Global Warming, "Climategate" and the media

[uke2se]

Recently, Swedish television conducted a survey of scientists active in Sweden on the questions around the IPCC, the so called "climategate" affair and the science surrounding AGW. Through the ISI database, they aquired 87 scientists who had published articles on the subject "global climate change" during 2009-2010.

69 of the contacted scientists replied to the survey, and the results show that 97.1% agree that it is "reasonably established that we find ourselves in a period of global warming". 97.1% also agreed that it is "reasonably established that human impact is a decisive factor behind climate change".

67.2% or the responding scientists also say that Swedish media "have exaggerated “Climategate” and the errors in the IPCC’s latest report".

It would be interesting to see surveys like this from other countries, and possibly an international one. This survey shows that, at least in Sweden, the science still comes first, that scientific consensus around global warming remains unchanged, and that - according to the scientists - the media is putting a negative spin on the science thanks to efforts by denialists.

Full survey here.

Full survey in Swedish (note that scientists were asked to give full credentials, including employer).

 

[little grey rabbit]

were the scientists promised anonymity?

I wonder who were the two brave little cabooses that said no?

67.2% or the responding scientists also say that Swedish media "have exaggerated “Climategate” and the errors in the IPCC’s latest report".

2/3rds of 69 is 46. Reminds me of 67% of all statistics are just made up on the spot.

A lot of people here are confusing process with outcome - the inquiry found no evidence of fraud means the science must be correct. That is a non-sequitur. (As an aside, it is impossible to prove fraud if you can't produce your methodology and process - there is nothing to check). Lets assume that a reasonable person would look at the leaked emails and see no evidence of fraud (and that I am sure is true), that has only limited bearing on if the conclusions are correct or not, nor does it lift the suspicion that an inability to show data and process does not indicate something to conceal.

What you get out of a survey depends on the questions you ask. If you asked the question "do you think it adequate that Phil Jones can not reproduce his data and his explanation for this?" you might have got a different response.

 

[uke2se]

were the scientists promised anonymity?

The information available to the public did not say. I can only assume they were.

I wonder who were the two brave little cabooses that said no?

Doesn't really matter, does it? Are you implying that the rest were coerced or peer-pressured into saying "yes"?

2/3rds of 69 is 46. Reminds me of 67% of all statistics are just made up on the spot.

Well, these aren't, obviously.

A lot of people here are confusing process with outcome - the inquiry found no evidence of fraud means the science must be correct.

This survey doesn't deal with the inquiries, nor does it claim what you say here. Also, what you say here isn't what we're saying about the inquiries. The inquires found no evidence of fraud, period. We know the science is correct from multiple independent lines of evidence.

That is a non-sequitur.

It sure is. What you just did is a straw man.

(As an aside, it is impossible to prove fraud if you can't produce your methodology and process - there is nothing to check).

Who can't produce their methodology?

Lets assume that a reasonable person would look at the leaked emails and see no evidence of fraud (and that I am sure is true), that has only limited bearing on if the conclusions are correct or not, nor does it lift the suspicion that an inability to show data and process does not indicate something to conceal.

Again, who is unable to show data and process, and why are you bringing this up in this thread?

What you get out of a survey depends on the questions you ask. If you asked the question "do you think it adequate that Phil Jones can not reproduce his data and his explanation for this?" you might have got a different response.

Well, that wasn't the question asked. I'm sure that if they were asked "do you think the holocaust is a fraud" they would have got a different response too.

Could you try to stay on topic in your next response?

 

[little grey rabbit]

Well, lets put it another way. Approximately 23 (22.7) scientists out of 69 (maybe some refused to answer this question) felt that the media had not exaggerated Climategate or the errors in the IPCC report.

That its quite stunning in its own way.

Perhaps if a question was asked "Did you feel the fact that the CRU is not adequately able to explain how they derived their findings a matter of concern?" you would have received different responses.
Or if you asked the question: "Do you think the media should have ignored the emails and their content completely?"

As it is, 1/3rd of swedish climate scientists are happy about the way the media performed in this issue.

 

[uke2se]

Well, lets put it another way. Approximately 23 (22.7) scientists out of 69 (maybe some refused to answer this question) felt that the media had not exaggerated Climategate or the errors in the IPCC report.

You can count how many refused to answer the question.

That its quite stunning in its own way.

I agree. Next time denialists should aim higher.

Perhaps if a question was asked "Did you feel the fact that the CRU is not adequately able to explain how they derived their findings a matter of concern?" you would have received different responses.
Or if you asked the question: "Do you think the media should have ignored the emails and their content completely?"

Neither of these questions were asked. Thus we can't speculate what the answers would have been. So, why are you?

As it is, 1/3rd of swedish climate scientists are happy about the way the media performed in this issue.

Please don't change the answer option in the survey to suit your agenda. The answer option was that the Swedish media "generally depict climate research in a correct manner". Not that they were happy about the way the Swedish media handled the "climategate" issue.

As a resident of Sweden, I could add that Swedish media in general don't give denialists much space, even after SwiftHack "climategate". As such, I find it interesting that two thirds of the scientists still found that they had given too much space to the absurd allegations that arose after SwiftHack. This is one of the reasons for why I asked about other countries, possibly countries were the press was much more blatant and gave more space to denialist conspiracy theories.

 

[schrodingasdawg]

Perhaps if a question was asked "Did you feel the fact that the CRU is not adequately able to explain how they derived their findings a matter of concern?" you would have received different responses.

Loaded question. A better question would have been "do you feel that the CRU was not able to adequately explain derived their findings"; and, as a followup, "if you answered yes to the previous question, do you consider this a cause for concern?"

None of the questions on the survey force premises on the survey-taker in such a manner. Why do you feel that you should?

 

[little grey rabbit]

Loaded question. A better question would have been "do you feel that the CRU was not able to adequately explain derived their findings";

As I understand the CRU admit they can not explain how they derived their findings so all we would be demonstrating was how well Swedish climate scientists know their field.

Which would have been interesting as well.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Recently, Swedish television conducted a survey of scientists active in Sweden on the questions around the IPCC, the so called "climategate" affair and the science surrounding AGW. Through the ISI database, they aquired 87 scientists who had published articles on the subject "global climate change" during 2009-2010.

This is the bit that interested me:
87 scientists who published on climate science last year.

They all published on the very science they were being asked about.
How many had their findings in support of AGW? 85 would be my guess.

Looks and sounds like a very loaded panel to being with.

Can our OP enlighten us on this?

 

[Nick Bogaerts]

67.2% or the responding scientists also say that Swedish media "have exaggerated “Climategate” and the errors in the IPCC’s latest report".

That's an impossible number considering there are 69 respondents. If 46 said so, it's 66.7%. If 47, 68.1%. How did they get half a scientist to answer?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

69 of the contacted scientists replied to the survey, and the results show that 97.1% agree that it is "reasonably established that we find ourselves in a period of global warming". 97.1% also agreed that it is "reasonably established that human impact is a decisive factor behind climate change".

67.2% or the responding scientists also say that Swedish media "have exaggerated “Climategate” and the errors in the IPCC’s latest report".

2/3rds of 69 is 46. Reminds me of 67% of all statistics are just made up on the spot.

Well, these aren't, obviously.

On the contrary, it's obvious that the 67.2% figure was made up because...

That's an impossible number considering there are 69 respondents. If 46 said so, it's 66.7%. If 47, 68.1%. How did they get half a scientist to answer?

ETA: The likely explanation for the 67.2% is that it is the fraction of the 67 who agreed that it is "reasonably established that we find ourselves in a period of global warming" and that it is "reasonably established that human impact is a decisive factor behind climate change". That would mean that 45 (65%) of the responding scientists said the Swedish media have exaggerated.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

This is the bit that interested me:
87 scientists who published on climate science last year.

They all published on the very science they were being asked about.
How many had their findings in support of AGW? 85 would be my guess.

Looks and sounds like a very loaded panel to being with.

Indeed, it looks and sounds like the "wise-person" fallacy:

Your reliance upon math and upon physics is deception personified. That type of fallacy is well known and well-understood. It is deception pure and simple and goes by the name of the "wise-person" fallacy, where claims of greater than normal expertise are used to make the claim that those with less expertise cannot understand what only those with more expertise understand.

Your reliance on that fallacy is not persuasive.

 

[At In To]

This is the bit that interested me:
87 scientists who published on climate science last year.

They all published on the very science they were being asked about.
How many had their findings in support of AGW? 85 would be my guess.

Looks and sounds like a very loaded panel to being with.

So I guess asking dentists about dental health and dental issues would be loading the dice also?

 

[At In To]

That's an impossible number considering there are 69 respondents. If 46 said so, it's 66.7%. If 47, 68.1%. How did they get half a scientist to answer?

Read the link, jeez. It's not there to look pretty. On the Swedish media question, they had 64 responses, 43 of which said the media exaggerated. That is, for those paying attention, 67.1875%...

Just because someone responds to a survey doesn't mean they answer all the questions...

 

[themusicteacher]

Good to see postmodernism has hit the sciences as well: if a panel made up of scientists who study climate puts out a report of general agreement, it's obviously biased because it didn't include detractors from outside of the field of climate science. Everyone's opinion is equal and deserves equal airtime, right? How about this, denialists: the next time you go to the doctor, be sure they also have a janitor, an RN, the receptionist, an accountant, a candy striper and your aunt from Scranton come in to help with the diagnoses. After all, they might have something to say about the issue and you need a broad spectrum of "expertise" to draw from to help you make an "informed" decision regarding how to go about treating that pancreatic cancer. Besides, all those oncologists are just in on the conspiracy anyhow. Those people who disagree on well-established scientific fact or treatments are the real heroes, demanding balance and critical thought.

 

[macdoc]

 

[varwoche]

This is the bit that interested me:
87 scientists who published on climate science last year.

They all published on the very science they were being asked about.
How many had their findings in support of AGW? 85 would be my guess.

Looks and sounds like a very loaded panel to being with.

Can our OP enlighten us on this?

Let me save y'all some unnecessary back and forth here and cut to the AAA chase: groupthink

 

[macdoc]

Lucky our aircraft engineers suffer from the same condition.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Perhaps if a question was asked "Did you feel the fact that the CRU is not adequately able to explain how they derived their findings a matter of concern?" you would have received different responses.

Yawn. Jones described his methods in several publications.

 

[uke2se]

That's an impossible number considering there are 69 respondents. If 46 said so, it's 66.7%. If 47, 68.1%. How did they get half a scientist to answer?

If you read the survey you will note that not all 69 responded to every question.

 

[uke2se]

Indeed, it looks and sounds like the "wise-person" fallacy:

Pardon me? Who do you think they should have asked about climate science rather than people who have published articles on climate science?