Comments on: Climate Change: A Consensus Among Scientists?

By: Phil M

Phil M — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 20:43:07 +0000

It’s funny to see the amount of people that are obviously “skeptics” or who call themselves an engineer or allude to some other professionalism……………but fail to be able to read the actual words written:

“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.”

Its no wonder that their confirmation bias determines their position on this subject & makes those words disappear like some sort of informational blindspot. No wonder they can’t understand climate change & the science surrounding it.

By: Kristian

Kristian — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 11:49:52 +0000

Great website! Really puts a hole in the skeptics claims doesn’t it! It demonstrates the importance of percentage rather than simple absolute figures!

By: Dal Jeanis

Dal Jeanis — Wed, 11 May 2011 02:26:40 +0000

While your presentation is attractive, it has two major flaws in truthfulness –
(1) starting with the results from a survey with a mere 30% response rate, designed as inherently self-selected, and not as I read it clearly anonymous, on a subject that has potential for politically based career damage to people on the skeptic side {see England, Met Office, for one example},
(2) going on to falsely conflate mildly positive answers on that survey, on a question with the specific words “a significant contributing factor”, with a belief or consensus by those respondents in whatever the global warming proponents are claiming this week – usually that human-caused global warming is “the primary” cause of any such temperature change. That’s just not what the respondents answered, and any claim to the contrary is disingenuous at best.

That survey cannot thus be truthfully used as support for your estimate of 80-90% consensus of scientists with the GW industry’s political statements, and your graph above comes into focus as pretty, but propaganda.

By: Sophie

Sophie — Sun, 03 Apr 2011 19:20:03 +0000

http://makewealthhistory.org/2009/06/15/31478-scientists-agree-climate-change-is-a-hoax/
This is a good link that mentions that only 39 of these people were climate change scientists.

By: Johan Bazuin

Johan Bazuin — Tue, 08 Mar 2011 16:18:58 +0000

Opinions proof nothing, only facts do. The evidence isn’t good enough to assume global warming is caused by CO2.

By: Will H

Will H — Mon, 07 Feb 2011 03:15:02 +0000

Hello? Chemical engineers work mostly in the fossil fuel energy industry. No oil, no gas, no coal, no job. Get it? The same applies to many mechanical and civil engineers, although in not as high %. Counting engineers as scientists is just silliness. Also let’s not pretend that all scientist know anything about climatology.

By: Minneapolis Electrician

Minneapolis Electrician — Thu, 27 Jan 2011 21:53:44 +0000

There are always 2 sides of the same coin, but I must say, I’m studying a great deal from your site. Sometimes others have very limited mindset, that’s why they fail to understand the other people.

By: Brian Williams

Brian Williams — Sat, 15 Jan 2011 15:23:07 +0000

Since Climate Scientists are funded by government who accept de facto AGW, and are unlikely to fund a study to see if AGW exists, I’m not surprised that so few are sceptical. Turkeys don’t vote for an early Christmas/Thanksgiving do they?

I’m more surprised that you bothered to put that figure in.

I’d be quite interested to know the first degrees that these scientists have, particularly the Climate Scientists. I’m certainly not surprised that Atmospheric Scientists appear there. They are probably the ones with tenure.

Have you considered how difficult it must be to fight against the orthodoxy?

Can you imagine being a biologist who does not believe in Darwin’s theory? They aren’t likely to shout about it are they?

Re: Engineers

My guess is that there are so many engineers there because (a) they know enough science / stats to see through the garbage that’s being put forward (have a look at Harry’s File in the Climategate emails; Steve McIntyre of Climateaudit is an engineer. His site is so named because he wanted to audit the science; that is, get hold of the data and reproduce the results, like a good scientist / sceptic would do, and that’s what got Climategate rolling.)

(b) they are used to working in field where sloppy thinking means death.

By: Bern

Bern — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 07:48:01 +0000

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

By: Colin Daniels

Colin Daniels — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 23:24:31 +0000

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.