at all. Instead it depicts deviations in Oxygen-18 isotope concentrations (delta O-18) around a norm. Here again is your plot:

Cyclic warming and cooling trends in the past 500 years_s.JPG (19.46 KiB) Viewed 750 times

However, even though this graphic shows a variable other than temperature, it may be instructive in the study of climate change all the same. By inspection the magnitude (or altitude) of the 0-18 excursions are greater towards the right side of the graph, that is, in the more recent past and specifically since about 1840. The intensity or closeness of spacing of the O-18 spikes, both above and below the norm, are also greater (more spikes per unit of time) during that most recent period. Yes, there are some equally large excursions recorded in the earliest third or so of the time span shown, but they make up a significantly, and immediately discernable, smaller weight of such changes.

So your graph, while not, as you state, one that presents temperatures, is a great piece of evidence suggesting a trend in another physical variable. I'd be curious to know more about the reasons for tracking 0-18, a heavier isotope of normal 0-16. I can imagine various connections among temperatures, atmospheric gas composition, CO2 concentrations, anthropogenic processes, and climate change.

This plot coincides with and strongly reinforces the already remarkable and inescapable conclusion that AGW is real.

[questioner]

Just read this:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/27/e ... -minority/

Another survey, probably not as skewed as the one this thread is about.

First of all, this thread features 2 recent surveys of Climate Scientists done by independent groups. One of the studies was actually done by a pair of people who are classified as "sceptics", Bray and Von Storch. Your statement implies that both of these studies, which had very similar results were somehow "skewed". Could you explain how these studies were skewed, if that is what you believe?

The survey cited in your news article was by Eco AMerica a marketing organization.
It shows that the opinion of the American Public on the science depends on political affiliation.
90% of Democrats believed Climate Change was real but only 54% of Republicans.
The Democratics among the public agrees with the scientists on Climate Change and AGW, and the Republicans are less supportive of this.

This aligns with other surveys showing that Republicans are less attentive to facts and the real world than Democrats.

At the time the Iraq War began, the American public opinion believed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 911 attacks. This was implied by the Bush administration when it justified the war using the 911 attack.
There was no media information to support Saddam Hussein's involvement, but the Republican Political leadership fed it to the people and most believed it.

Even after it was shown to be false, 5 years after 911 many Republicans still believed it.
http://www.zogby.com/News/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1169
Five years after the invasion of Iraq 65% of Republicans believed Saddam Hussein was responsible for 911, but only
32% of Democrats did.

They are certainly not fit to judge the merits of a scientific controversy if they can't get a simple fact about who was responsible for 911 straight.

[ceyda]

Questioner

This survey of yours gets quite a bit of bad press:

http://timlambert.org/2005/05/bray
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... scientists
http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback ... _cl_1.html
http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/A ... rtId=21312

I thought Von Storch was an alarmist (could be wrong), although other pro AGW types have given him bad press because of his critisms of the Hockey Stick, maybe this will interest you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Storch

Excerpt:

He said that global warming exists:

Based on the scientific evidence, I am convinced that we are facing anthropogenic climate change brought about by the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. [1]
He is also known for his article in Der Spiegel in which he warns against exaggerated reports by scientists which want to catch the attention of public. He states in this article that:

"Scientific research faces a crisis because its public figures are overselling the issues to gain attention in a hotly contested market for newsworthy information." [2]
"The alarmists think that climate change is something extremely dangerous, extremely bad and that overselling a little bit, if it serves a good purpose, is not that bad."[1]

I first heard of him here:

http://www.crichton-official.com/speech ... uture.html

I suspect that your decieving us again, how can i trust your sincerity when you state somone is sceptic and then i find information which states he is anything but. Wiki is not greatly trusted here for it's pro AGW stance.

[questioner]

Questioner

This survey of yours gets quite a bit of bad press:

http://timlambert.org/2005/05/bray
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... scientists
http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback ... _cl_1.html
http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/A ... rtId=21312

I thought Von Storch was an alarmist (could be wrong), although other pro AGW types have given him bad press because of his critisms of the Hockey Stick, maybe this will interest you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Storch

Excerpt:

He said that global warming exists:

Based on the scientific evidence, I am convinced that we are facing anthropogenic climate change brought about by the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. [1]
He is also known for his article in Der Spiegel in which he warns against exaggerated reports by scientists which want to catch the attention of public. He states in this article that:

"Scientific research faces a crisis because its public figures are overselling the issues to gain attention in a hotly contested market for newsworthy information." [2]
"The alarmists think that climate change is something extremely dangerous, extremely bad and that overselling a little bit, if it serves a good purpose, is not that bad."[1]

I first heard of him here:

http://www.crichton-official.com/speech ... uture.html

I suspect that your decieving us again, how can i trust your sincerity when you state somone is sceptic and then i find information which states he is anything but. Wiki is not greatly trusted here for it's pro AGW stance.

The survey was criticized by Tim Lambert at Deltoid, and Real Climate, whom you would probably consider climate alarmists. That is evidence that it is not skewed in the direction of climate alarmism if it is skewed at all.

I got the impression that Von Storch was a sceptic from the way in which he criticized the hockey stick.
From the Wiki article, it seems that it was incorrect to make that assumption.

Both surveys, as I mentioned, showed figures in support of the theory of AGW by climate scientists at close to the same percentage. This consistency argues that they are accurate.

[ceyda]

The survey was criticized by Tim Lambert at Deltoid, and Real Climate, whom you would probably consider climate alarmists. That is evidence that it is not skewed in the direction of climate alarmism if it is skewed at all.

I got the impression that Von Storch was a sceptic from the way in which he criticized the hockey stick.
From the Wiki article, it seems that it was incorrect to make that assumption.

Both surveys, as I mentioned, showed figures in support of the theory of AGW by climate scientists at close to the same percentage. This consistency argues that they are accurate.

[/quote]

I think i have shown the survey seems to be distrusted by both alarmists and sceptics alike. It says a lot about the pro AGW mentality, that Von Storch is now regarded as an outsider by the pro AGW crowd, simply because he disagreed about the hockey stick and claims being made in the media.

I would agree with this statement:

'Hartlod'
Firstly questioner (viewtopic.php?f=2&t=78&p=1748#p1748) a 'survey' is not making of SCIENCE so are 'surveys of Climate Scientists' not any making of the SCIENCE of Climate.

I don't think anything more needs saying about this so called survey of scientists.

[Co2sceptic]

Hi Guys

Lets keep the debate civil we have no need to throw insults at each other, its not religion or is it!

If ANYONE has a point to make and it does not fit into your view, please try to continue debate on BOTH sides without any offence to each other.