1) On the question of consensus, you claim that the actual informed beliefs of earth scientists in general and active research climatologists in particulars are not "supporting data" on whether these scientists have a consensus. ???
2) I offer evidence that 97% of active climate researchers believe that mankind is a cause of global warming. You offer an unsupported assertion that there is "plenty of dissent from scientists". Are you planning on weighing actual evidence or are your unsupported assertions enough in your mind?
3) You complain that the first poll question is too obvious and then completely ignore the second question. Don't you think that before asking whether mankind is a cause of global warming good poll design dictates that the respondent state if global warming is occurring?
4) You assert that this summary of the poll "3146 out of 10,200 responded by stating what? It doesn't state anything about their response". The poll asks yes and no questions and gives you totals including the result that 97% of active climatologists answered "yes" to both questions.
5) You claim that a survey which queries 100% of earth scientists and gets answers from 31% of them, is inconclusive because, "What about the ones that didn't respond, the majority?" I took a monster college mathematics course in statistics and also studied it separately in conjunction with science lab work, business quantitative analysis and marketing. A poll of 100% of the subject group is the best possible poll. Receiving a 31% response is enormous and would put the confidence level at about 99%. If you refuse to believe in statistical methods I can only recommend studying the subject.
6) Your claim that because the first sentence of the article states results of the poll: "The first sentence states it all. Their agenda, despite the fact there is plenty of dissent.", proves that the report is biased. So reporting the results of a poll proves bias? What's the point of the article if not to report the results?
7) You claim that the information being generated by active research climatologists is questionable because many may be "working off skewed or falsified data?" This group, that answered yes to both questions, is constantly producing new data. The scientific method recognizes that any individual study may be in error. That is why every study must be peer reviewed and replicated before the results are accepted.
8) "How many are merely going with the flow to ensure an income?" If you believe that individuals become scientists in order to make the big bucks I'm almost speechless. You make this claim that we can't trust scientists because maybe they are corrupt and don't really care about science. It's easy to make a personal attack on those who disagree with you. Show me some evidence.
In summary, I present evidence to support my claim that there is a scientific consensus on global warming. You offer no evidence whatsoever.
The Mastiff wrote:Sorry, This isn't supporting Data. There is plenty of dissent from scientists. There are a few statements here that show a decided pro AGW perspective, not a neutral one.
example: "have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levelses?"
levelses? :) Of course they have. We were/are still coming out of a "little ice age. Temp's would have risen even if no human walked the earth. Where is this evidence from?
In addition, 3146 out of 10,200 responded by stating what? It doesn't state anything about their response there. What about the ones that didn't respond, the majority?
The first sentence states it all. Their agenda, despite the fact there is plenty of dissent.
In addition, how many scientists are now working off skewed or falsified data? How many are merely going with the flow to ensure an income? We need to figure this stuff out before making any changes with far reaching consequences to our and the worlds economies.
