German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch have released their latest international survey of climate scientists. The data is reported here:
I’ve spent a little time with this report. Here are my observations. Feel free to forward and cite this posting, I’ll get it up on Heartland’s Freedom Pub
momentarily. I’ll appreciate comments on whether I got this right.
* The report consists of 120 graphs (the numbering system includes, e.g., 11a and 11b, so the exact number is different from the 73 that identifies the last table) and contains no interpretation or discussion of the results. Discussion of the results apparently appears (or will appear) in an article in Environmental Science and Policy. The abstract of that article (presented on page 12 of the current report) seems to completely miss the obvious implications of the survey. No surprise, since Bray and von Storch tried to hide the plain results of their past work in a similar fashion.
Article continues below this advert:
* The relevant/interesting tables start at 11a. On a scale from 1 = “very inadequate” to 7 = “very adequate,” scientists are asked to rank “data availability for climate change analysis.” More respondents said “very inadequate” (1 or 2) than “very adequate” (6 or 7), with most responses ranging between 3 and 5. About 40% score it a 3 or less.
* This roughly bell-shaped distribution is repeated in about a third of the 54 tables addressing scientific issues (as opposed to opinions about the IPCC, where journalists get their information, personal identification with environmental causes, etc.). The remaining two thirds are divided almost equally between distributions that lean toward skepticism and those that lean toward alarmism. (See my break-out below.)
* What does this mean? For two-thirds of the questions asked, scientific opinion is DEEPLY DIVIDED, and in half of those cases, most scientists DISAGREE with positions that are at the foundation of the alarmist case. There is certainly NO CONSENSUS on the science behind the global warming scare.
* The questions for which most scientists give alarmist answers are those that ask for an opinion about the “big picture,” such as “How convinced are you that climate change poses a very serious and dangerous threat to humanity?” These questions ask about BELIEFS, not discrete scientific facts or knowledge. When asked questions about more narrow scientific matters, scientists seem quick to admit their uncertainty.
* I found pretty much the same thing in an analysis I did
of Bray and von Storch’s 2003 survey. Working through allied organizations, The Heartland Institute distributed more than 500,000 copies of that booklet to opinion leaders in the U.S. and Canada. I believe it played a major role in shifting informed opinion against the alarmists.
* This survey, like the previous one, provides us with a fascinating ANATOMY OF A SCIENTIFIC DELUSION. When asked, majorities of climate scientists say they do not believe the scientific claims that underlie the theory and predictions of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change, yet large majorities of those same scientists say they nevertheless believe in the theory and its predictions. This cognitive dissonance
is, I believe, what gives rise to and sustains popular mass delusions.
Click source to read FULL report from Joe Bast
Source Link: sppiblog.org