24 thoughts on “Nonsensus: Warmists proclaim bogus survey proves 97% ‘consensus’”

  1. What does one expect from “The Guardian?” The truth? If that was so, they’d hire someone named Delingpole.

  2. The Doran survey was indeed a con. This seems like a perfectly reasonable analysis and the conclusions are by and large unremarkable. The idea that 2/3 of the same was MUTE on the subject doesn’t vitiate the results or the way they are presented.

    Ad hominems and spin won’t change the conclusions — almost all believe the earth has warmed and that man is a cause. Now maybe there are OTHER flaws in the study, but that’s another matter. For example, I wonder how many papers were used BY THE EXACT SAME AUTHOR (ie., did they double count?).

    There’s much to be skeptical about. How much warming? End points matter. How much influence has man had? What about other causes of warming, like the sun, or deep ocean currents? Will there be a climate disaster? This metaanalysis doesn’t opine on any of this.

  3. Thank you for this suggestion. I take it you believe the study was flawed in it’s design, and I have no problem with that claim. It’s not of much import to me, since I don’t think the conclusions are implausible (that vast majority believe there been GW and that man is a cause), but moreover don’t think they are of any significance because the issue (for me) has never been about GW or even AGW, but only rather CAGW.

    MY SPECIFIC objection to the commentary here is that for some goofy reason it IS STATED that because only 4000 papers could be identified as HAVING AN OPINION AT ALL, that the conclusion is a con. If I survey 1000 people asking them if the sky is blue and only 1/3 of them respond at all, but all the responders say “Yes”, it’s fair to say that the consensus is that the sky is blue. And by the way this works if the question is “Is the sky green.” In any event NO ONE would characterize the survey as “One 1 in 3 believe the sky is blue (or green).” We merely don’t know what the other 2/3 believe. We can’t even say they have “no opinion.”

  4. What Is even Better Is That They Admit To Cherry Picking Papers Right In The Article.

  5. Millions of people claim to have seen to have seen ghosts. The existence of ghosts has a greater “consensus” that AGW.
    Consensus is not part of the Scientific Method; this study is an exercise in junk science and propaganda.

  6. It seems many here have lost their reason. Of course you are right about “consensus is not science.” Now put that aside and try to focus on what this article says, to wit: “Most [climate] scientists (for whatever reason, and holding in abeyance whether this proves anything) actually believe in AGW.” It appears on the bare facts presented that this study shows exactly that. Now maybe the study is flawed in design or execution (and maybe some here have special knowledge to that effect), but based on what is here before us, the conclusion is fairly presented, namely “97% of those responding believe in AGW.” This seems inescapable objectively, no?

    Your example of ghosts is a good one. If I want to know what Americans think of the existence of ghosts, I ask them and if the sample size of responders is big enough, the question stated clearly/non-emotionally enough, and there’s no bias in the sample, then when we get the answers and tablulate them, we know, “How many Americans believe in ghosts.” That ghosts do or don’t exist is irrelevant.

  7. Thank you profusely for this link, which I will read. Whatever it says, I’m quite sure it is irrelevant to my comments, however. [Just like the actual existence of ghosts is irrelevant to a survey that claims to calibrate how widespread such a belief is].

    You realize that I’ve stated several times, that there may be reasons to dismiss the study having to to with design and execution, right? I never said otherwise, so your link is likely to allege such flaws, which again is irrelevant to my comments, however offensive to some.

  8. Now I’ve read your link and it is irrelevant as I suggested — not irrelevant to how we view evaluate the study’s design/execution, but irrelevant to my observation that from WHAT THE ABOVE ARTICLE TELLS US, the inescapable conclusion is that “most [climate] scientists (as defined) believe in AGW.” Personally, I would be surprised at any other conclusion. And if you were honest, so would you.

  9. Yours is an ambiguous statement, because the antecedent of “a flawed article” is unclear. I say that because based on ‘input’ from outside sources some here MAY BE suggesting the above article is flawed (because it doesn’t dig into the design/execution issues folks here are eager to assert). Is that your point?

    For me, I can’t see what the big fuss is all about. We’ve actually had some global warming in the past 150 years. No point in denying this. I’d say 100% of skeptics would concur. I wouldn’t be surprised if pretty much all climate scientists believe that man is the [main] cause of recent warming, either. Indeed man MAY be the cause. I don’t think there’s any scientific basis to say so, but I’m not surprised that many (and many scientists) attribute the warming to man.

    I’m only interested in CAGW and for that there is NO SCIENTIFIC basis for sure.

  10. Meh….. I must have read a differet article. The one I read indicated that of nearly 8000 papers (not taken into account) there was a 100 percent concensus that man made global warming had not yet been accepted as valid. Although I do disagree….. With data manipulation and UHI….. I feel that most of the minimal warming that took place from 1999 to 2010 was mann made!

  11. You missed the reference to your honesty for good reason…. there was no reference to your honesty.

  12. You are incorrect (not about the gist of the definition of tautology, but about the claim to consensus). The selection criteria did not produce a list of only those who could be known beforehand to believe in AGW. Indeed, the selection criteria produced 2/3 of papers for whom no such predisposition could be ascertained.

    You are merely wrong. You seem to be in good company on this thread.

  13. So David… If I send out a survey to my skeptic friends and have them review skeptical research it’s fair to conclude I’ll be able to claim 97% consensus that warmists ignore the science and consensus and therefore should be labled deniers.

  14. I was following. Omnologus says it’s flawed. I agree. David says there’s reason to dismiss it. I agree. The best way to dismiss something is with humor or to show something to be ridiculous.
    I f my humor misses the mark I apologise. To take this to seriously shows an unhealthy investment.

  15. This paper follows not scientific methodology that I know of. And saying that you “don’t think the conclusions are implausible (that vast majority believe there has [sic] been GW and man is a cause)” shows bias unless you have evidence to support that belief.
    I did see a comprehensive study that surveyed a significant number of climatologists by a prominent German climatologist, but I can’t find it now. But while searching for it, I found a reference to a more recent study paper that is behind a paywall, but that had very similar conclusions to that earlier paper (http://notrickszone.com/2013/02/16/conclusive-study-most-scientists-have-serious-doubts-about-the-claimed-extent-of-man-made-global-warming/):

    ‘We find that virtually all respondents (99.4%) agree that the climate is changing. However, there is considerable disagreement as to cause, consequences, and lines of action’
    ‘The largest group of APEGA respondents (36%) draws on a frame that we label ‘comply with Kyoto’. In their diagnostic framing, they express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.’
    ‘The second largest group (24%) express a ‘nature is overwhelming’ frame. In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.’
    ”Fatalists’, a surprisingly large group (17%), diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused. ‘Fatalists’ consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They are sceptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling’
    ‘Ten percent of respondents draw on an ‘economic responsibility’ frame. They diagnose climate change as being natural or human caused. More than any other group, they underscore that the ‘real’ cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable.’
    ‘The last group (5%) expresses a frame we call ‘regulation activists’. This frame has the smallest number of adherents, expresses the most paradoxical framing, and yet is more agentic than ‘comply with Kyoto’. Advocates of this frame diagnose climate change as being both human and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life.’

    There is no overwhelming consensus… As already stated in this thread, a consensus is not scientific proof. But this claim is yet another “fact” designed to influence public opinion, and therefore political policy decisions, and cannot be defended.

Comments are closed.