The reputable surveys about scientific consensus generally aren't from polling random scientists.  They are usually done by doing a survey of articles published in scientific journals and seeing what percentage agree with, disagree with, or are agnostic with regards to the "standard" model of climate change.  Its a much better way of doing things.

In any case, looking at a single poll of scientists is kind of pointless.  I'm sure that a lot of groups are trying to poll scientists for a variety of reasons.  The groups probably range from "Clete's Climut Blog" to international science agencies.  For this reason, I'm sure that the quality of survey questions have a pretty wide range, so looking at a sample size of 1 poll is probably not very representative.

Ok. So how would you separate the "skeptics" from the true believers?

You could ask them..."Are you a skeptic or a true believer?"

That might work...;)

The "reputable surveys" done on "articles published in scientific journals" were exactly the same as those worthless example survey questions he listed.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/

This is a subject already done to death in this very thread, sixty pages back or better.  Repeatedly.  I presume it will be glossed over once more.

Yes, about 80 pages of this thread are redundant....kinda why I'd hoped the 2 month hiatus had been longer....several decades longer...;)

No way, even if they give up the ghost tomorrow and admit it hasn't been warming for over a decade, and hadn't warmed but a fraction of what was claimed in the century leading up to that lack of warming, they'd still only have another 25 years or so before we get back to the warming phase of the cycle.

Quoting psychoak, reply 2156

No way, even if they give up the ghost tomorrow and admit it hasn't been warming for over a decade, and hadn't warmed but a fraction of what was claimed in the century leading up to that lack of warming, they'd still only have another 25 years or so before we get back to the warming phase of the cycle.

End of psychoak's quote

Or then again, if they come up with another bullshit scam designed to part us from more of our cash - like the moon will collide with Earth if vwe don't stop having sex on a Sunday morning before 9.00am... hence a tax on early Sunday mornin' nooky to fund the anti-lunar colliderscope which saves the planet - global warming will be the error of former 'liars' who duped us for personal gain.

Personally, I think masturbation is more likely to cause the moon to be magnetically drawn toward and collide with Earth.. but I don't figure it'll happen in my life time, so I ain't gonna stop any time soon... not unless they make it a taxable past-time and fit me with a wankometer so's they know how much to overcharge.

And for anyone who thinks I'm not taking the subject seriously, I'd rather be the village idiot/court jester and enjoy life rather than debate shit that ain't gonna happen... tho that lunar collision could happen, given how many wankers worldwide there are.

Wow, you people never really tire of this thread, do you?

And yet here you are.... seemingly tireless [of it] as well.

Notice the 'you people'.

There are a lot of reasonable discussions about the methodologies binning of papers into "support" and "don't support" categories.  Your article that begins with "Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media..." is clearly not one of them.

This basic debate as you can see if you actually read the parent Popular Technology article is about what it means to agree with Climate Change.  The 97% study took a broad view.  They basically took the view that if you thought that humans were causing substantial climate change, you were in the consensus.  But, some people took a narrower view.  They took the view that you had to mostly agree with very specific models (usually IPCC models).

This is a reasonable agreement about methodology that got blown up by the Forbes back into some grand conspiracy involving the liberal media and evil scientists.

A key paragraph:

“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a straw man argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission,” Scafetta responded. “What my papers say is that the IPCC [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun.”

(Scarfetta really doesn't like the IPCC as seen in the next paragraph in the article)

Basically, one party is saying "No, I don't agree because I don't match up with the IPCC models", while the other side is saying "well, the big picture is that you do agree because your models explicitly note that humans have a substantial effect on climate change, its just not as large as what is predicted by the IPCC models".

In any case, in any binning exercise where you have to binarize things into two categories, there will be problems along the edges.  Ask anybody with any knowledge of machine learning or something.  So the binning might not be perfect along the edges of the categories, but thats not surprise, and its a statistical exercise.  Misclassifying a few papers out of a batch of 12,000 is not a big deal (although its inevitable that nutters will not understand this and make a big deal out of it).  As I said at the beginning, there can and is reasonable discussion about the binning of the individual papers.  But given the vast bulk of the papers, moving a few of them around isn't going to change the overall number much.

But this isn't the point.

We ultimately don't care what individual scientists think.  I mean, who cares what the scientists actually think - if you go there, its really just opening things up to ad hominem attacks.

What matters is what can be shown from data/models.  So I don't care what the individual thinks - I care about what they can demonstrate with data or math.

The point is that an extremely high percentage of demonstrable claims from climate scientists have supported the consensus.  It's not clear to me what else matters.  Overwhelming evidence matters.  Overwhelming opinions of individuals is not nearly as relevant.

Replies like that are how I get myself banned...  Perhaps I can behave myself.

Congrats, you got one thing right, it's an opinion piece.  Which is why it says OPINION at the top.  We're supposed to be smart enough to filter out the opinions, and stick to the facts.  Facts being what did the paper claim, versus what was.

The generic, pointlessly misleading questions, which will then be applied to show support for the "standard" model of climate change espoused by the IPCC, that man is causing ~90% of the warming via anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases.

The relevant response, stating that reputable surveys would be on articles to see whether they agree with the afformentioned "standard" model.

The Cook survey?  Checked if they agreed with 50%, then threw out all the non-committals.  Got caught with their pants down on the article classification side, miss classifying works, some entirely unrelated, some from noted skeptics, as explicitly or implicitly endorsing.

So... were you just making sure everyone knew I was right?

Except you don't have evidence for any of this other than the word of a hack opinion piece.

The BEST cases to support the Forbes argument are some situations in which a paper agreed that humans were causing climate change, but not as much as the IPCC reports claimed (roughly half as much as the IPCC reports).

But even those agree with the overall picture that humans are causing climate change.  They just don't think that humans are causing as much as the IPCC does.

And those are the MOST DAMNING cases to the Cook stuff that your hatchet job was able to find.

Its pretty telling that those were the worst things he was able to dig up out of 12,000 papers, don't you think?

The "standard" model I was referring to was the more general model of humans causing climate change.  Not the very specific IPCC model, which is not really all that standard.

Also, to address earlier points, the first response to this issue on the Skeptics StackExchange site is excellent:

http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/19291/have-global-surface-temperatures-not-shown-significant-warming-since-the-late-19

Yeah... I'm gonna get banned again.

The hack opinion piece is backed up by sourced responses from the writers of the miss categorized articles.  The survey data itself is referenced showing they are indeed categorized so.  It's all still up on Skeptical Science, they're a relatively honest bunch.  They may be misleading and hiding things, but they haven't taken previously posted information down, like say... the US government did when they got tired of people asking why temperature trends kept changing every time we asked why they weren't going up.

As a global warming alarmist, steeped in your own denial, perhaps you failed to actually read past the first line and didn't do thinks like check the source material.  The hack opinion piece is just the easiest reference to find from google.  Those of us actually interested in learning something actually check the links instead of immediately resuming the spew of our religious diatribe.

Richard Tol is a prominent proponent of AGW, picked as lead author for the impacts section of the Fifth Assessment Report for the IPCC.  He's on record stating that the theory that the Sun accounts for most of the warming is nonsense.  His only "skeptical" view is that a couple degrees of warming wouldn't be a disaster.

He's been shitting all over Cook et al as being blatantly misleading propaganda since it's release.  He's still at it.  They even had a twitter war, which is perhaps an indication that Tol is a twit, but far be it from me to insult a prestigious member of academia...

So far we've only had a few good swimming days this year... Pretty sad overall. 

I needs me somes global warming.

You can have some of mine, it's in the high 90's this week.

Notice the you people that resurrected this post that had gone dormant (where it should have stayed).

Don't blame me.  I'm Jafo's fault. 

Seriously, Hankers, I have no interest in the 'forum ban game' thread, but I'm not over there bitchin' about it.  I solve the 'problem' of its presence by ignoring it.  As long as the T's of S aren't violated, nothing wrong with this thread that merits Mod intervention, lighthearted as yours I suspect was meant to be. 

Carry on.

I'm one of those "you people".... I know this because I keep getting: "Hey YOU!!!!"

Then I'm not always sure if they're speaking to me... everybody else turns around as well.

Actually, I prefer 'hey me'.  I can then assume they are speaking to themselves and go about my day uninterrupted.

As for climate change/global warming, I haves a theory! 

What if it's an internal thing with the scientists.... eg, hot and cold flushes because of menopaase, thus the inaccurate readings?

Well it was worth a thought.

Well, women who spend a lot of time together do sync together...seems plausible enough...

Don't blame me either...I just live here...;)

NS,S