Space/Science — HabitableZone

Space/Science » in reply to Extract first, then answer....

re: Extract first, then answer....
gbaikie — (archived)

"But if she had talked to scientist working in the field and who were very knowledgable in this topic, she would probably find that this view was rare."

How do you come to this conclusion?

Well, I would thought this before Peiser repeated her experiment, but with 13 out of 1000, that's what I would say is rare.
"Of all 1117 abstracts, only 13 (or 1%) explicitly endorse the 'consensus view' "
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htm

But I would suspect that this sample would have tendency inflate the true numbers. There is probably less than 13 per 1000 of scientists working in this field who were very knowledgable on this topic who think GW is known to be significantly caused by human activity or that there is "scientific consensus on the anthropogenic causes of recent global warming. Or any other wording that suggest that CO2 produced by human activity has a measurable affect on Global temperatures [which I define "measurable" as more than .5 C added to to Global temperature- over any length of time or was definitely going to add .5 or more to global temperature in the future. This is what I mean by measurable or significant- something that can with high degree of certainty be distingished from natural variablity and long term trend of natural GW.]

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (40 posts)