Global Warming, "Climategate" and the media

[BenBurch]

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.

Exactly.

Now the seriously funny - funny in a surrealistic sense - thing is that many of the people who insist upon that for climate science believe they are Objectivists. Not only is this not the Objectivism of Ayn Rand, but its not even recognizable as a descendent of that school of thought, flawed though it was.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

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

According to the link I provided, the "wise-person" fallacy I quoted is current front-runner for March's Stundie of the month.

Given the documented popularity of that fallacy, I contend that A.A.Alfie's reference to it exemplifies groupthink.

 

[uke2se]

According to the link I provided, the "wise-person" fallacy I quoted is current front-runner for March's Stundie of the month.

Given the documented popularity of that fallacy, I contend that A.A.Alfie's reference to it exemplifies groupthink.

Should teach me not to make knee-jerk reactions. Sorry.

 

[schrodingasdawg]

According to the link I provided, the "wise-person" fallacy I quoted is current front-runner for March's Stundie of the month.

Given the documented popularity of that fallacy, I contend that A.A.Alfie's reference to it exemplifies groupthink.

I couldn't find a link to the original post in the stundies thread, but maybe it's just because I'm slow-witted.

Here is the original post. It is actually pretty amusing, though I'm fairly new here and only learned about it because of your reference to it.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

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

Why not just ask 87 people whether their work for 2009 was a waste of time and see what they say?
How many climate scientists are there in Sweden?
Was this 87 random? Were they chosen (all we have is the word aquired)? Who commissioned this poll?

Frankly, by itself, the poll means nothing and raises more questions than it answers.

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

Exactly my point. All these scientists have presumably published papers stating AGW is real (my qguess is 85 of 87) - do you really expect them to turn against their own work and potential for future funding?

Gor your poll to start to mean anything, we need many things starting with:
- The number of climate scientists in Sweden
- the qualifications of those that responded
- How and why were they selected
- Who commissioned the report (smacks of IPCC to me)
- Who paid for their 2009 publications and under what terms of reference?
Things like that

That's just off the top of my head.

 

[At In To]

Why not just ask 87 people whether their work for 2009 was a waste of time and see what they say?

Because that's not very interesting? Nobody is stopping you from asking that though.

How many climate scientists are there in Sweden?

I don't know, why don't you try to figure it out if you're interested, instead of asking some fella on a forum?

Was this 87 random?

No, they are identified as the entire population of Swedish scientists for the period 2009-10 who have published investigations related to "global climate change." Since the population is small it can be surveyed entirely without large costs.

Were they chosen (all we have is the word aquired)?

Identified, selected, chosen, yes.

Who commissioned this poll?

The OP says it was Swedish television.

Frankly, by itself, the poll means nothing and raises more questions than it answers.

The poll does no more than it sets out to do. It surveyed scientists in Sweden who have published on global climate change in the past year, and asked them questions relating to the politics and public portrayal of their field.

Nothing more, and nothing less. If you think it raises new questions, well that's good. Information that doesn't yield new questions isn't all that valuable, is it?

 

[332nd]

Why not just ask 87 people whether their work for 2009 was a waste of time and see what they say?

Because asking 87 Theatre professors about aerospace engineering is just as silly as asking 87 aerospace engineering professors about theatre?

How many climate scientists are there in Sweden?

Dunno.

Was this 87 random? Were they chosen (all we have is the word aquired)?

No, but they are the only ones who published on the subject.

Who commissioned this poll?

The Swedish media AFAICT.

Frankly, by itself, the poll means nothing and raises more questions than it answers.

Questions by whom?

Exactly my point. All these scientists have presumably published papers stating AGW is real (my qguess is 85 of 87) - do you really expect them to turn against their own work and potential for future funding?

So none of the scientist who agree with your view can be trusted either?

Gor your poll to start to mean anything, we need many things starting with:
- The number of climate scientists in Sweden
- the qualifications of those that responded
- How and why were they selected
- Who commissioned the report (smacks of IPCC to me)
- Who paid for their 2009 publications and under what terms of reference?
Things like that

If you find that:
-There are 204 climate scientist in Sweden.
-117 are qualified to respond to the questions.
-They were selected randomly.
-It was commissioned by 3 Swedish newspapers.
_Half was paid for by said news papers and Half was paid for by Rupert Murdock.

Would you reconsider your position?

That's just off the top of my head.

Mine too.

 

[DC]

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

those that post Youtube videos about the AGW Hoax

 

[uke2se]

So, about my question in the OP...

Anyone know if there are any surveys like this going on in other countries?