Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bilow who wrote (752980)	11/15/2013 11:23:40 AM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577111

Judith Curry has published something like 150 peer reviewed scientific papers mostly on climate. She has a blog. And she wrote a post on the subject of the opinions of the professional community from the polling data obtained by Lianne Lefsrud and Renate Meyer that showed that there is no consensus: It is becoming increasingly apparent that you are misreading or have been misled about much of what you are referencing here. I am posting excerpts of what JC has said and the table showing the result of her study. In her explanation of the table below, she is clear that the first column shows respondents who consider themselves "climate scientists"...and there the consensus is quite apparent. When blended in with other respondents to the survey, the consensus figure is diluted to 52%...equally important is the fact that only 5% of the total respondent pool (2% of the scientist pool) believe that GW causes are "natural" ... please also note that she points out that some of the non scientist respondent pool is comprised of meteorologists, and government and industry figures...much more likely to respond without first hand research experience. scientificamerican.com Climate skeptics have seized on Curry’s statements to cast doubt on the basic science of climate change. So it is important to emphasize that nothing she encountered led her to question the science; she still has no doubt that the planet is warming, that human-generated greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, are in large part to blame, or that the plausible worst-case scenario could be catastrophic. She does not believe that the Climategate e-mails are evidence of fraud or that the IPCC is some kind of grand international conspiracy. What she does believe is that the mainstream climate science community has moved beyond the ivory tower into a type of fortress mentality, in which insiders can do no wrong and outsiders are forbidden entry. Below you will find the table summarizing her consensus study... I would also point out that there are a number of other studies which confirm her results of surveys of climatologists...that is scientists who do actual research on the subject. The results are overwhelming, as are JC's for this particular group. Al