New statistics on-line until 7 March: warmist/skeptic?
The "professional background" statistics has been closed after a total of only 71 votes
not scientist: 15%
natural scientists
physics 24%; chemistry 11%; geology 7%; meteorolgy 11%;
oceanography: 0; engineering: 15%; biology: 14%; other: 10%
geography: 8%
mathematics: 14%
social sciences
ecopnomy: 3%; sociology: 3%; anthropology: 1%; education: 1%
political sciences: 4%; other: 3%
Several votes were possible.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
I am a lukewarmer. Meaning I see convincing evidence that climate sensitivity for CO2 doubling is less than 1.5 degrees. And that this moderate warming is predominantly beneficial for mankind.
Does this make me a moderate warmist or a moderate doubter?
And what is a "denier" besides a unit for fiber density? ;-)
in addition:
Tis poll was set up by Roger Pielke Sr in 2008 http://climatesci.org/2008/02/22/is-there-agreement-amongst-climate-scientists-on-the-ipcc-ar4-wg1/ (page currently not responding) in my humble opinion these pollquestions are more neutrally formulated.
1. There is no warming; it is a fabrication based on inaccurate/inappropriate measurement. Human activity is not having any significant effect on Climate. The data on which such assumptions are made is so compromised as to be worthless. The physical science basis of AGW theory is founded on a false hypothesis.
2. Any recent warming is most likely natural. Human input of CO2 has very little to do with it. Solar, naturally varying water vapour and similar variables can explain most or all of the climate changes. Projections based on Global Climate Models are unreliable because these are based on too many assumptions and unreliable datasets.
3. There are changes in the atmosphere, including added CO2 from human activities, but significant climate effects are likely to be all within natural limits. The ’scares’ are exaggerations with a political motive. The undue emphasis on CO2 diverts attention away from other, important research on climate variability and change.
4. There is warming and the human addition of CO2 causes some of it, but the science is too uncertain to be confident about current attributions of the precise role of CO2 with respect to other climate forcings. The IPCC WG1 overestimates the role of CO2 relative to other forcings, including a diverse variety of human climate forcings.
5. The scientific basis for human impacts on climate is well represented by the IPCC WG1 report. The lead scientists know what they are doing. We are warming the planet, with CO2 as the main culprit. At least some of the forecast consequences of this change are based on robust evidence.
6. The IPCC WG1 is compromised by political intervention; I agree with those scientists who say that the IPCC WG1 is underestimating the problem. Action to reduce human emissions of CO2 in order to mitigate against serious consequences is more urgent than the report suggests. This should be done irrespective of other climate and environmental considerations.
7. The IPCC WG1 seriously understates the human influence on climate. I agree with those scientists who say that major mitigation responses are needed immediately to prevent catastrophic serious warming and other impacts projected to result from human emissions of CO2. We are seriously damaging the Earth’s climate, and will continue to face devastating consequences for many years.
Dear Hans Erren,
you are certainly right that the poll could be done in a more sophisticated manner - but space is short in the available software, and all I want to see is a rough overview of what the readers here think. This has nothing to do with what other people mean; certainly not an attempt to return anything representative. Anyway, thanks for the suggestion.
Hans von Storch
A strange poll. It is headed skeptic/warmist. But skeptic is not one of the options. So I am not voting.
Very useful comment - who is interested to learn that anonymous is not voting?
Re the "professional background" poll: Wouldn´t it be interesting to find out how many of the readers are employed in Academia, some Gov. Agency or with private companies etc?
Post a Comment (pop-up window,non-moderated)