Global Warming Truth

[Azorus]

Paul,

Please quit dodging the question.  Answer how it is a consensus if only 3146 of over 10,000 answer?  I understand the intent of the survey is to get a united sense that global warming is happenening, but you can not boast such a claim if you get only 30.4% of all the scientist surveyed to answer.  When you dodge the question it makes it seems as if you do not understand.  Please answer.

[Azorus]

Paul,

As it says in your article "An invitation to participate in the survey
was sent to 10,257 Earth scientists.
The database was built from Keane and
Martinez [2007], which lists all geosciences
faculty at reporting academic institutions,
along with researchers at state
geologic surveys associated with local
universities, and researchers at U.S. federal
research facilities (e.g., U.S. Geological
Survey, NASA, and NOAA (U.S.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration) facilities; U.S. Department
of Energy national laboratories; and
so forth)."

These are already well know scientist, not average people.  Why did they only pick a slect few to keep as valid results when the entire list was sent out to Earth scientist?
Things do not add up, statistics show that 30.4% is not consensus.

[PaulLowrance]

Do you really think you're fooling people here by trying to falsely insinuate I did not answer your question. I answer it. The survey conducted by the University is one of active publishing climatologist. Inactive scientists are not up to date and show lack of interest or do not have the time. Why in the world would you want to place your trust in inactive scientists? And who knows what the percentage would have been for the inactive scientists. Maybe it would also be close to 97%, but that's unimportant. What's important is to get the opinions of the best scientists. And if you somehow think that active publishing scientists are not the best, then that's your opinion, not mine.

Do they pay you per post or per hour to out right trash science and post gibberish?

[Azorus]

qouted from article
An invitation to participate in the survey
was sent to 10,257 Earth scientists.
The database was built from Keane and
Martinez [2007], which lists all geosciences
faculty at reporting academic institutions,
along with researchers at state
geologic surveys associated with local
universities, and researchers at U.S. federal
research facilities (e.g., U.S. Geological
Survey, NASA, and NOAA (U.S.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration) facilities; U.S. Department
of Energy national laboratories; and
so forth).

This is a list of Earth Scientist as of 2007, they are current on earth science issues, the survey was conducted in 2008.  Please explain why only 30.4% only responded.  Please explain why only 79 are considered active from there list of over 10,000, that they made, from 2007 when they did there survey in 2008?  Please explain how 3146 is a concensus of over 10,000?

I would also like to make note that they made this list of Earth Scientist.  If they made the list, did the survey, why did they alter the results?

[Azorus]

qouted

Results show that overall, 90% of participants
answered “risen” to question 1
and 82% answered yes to question 2. In
general, as the level of active research
and specialization in climate science
increases, so does agreement with the two
primary questions (Figure 1). In our survey,
the most specialized and knowledgeable
respondents (with regard to climate
change) are those 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 (79 individuals
in total). Of these specialists, 96.2%
(76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1
and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question
2.

What this part of your article is saying that there is bias in it because it only picks a select field of research and then tosses out the rest of the data.  In other words the article is flawed, it would be more reasonable to say that yes only 90% of researchers agree global temps are rising, but instead they wanted to make headlines by saying 96.2%.