Obviously I am no going to trace very single quote on wiki, but just a few examples:
|
Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 different countries.[10] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 373 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18.2%. No paper on climate change consensus based on this survey has been published yet (February 2010), but one on another subject has been published based on the survey.[11]
|
A study where only 1 in 5 responds is flawed since it is not a truly random sample. You do not know if those with a particular viewpoint are more likely to respond, or encourage each other to answer through their network.
|
The section "Surveys of scientists and scientific literature" includes a survey of people who published scientific articles on climate change:
'A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change"'
|
And that was answered by this:
|
This poll is not relevant as it contains a fundamental flaw. People who publish articles on climate change are of course more likely to believe in climate change. How much time is someone likely to spend studying something they believe does not exist? Surely if you polled people who write scientific articles about dragons, you would find most of them believe in dragons
|
Lets take another quote from wiki:
|
The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time.
|
And I have yet to see them do that. They probably cant due to the time-scale and large number of factors involved.
So yes, temperature may be increasing. Is it human caused and irreversible? And will it continue to increase?
How are they going to prove that? Can they make
any falsifiable predictions to validate their claims?
As for the Republicans channels, they are pretty much restricted to the asylum, so we don't get them over here in EU.
On the contrary the scary stories off global warming tend to be what makes it into the newspapers in slow periods. Because scaring people sells newspapers. AND gets your research papers quoted, for that matter.
Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy
Scientists investigate the evidence and draw the best conclusions that evidence provides us. We cannot but act in accordance with that evidence until new, better evidence is discovered or provided. To sit on your hands and do nothing until you get handed a Golden Ticket is to sit forever doing nothing. To say nothing of the fact that when it comes to climate change, there's a wide swath of agreement, and the disagreements tend to focus on the specifics.
And for Odin's sake, people... stop watching cable news. It makes you stupid.
|
Thats a bit presumptive, FOX News is largely an American phenomenon. Over here they are mostly known for The Simpsons
And since we are talking scientific methods, I would like to quote these two maxims.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
"Correlation does not imply causation"