Off the back of the recent Climate Skeptics vs The Consensus image, we were curious how many scientists might make up ‘The Consensus’.
The Skeptical side claims at least 31,486 dissenters in their ranks, according to the PetitionProject.org. That sounds like a lot. But is it?
Of course, not all 12 million US scientists therefore agree with ‘The Consensus’. But this puts the PetitionProject’s 31,486 signatories in some kind of context.
Our maths here is somewhat coarse. Some better data suggests the ‘consensus’ figure is around 97.5% of publishing climatologists and around 90% of all publishing scientists supporting the human-induced climate theory. See this study for more details (PDF – Doran And Zimmerman 2009)
Actually, here’s how some of it looks:
Skeptical Field
Among the climate skeptic scientists, we wondered which fields of science were most represented. We expected climate and earth sciences. But we got…
In fact, when you adjust the PetitionProject’s odd categorisation – they filed ‘chemical engineers’ as chemists and physical engineers as ‘physicists’ – the total number of engineers who signed the petition, by our reckoning, jumps to 49%
Why so many engineers?
UPDATE 1: 23rd Dec 09. Thanks all for the excellent feedback (and barbs!). The language and presentation have been adapted now to hopefully better reflect our exploratory intentions.
:: Research by Helen Lawson Williams
:: source The Petition Project, US Census Bureau – Data on Science Degrees (Excel) & Advanced Science Degrees (Excel)
:: You can find all our data in this spreadsheet.
107 Comments
Without going into “publishing scientist” and what that exactly means the total numbers still only represent 30% of all Scientist. In other words 70% or 9,060,800 have not been heard from!
As Mark Twain observed” There are Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics”
Couple of comments:
- Galileo was not wrong, but he was most certainly not in the consensus group of his age. He followed the data, not the dogma.
- GW is now a dogma, heavily politicized and with massive business interests pushing it. Many of those who do have pure motives (saving the planet) are blinded by their dogma.
-
On a personal note, as a lifelong environmentalist, I bought the whole GW thing hook, line and sinker until a friend challenged me to look at the data. I argued fiercely for it, trotting out all the usual info the GW crowd uses, then set out to prove my friend wrong.
As a scientist, I looked at the data dispassionately and disccovered, to my great shock, that not only was there no compelling evidence for human-created CO2 causing GW, but that there is no evidence that unusual GW exists outside the usual natural cycle, there is evidence that we are now entering a cooling cycle, and there is evidence that climate change over time has been caused by many things (sun, orbit, volcanos, undersea vents, etc etc). I could go on for pages about all the very serious issues with the “science” behind GW, but others have already done this better than I could.
The problem with the GW hysteria is that it is directing resources and political will away from proven, serious, environmental issues that are doing harm to life on Earth (e.g. deforestation, poaching, fertilizer runoff, ocean garbage, …)
Another problem is that we may go and do something really stupid (seeding the oceans with iron, putting an aerosol sunscreen around the earth, etc) that could actually disrupt the balance of nature and cause a true global catastrophy.
When it comes to climatology, we should think of ourselves as the Sorcerer’s Apprentice. Anything we DO is likely to cause problems. (As opposed to anything we STOP doing, which would be beneficial, like stopping destroying the Americas rainforests)
Further, GW has now been twisted and co-opted to somehow justify misguided policies that redirect food to be used for fuel (ethanol), causing all sorts of negative, (presumably) unintended side effects.
gm
Actually, boardmanric – that was Disraeli, not Twian, and as far as your “math” on how many scientists the consensus represents – where are you getting these numbers from? If you new anything about stats a sample size of over 10 000 is a heck of a lot and more than enough to infer trends in a population, given proper randomization and requal representation from all fields, and surveying every member would be nigh impossible – that is why we have statistics. To protect yourself from bad stats, learn about stats: don’t dismiss them and call them lies.
And this is merely the US. There are many other scientists worldwide so I think the % of skeptics would reduce even further
It’s prudent to point out that the 31,000 scientist who have signed it far outweigh the scientists who are actively working on global warming research with the U.N. I’d love to see that visualized, as it would tell a different tale.
Anxious Medic: You’re right, 10,000 is quite a large enough number to represent a population. The next question is: what population? Was this sample randomly selected from all scientists in the US? Or does this ‘sample’ represent “the people who not only object to ‘global warming’, but are willing to come to our website and fill in an online survey, claiming they are a scientist, but we actually don’t ask for any proof of any qualifications”?
So, yeah. Protect yourself from bad stats. :-D
36 Trackbacks
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Noel Bellen and greychampion, Instant QuoteStore. Instant QuoteStore said: Climate Change: A Consensus Among Scientists? http://bit.ly/5XmxY0 [...]
[...] 0,24% van de wetenschappers gelooft niet in klimaatverandering23-12-2009 om 18:09 door Nick OttensHoeveel wetenschappers geloven niet in klimaatverandering? klimaatsceptici, Waan v/d Dag Terug naar het blog 0 Reacties Naar reactieformulier/**/ [...]
[...] in Daily life, Environment, Global warming, Science at 2:39 pm by LeisureGuy Interesting chart: Off the back of the recent Climate Skeptics vs The Consensus image, we were curious how many [...]
[...] Is Global Warming Unstoppable? Information IS beautiful Climate Change: A Consensus Among Scientists? | Information Is Beautiful [...]
[...] Climate Change: A Consensus Among Scientists? | Information Is Beautiful via kwout [...]
[...] is beatiful publica un gráfico que aclara el soporte que tienen una y otra opción en el mundo cientÃfico de EEUU. Casi 13 [...]
[...] Climate Change: A Consensus Among Scientists? | Information Is … [...]
Beware of preserved snowflakes…
Greetings.Jewish date:  7 Ṭeveth 5770 (Parashath Wayyiggash).Today’s quasi-holiday:  National Eggnog Day.Worthy cause of the day:  “action.firedoglake.com | Kill the Senate Bill – Sign our……
[...] Climate Change: A Consensus Among Scientists? | Information Is … [...]
[...] Climate Change: A Consensus Among Scientists? | Information Is … [...]
[...] Climate Change: A Consensus Among Scientists? http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/climate-change-a-consensus-among-scientists/ [...]
[...] I heard this argument the other day, and went hunting down a visual way to express it, and found this via Information is Beautiful: [...]
[...] I heard this argument the other day, and went hunting down a visual way to express it, and found this via Information is Beautiful: [...]
[...] I heard this argument the other day, and went hunting down a visual way to express it, and found this via Information is Beautiful: [...]
[...] I heard this argument the other day, and went hunting down a visual way to express it, and found this via Information is Beautiful: [...]
[...] I heard this argument the other day, and went hunting down a visual way to express it, and found this via Information is Beautiful: [...]
[...] I heard this argument the other day, and went hunting down a visual way to express it, and found this via Information is Beautiful: [...]
[...] Muito se tem desinformado a propósito das alterações climáticas. A esmagadora maioria dos textos e comentários dos auto-proclamados cépticos, na verdade negacionistas, enferma de um bias que será maioritariamente polÃtico. Associam o ambiente à esquerda, o clima ao ambiente e em termos de raciocÃnio a coisa ficará por aÃ. Fazem o trabalho de idiotas úteis de campanhas profissionais quase sempre ligadas a interesses petrolÃferos ou do carvão. A maior parte desta guerrilha parte dos EUA e do aparelho dos conservadores. Uns poucos acham-se intelectualmente rebeldes e particularmente inteligentes, porque pensam diferente. É como ser diferente por beber Coca-Cola. Mas, mas será bom colocar em perspectiva o que significa o consenso. Dos cientistas que realmente publicam em qualquer campo, 11% discordam que o Homem esteja a influenciar o aquecimento global. Se forem apenas climatologistas, o número desce para 1%. Dividindo os cépticos por áreas da ciência, podia-se esperar especialistas em clima e ciências da terra, mas não. Apenas 12% nesses campos. Engenharia, 49% (incluindo engenheiros quÃmicos e fÃsicos). Quase metade dos cépticos são engenheiros, porque será? Diria que uma sondagem pelas petrolÃferas e empresas de carvão, concluiria que empregam mesmo muitos engenheiros, uma bizarra coincidência. O resto dos gráficos no Information Is Beautiful. [...]
[...] the first option. We know science is not a democracy, but let the climatologist do their best and shed some light at the [...]
[...] Climate Change: A Consensus Among Scientists? | Information Is … [...]
[...] Climate Change: A Consensus Among Scientists? | Information Is … [...]
[...] for example, David’s “Climate Consensus?” diagram above, which clearly shows that the vast majority of climate scientists in the U.S. [...]
[...] LINKS Information is Beautiful [...]
[...] there any doubt left? The website where I found this cool image has more of these great visuals demonstrating the vast scientific [...]
[...] there any doubt left? The website where I found this cool image has more of these great visuals demonstrating the vast scientific [...]
[...] Here’s the source, which has more graphs of equal interest. C;ocl graph to enlarge the lesson it teaches. [...]
[...] Posted in Uncategorized via informationisbeautiful.net [...]
[...] this country. And what does consensus look like, you may wonder? Thanks to the fantastic folks at Information is Beautiful, I can show you. Consensus looks like [...]
[...] Via Information is Beautiful: [...]
[...] Climate Change: A Consensus Among Scientists? | Information Is Beautiful Climate Change: A Consensus Among Scientists? December 23, 2009 Off the back of the recent [...]
[...] The content of the graph and discussion is also interesting. You can check it out on the Information is Beautiful blog. [...]
[...] and for the references given.Related blog postsClimategate: time for the tumbrils ? Telegraph BlogsClimate Change: A Consensus Among Scientists? | Information Is …Harris Poll: Europeans Tend to Care More Strongly about Climate …Poll Shows that UK Civil [...]
[...] ¿Cuál es el consenso cientÃfico? http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/climate-change-a-consens… por erlang hace 3 segundos [...]
[...] » noticia original [...]
[...] » noticia original [...]
[...] http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/climate-change-a-consensus-among-scientists/2009/ [...]