Friday, February 15, 2013
Scientific Consensus Averages Far More Sceptical of Warming Than Most Sceptics
A peer-reviewed survey of 1077 geoscientists and engineers finds that "only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis," according to James Taylor, writing at Forbes.com. As he points out, if there is a scientific consensus at all, it would have to be skepticism toward anthropogenic global warming.....
... merely 36 percent of respondents fit the "Comply with Kyoto" model. The scientists in this group "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 authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming clamour.
Actually it is far better (or worse from the official viepoint) than that.
Firstly this in onlu of respondents. Now we know that the ecofascists ate happy to use 77 replies out of 10,000 questionaires as evidence of the whole body of opinion but no honest statistician would do so. The question is how does the lack of answers slant the results and in circumstances where promotion and even keeping ones job, in government financed circles, depends on not expressing the "wrong" views it is certain that the real split must be far more than 64/36%. Indeed a num,ber of econazis have called for sceptics to be imprisoned. Clearly the answer is that this must slant the answer by persuading many of a sceptical opinion to keep silent while incentivising no alarmist to do so.
Secondly "climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause" is very far from the alarmist position. I know that a large proportion of sceptics would hold that view. Personally I would not exclude the possibility that there ahs been a certain amount of manmade warming. Bjorn Lomberg quite openly holds this view and he has been demonised by the econazis.
No the alarmist position is that not only is climate chabge happening but that it is seriously damaging, indeed more damaging that the hundreds of billions which have been spent allegedly to ameliorate it. Obviously if it is less damaging than that there can be no justification for spending that money. The 64% are not only sceptics but are so far from the government enforced view that there is no point of contact.
So if the 34% includes the large majority of the sceptic communnity it can only, at most, be 1/3rd, 11%, who hold the alarmist position. And if the atmosphere of ecofascist intimidation has deterred only half of those who doubt the official view (a far higher proportion of Soviet scientists were deterred from speaking out against Lysenko) the alarmists cann hardly be more than 5.5%.
Which certainly gives us a scientific consensus for scepticism. as indeed it should since any "scientist" who isn't a sceptic, fails one of the basic principles of science and by definition, isn't a scientist at all.
Expect this to be heavily covered ny all those parts of the British MSM that aren't corrupt fascist poodles. IE none of them
... merely 36 percent of respondents fit the "Comply with Kyoto" model. The scientists in this group "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 authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming clamour.
Actually it is far better (or worse from the official viepoint) than that.
Firstly this in onlu of respondents. Now we know that the ecofascists ate happy to use 77 replies out of 10,000 questionaires as evidence of the whole body of opinion but no honest statistician would do so. The question is how does the lack of answers slant the results and in circumstances where promotion and even keeping ones job, in government financed circles, depends on not expressing the "wrong" views it is certain that the real split must be far more than 64/36%. Indeed a num,ber of econazis have called for sceptics to be imprisoned. Clearly the answer is that this must slant the answer by persuading many of a sceptical opinion to keep silent while incentivising no alarmist to do so.
Secondly "climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause" is very far from the alarmist position. I know that a large proportion of sceptics would hold that view. Personally I would not exclude the possibility that there ahs been a certain amount of manmade warming. Bjorn Lomberg quite openly holds this view and he has been demonised by the econazis.
No the alarmist position is that not only is climate chabge happening but that it is seriously damaging, indeed more damaging that the hundreds of billions which have been spent allegedly to ameliorate it. Obviously if it is less damaging than that there can be no justification for spending that money. The 64% are not only sceptics but are so far from the government enforced view that there is no point of contact.
So if the 34% includes the large majority of the sceptic communnity it can only, at most, be 1/3rd, 11%, who hold the alarmist position. And if the atmosphere of ecofascist intimidation has deterred only half of those who doubt the official view (a far higher proportion of Soviet scientists were deterred from speaking out against Lysenko) the alarmists cann hardly be more than 5.5%.
Which certainly gives us a scientific consensus for scepticism. as indeed it should since any "scientist" who isn't a sceptic, fails one of the basic principles of science and by definition, isn't a scientist at all.
Expect this to be heavily covered ny all those parts of the British MSM that aren't corrupt fascist poodles. IE none of them
Labels: eco-fascism, Media, Science/technology
