The survey of 3,146 earth scientists from around the world found overwhelming agreement that in the past 200 years, mean global temperatures have been rising, and that human activity is a "significant contributing factor" in changing mean global temperatures.
Peter Doran, an associate professor of earth and environmental sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago, along with former graduate student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, conducted the survey late last year.
The findings appeared Monday in the journal "Eos, Transactions," a publication of the American Geophysical Union.
"The debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes," the researchers conclude.
.
.
.
Doran determined that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.
Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement.
.
.
.
"The petroleum geologist response is not too surprising, but the meteorologists' is very interesting," he said. "Most members of the public think meteorologists know climate, but most of them actually study very short-term phenomena."
Doran was not surprised by the near-unanimous agreement by climatologists.
"They're the ones who study and publish on climate science," he said. "So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it."
Like I said, this is a rather telling report. One can apply this to a lot of other issues, such as.... oh, I don't know.... catastrophic black hole at the LHC destroying our earth? You'll notice that the only people who are going nuts over such a thing are the ones who can't work through a simply QM problem.
Zz.
10 comments:
"Only those invited could participate"
Fail.
Why is that?
They invited ONLY known experts in the field, not amateurs. The survey was specific to people within a certain field of expertise. They make no bones about that, and it isn't a hidden factor.
If I want to survey the opinion of high energy physicists, I will ONLY ask high energy physicists. There's no difference here.
Zz.
That's irrelevant - the results are categorised by experts in their profession anyway so *shouldnt* be affected. Presumably most of these experts have already made their opinions known so this wasn't a blind selection either. Like I said... Fail.
It IS relevant. Most of the public are ignorant of the fact that the EXPERTS in this particular field of study do not have any "controversy" with regards to global warming and its cause.
It is actually irrelevant that these people have made their opinion known or not. These are anecdotal, and no one has done any proper survey to poll what the majority consensus are! If you simply go by individual opinion without a survey like this to rely on, you have no leg to stand on to conclude that the experts think this way simply from individual opinions!
As far as I know, this is the ONLY comprehensive survey of the experts in this field. The FACT that these experts overwhelmingly support one particular view is not something that can be dismissed easily.
Zz.
You're missing the point. I'm only questioning the reliability of the results, not the results or their impact.
Those conducting the survey could easily have made it say what they wanted. The fact that you concur with the result doesn't make it any more reliable.
When science stoops to the level of taking an unreliable consensus like this to prove a point to the public, science has failed too.
What science? This is AN OPINION POLL of a specific group of people! They are not hiding that fact. It was clearly stated.
If I set up a simple projectile motion problem to teach students about basic application of Newton's law, I specify a very restricted condition (i.e. ignore air resistance, consider only an ideal condition, etc.. etc). In other words, I make a very limited condition to simplify the problem. Are you going to complain that I'm not making a "scientific" work simply because it has nothing to do with "reality", and that I haven't includes all the possible factors into the projectile problem? This is absurd!
The survey has a very narrow goal - to survey the opinions of the EXPERTS in the field. You are turning it around and making it into what it did NOT set out to do!
If I survey high energy physicists to get their opinion on the "LHC Blackhole" nonsense, are you telling me that I'm not being scientific simply because my GOAL is to get only the opinion of high energy physicists? What kind of a silly criticism is that?
Zz.
Suppose the consensus wasn't already known. You have the opportunity to only ask those you know will support it. Lets say its 50-50, what result will you get?
Any answer you want if you have intimate knowledge of the surveyees.
Comparing the LHC black hole with global warming is also a very interesting approach. Which of those is an as-yet unproven prediction of armageddon with very weak science behind it?
Supposed the consensus is unknown? Where was there a definitive evidence of a consensus among this group of experts before this? We had anecdotal reports, yes. But you seem to have confused anecdotal evidence with scientific evidence. Now TALK about being unscientific!
I still don't see what you are bitching about here. They wanted to poll a specific group of people. IF they only wanted to get the result they wanted, they could have easily NOT poll the meteorologists and petroleum climatologists. That would give then an even greater support for AGW.
If the poll came out 50-50, that's the result we get! Are you speculating that if it would turn out that way, that these authors would (i) not have done the survey in the first place and (ii) would not have published it? So you are now questioning their integrity? Who are you to make such judgment call? Can I also do what you're doing and make judgment call of your bias and possibly the reason why you are so sore at this report?
In the end, if you think this survey "failed", then put your money where your mouth is. I fully expect you to write a rebuttal to that paper in that journal and point out why this survey fails. Till then, this discussion is over.
Zz.
Interesting post, especially the verdict of the climatologists.
In fact, it is their view that really counts in my book...
I'd like to see the views of the climatologists reported regularly in the press..
For example, I note that the dissenting view given comes from a physicist - but what kind?
That last comment was from me..no idea why it appeared as anon
Post a Comment