 97% of scientists believe in man-made global warmingScience | 206872 hits | May 15 8:15 pm | Posted by: BeaverFever Commentsview comments in forum You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
Actual survey:
From survey:
Position % of all abstracts % among abstracts with AGW position (%) % of all authors % among authors with AGW position (%)
Endorse AGW 32.6% (3896) 97.1 34.8% (10?188) 98.4
No AGW position 66.4% (7930) — 64.6% (18?930) —
Reject AGW 0.7% (78) 1.9 0.4% (124) 1.2
Uncertain on AGW 0.3% (40) 1.0 0.2% (44) 0.4
It should be noted in the article (gee, I wonder why it isn't?) that the majority of those that took the survey answered that they had 'No AGW position' (66.4%).
However, of those that 'have a position', 97.1% answered that they do 'Endorse AGW'.
I am sure that 97% of all scientists believed that the sun revolved around the Earth five hundred years ago.
Guess -> Theory -> Experimental proof.
This is how science works. You see something; you guess as to how it works, you develop a theory as to how it works then you devise experiments proving the theory acts in nature as you guessed it should work. If it doesn't you are wrong, and you go back to 'guess'.
500 years ago, they stopped at 'guess'. That's not science, and they weren't 'scientists'. If you'll recall, they were priests and bishops that excommunicated people for not believing the Earthcentric solar model. Religion, not science.
500 years ago, they stopped at 'guess'. That's not science, and they weren't 'scientists'. If you'll recall, they were priests and bishops that excommunicated people for not believing the Earthcentric solar model. Religion, not science.
True enough on the excommunication, however, the geocentric model of the universe was the accepted model since well before Christianity came into existence.
Joke of a survey.
Actual survey:
From survey:
Position % of all abstracts % among abstracts with AGW position (%) % of all authors % among authors with AGW position (%)
Endorse AGW 32.6% (3896) 97.1 34.8% (10?188) 98.4
No AGW position 66.4% (7930) — 64.6% (18?930) —
Reject AGW 0.7% (78) 1.9 0.4% (124) 1.2
Uncertain on AGW 0.3% (40) 1.0 0.2% (44) 0.4
It should be noted in the article (gee, I wonder why it isn't?) that the majority of those that took the survey answered that they had 'No AGW position' (66.4%).
However, of those that 'have a position', 97.1% answered that they do 'Endorse AGW'.
Good catch. +5
Some people make the mistake of thhinking that since the consensus can be wrong, the consensus wrong.
Some people make the mistake of thinking that there's a consensus in the first place.
32.6% is a , not a consensus.
By the very study that was commissioned, the consensus stated is wrong.
The consensus (if majority can be called consensus), per that study, is that most have no position on AGW...that or they are unwilling to share their position.
I call this survey a joke because the shenanigans have to end. Let the science speak for itself. I know of far more people that are fed up with the 'debate', regardless of the results. And that leads to apathy, which will slide us further along the destructive path. The last thing that is needed is more misrepresented surveys and studies. How many average Joe's are going to go into the actual survey and check the results?
I could almost guarantee, that if the politics were removed, and just the science was left, most would accept, adapt and move on.
I could almost guarantee, that if the politics were removed, and just the science was left, most would accept, adapt and move on.
Precisely. I believe that the IPCC has done more damage to the AGW debate than any of the skeptics could ever dare hope.
Eagerly awaiting the usual "but who wrote this review" bs from the righties...
Egg on your face.
Eagerly awaiting the usual "but who wrote this review" bs from the righties...
Egg on your face.
More like .
Aren't numbers fun to play with though? Just like the claim that human and chimp DNA was 95% the same.
Actually they figure humans and bonobos share almost 99% of the same DNA and Chimps share just a pube less