Shame on Pew: world's most biased poll

There is a Pew research study purporting to poll “scientists.” The question I immediately want answered is, what’s a “scientist?” The answer, as far as Pew is concerned, is anyone who is a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

The AAAS is a liberal organization with stated goals such as “Increase diversity in the scientific community,” “Use science to advance human rights” (sometimes in collaboration with leftist-sympathizing Amnesty International), ”Sustainable Development” and ”Women’s Collaboration”.

You don’t in any way have to be a real scientist to be a member of this organization. All you need to do is send them $146. School teachers are especially encouraged to join, and no one should confuse a grade K-12 school teacher with a real scientist.

So who would join an organization like this? LIBERALS! Which explains why only 6% of “scientists” who were polled said they were Republican.

A New York Times article jumped on this survey to shame people into believing in global warming. “[A]lmost all of the scientists surveyed accept that human activity, chiefly the burning of fossil fuels, is causing global warming,” trumpets the NY Times. Actually, it’s pretty interesting that 16% of the members of this liberal organization don’t think that. Perhaps a survey of real scientists would show that there isn’t really a “consensus.”

Comments

[sabril]

BTW, I'm a skeptic and I concede that human activity -- including burning of fossil fuels -- can and does cause warming.

[Brutus]

Good point re what's a scientist?

[Patrik]

The so-called "scientists" of today are nothing more than High Priests. It would behoove us all to recognize this fact.

[JohnM]

Especially in light of all the scientific organizations that refute global warming. Oh wait, there aren't any.

Whenever a concept of science isn't accepted by all scientists, you need to look at the fields of the dissenting scientists.

If, say, a quarter of physicists accept string theory and a quarter don't, then you have a genuine scientific debate.

On the other hand, if virtually every biologist accepts evolution and the only scientists who don't are mostly engineers who have no training in biology at all, then it's safe to assume shenanigans

AGW appears to have the full support of most people with any training in the climate sciences.

From the AAAS section on sustainability:
"Science and technology for sustainability seeks to enable the knowledge and actions that allow human society to meet its present needs without compromising future needs."

You would think this would be a conservative agenda, right? Actually, I think this would seem like a good scientific agenda for anyone who doesn't expect Jebus to return "any minute now."

[Ned]

I used to be a member (a profesional member) of AAAS, but I quit. Interestingly, it appears that anyone who ponies up the membership fee can join, for as little as $99 if you're a kindergarten teacher (lots of real scientists there). The AAAS position papers are all reliably liberal - AGW is a serious problem and is taking place RIGHT NOW! Any underrepresentation of women and minorities in science and engineering is solely due to discrimination and has nothing to do with HBD or cultural influences - I think we've heard it all before.

Leftists love to practice this sort of deception. They'll pick groups stuffed with liberals such as AAAS and quote their positions with great gravity, often using terms such as "authoritative" and "prestigious." You're not supposed to pick up on the fact that these groups are highly liberal to begin with and therefore can be reliably expected to spout liberal positions. Liberal think tanks and pressure groups often have innocent-sounding names and are characterized as "nonpartisan." This sort of deception is a regular feature of the NYT and other MSM bastions.

[The Undiscovered Jew]

According to Pew, younger scientists were most likely to beilieve in God. What's up with that?

[HS: Too young to realize the AAAS membership is a waste of money?]

[Jesse]

To answer your question a bit, from the report:

"Results for the scientist survey are based on 2,533 online interviews conducted from May 1 to June 14,
2009 with members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), under the direction of
Princeton Survey Research Associates International. A sample of 9,998 members was drawn from the AAAS
membership list excluding those who were not based in the United States or whose membership type identified them
as primary or secondary-level educators."

[dearieme]

All "climate scientists" agree? So, no doubt, did all alchemists.

[sabril]

"global warming"

Serious question:

What exactly do you mean by "global warming"?

(1) The hypothesis that global surface temperatures have risen since 1950 or so?

(2) The hypothesis that mankind's activities are likely to cause an increase in global surface temperatures?

(3) The hypothesis that mankind's activities are likely to increase surface temperatures AND such increase will be greatly magnified by water vapor feedback?

Warmists like to play a bait and switch game. Because there is broad consensus about (1) and (2). Even Richard Lindzen agrees with (1) and (2).

There is not consensus about (3). Only if (3) is true do we need to curtail CO2 emissions. Not only is there no consensus about (3), there is essentially no evidentiary support for (3).

[Kevin K]

The AAAS is basically a subscription service to "Science" magazine which is the most prestigious journal to get your crap published in.

Most scientists aren't members of AAAS and get articles from Science from on-line libraries with your affiliated institutions and so forth. I've worked in physics for over a decade now and I don't know anyone who subsribes to it.

I'll bet there are certain places that pay for membership and everyone signs up, but I don't work in those places.

Most scientists, even the kind that actually do work, are very liberal. Its annoying.

[JohnM]

Evolution:

What exactly do you mean by "Evolution"?

1 Micro Evolution
2 Macro Evolution
3 Organic Evolution
4 Evolution of Stars and Planets
5 Chemical Evolution
6 Cosmic Evolution

Darwinists like to play a bait and switch game. Because there is broad consensus about (1). Even Dr. Dino agrees with.

There is not consensus about (2-6). Only if (2-6) is true do we need to accept evolution. Not only is there no consensus about (2-6), there is essentially no evidentiary support for (2-6).

A mix of the last comment and
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=65381&lofi=1&lofi=0&lofi=1

I suppose it's a choice between accepting the training and recommendations of professional scientists vs. the false dichotomoies of the interwebs.

[oatwhore]

“Increase diversity in the scientific community,”

Really, we can't have that now can we?

“Use science to advance human rights”

Human rights... pfft ...who needs'em?

[sabril]

"What exactly do you mean by 'Evolution'?"

:shrug: I didn't use the term so it's not incumbent on me to define it. If I were claiming a consensus about "evolution," I would certainly define my terms if asked reasonably.

You, on the other hand, used the phrase "global warming" I doubt you even understand what you yourself mean by the phrase.

Since you dodged my first question, I will ask you a second:

Does noted skeptic Dr. Richard Lindzen believe in "global warming?"

[Peter]

Is there any other way the Pew group could have gotten a list of scientists? It could be that using the AAAS list was the only reasonable alternative.

[Gil]

Of course most scientists are Liberals! One of the facets of Liberalism is 'change for the better'. Conservatives, by definition, want to conserve a particular snapshot of society when 'everything was in perfect balance until the Liberals screwed it up'. Conservatives seem to be misty-eyed for the 1800s. Maybe because it was a time for small government, little rules, high gun ownership, capital & corporal punishment (esp. for children), quaint small towns where everyone knew one another, diseases to cull the weaker people, women & minorities knew their place, etc.

[Alex]

Even if the list doesn't include educators, couldn't it still include non-scientists?

[JohnM]

heh
I was doing a parody-- showing how the same arguments against AGW are also used against evolution.
The arguments here are exactly like the ones that creationists use.
*Point out one professor who disputes the theory (vs. the hundreds that accept the theory).
*State that there's "no evidence" the theory is true even though many different fields of research converge to provide evidence.
*Come up with some grand conspiracy why scientists --even christian ones-- all sat up one night to hash out their liberal plots.
*Assume that the scientists have some big agenda they are using the theory to promote, without acknowledging the very likely possibility they are discounting said theory to promote their own agenda.
*And of course, a complete disrespect for the scientific community. That you'll accept their ideas and concepts so long as they don't go against your pre-set beliefs.

side note: turns out new research has created some new techniques that have been shown to boost fluid intelligence.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2383939

[Rachid]

Human being is destroying himself by his own hands: http://inspirationwriting.blogspot.com/2009/07/scientific-studies-showed-where-there.html

[sabril]

"Does noted skeptic Dr. Richard Lindzen believe in 'global warming?'"

Let me rephrase that question for the benefit of JohnM:

Does noted skeptic Dr. Richard Lindzen support AGW?

Seems like a simple question. Richard Lindzen is a prominent skeptic. He's the guy who is regularly accused of being a shill for the oil companies. Recently, a Boston area rug appraisor refused to appraise his rug because of Lindzen's views on global warming.

But I have a feeling JohnM will evade this question too.

Does noted skeptic Dr. Richard Lindzen support AGW?

[sabril]

"The arguments here are exactly like the ones that creationists use."

Not the arguments I'm making.

"*Point out one professor who disputes the theory (vs. the hundreds that accept the theory)."

I haven't done that. In my previous posts, I mentioned Professor Lindzen only to demonstrate the ambiguity of phrases like "AGW" and "global warming."

"*State that there's 'no evidence' the theory is true even though many different fields of research converge to provide evidence."

In the case of global warming, there really is essentially no evidence to support the water vapor feedback hypothesis. As far as the claim of "no evidence" goes, such a claim is made both by charlatans and by skeptics calling out such charlatans.

"*Come up with some grand conspiracy why scientists --even christian ones-- all sat up one night to hash out their liberal plots."

I have offered no such conspiracy here. And I would note it's a common strawman for warmists to claim that skeptics are arguing that such a conspiracy claim has been made.

"Assume that the scientists have some big agenda they are using the theory to promote, without acknowledging the very likely possibility they are discounting said theory to promote their own agenda."

I have no idea what this means.

"And of course, a complete disrespect for the scientific community. That you'll accept their ideas and concepts so long as they don't go against your pre-set beliefs."

It depends how you define "scientific community." Is Richard Lindzen part of the "scientific community"? Do you accept his ideas and concepts?

And by the way, you still haven't answered my extremely simple question:

Does noted skeptic Dr. Richard Lindzen support AGW?

[sabril]

I also note that the warmists are typically uninterested in debating the actual science. When pressed, they normally fall back on ad homenim attacks. e.g. comparing their opponents to creationists or claiming skeptics are under the influence of the oil industry.

[JohnM]

"Does noted skeptic Dr. Richard Lindzen support AGW?"

No, he doesn't accept many of the major tenents.

But that's not how science works. There really needs to be a group consensus.

Take Einstein. yes, for years people just took the Newtonian model as explaining everything. Einstein changed all that. But he did it by convincing a large group of his peers-- fellow physicists. they looked at his research and declared it sound.

Who knows-- maybe Lindzen is on to something. But maybe his data or his interpretation is wrong. All I know is that most people who study climate believe that humans are causing global warming, we should stop that, and if we don't Florida will be a series of islands.

Michael Behe is a scientist and a teacher at a good university in Pennsylvania. He does not support darwinian evolution. Most of his peers reject his ideas. But creationits will tout his name to support their idiocy.

So I believe I answered your question. Now let me ask you one.

How come whenever scientists reach a conclusion you doesn't like, you find the one or two scientists who disagree with the group consensus to justify your rejection of said conclusion?

Put another way, if Dr. Lindzen is unable to convince his peers that his climate observations are correct, why is he able to convince you? Are you saying you know more about global warming that scientists who have spent year studying our climate?
You know more than these people?
http://globalchange.mit.edu/people/staff.php

[sabril]

Me: "Does noted skeptic Dr. Richard Lindzen support AGW?"

JohnM: "No . . . ."

Fine. Most importantly, he does not accept the water vapor feedback hypothesis, i.e. he does not accept that warming due to CO2 will be multiplied by a factor of 2, 3, or even more.

"But that's not how science works"

I'm a little confused. So far in this discussion, I have not made any claim about how science works.

"How come whenever scientists reach a conclusion you doesn't like, you find the one or two scientists who disagree with the group consensus to justify your rejection of said conclusion?"

First you must show that I am actually rejecting the "group consensus" save for one or two scientists. Because it's not fair to ask "Why do you always do X?" if you cannot demonstrate that the person has actually done "X."

So show me that the group consensus of scientists adheres to the water vapor feedback hypothesis. If you cannot do that, then I have not rejected any consensus at all and your question is meaningless.

[sabril]

P.S. I have no interest in speculation and guesswork. It's easy enough for a scientist to explicitly state that he or she accepts and adheres to the hypothesis that atmospheric warming will be greatly amplified by water vapor feedback.

Thus, a vague statement that mankind's CO2 emissions are likely to cause warming or that mankind should take reasonable steps to limit CO2 emissions does not count.

Also, if your evidence is the statement of an entity or body, you must also show proof that the statement is the consensus view of the rank and file membership of that entity or body and not just the work of a few idealogues on a committee.

I really look forward to seeing your proof that I'm going against the scientific consensus.

[JohnM]

so if we were, at random, to pick a regionally accredited university with a climate studies department and we were to ask each faculty member, do you believe a majority -- or even a sizeable number -- would discount the idea of the water vapor feedback hypothesis?

Are you a betting man?

I'd wager less than 5% would discount the idea.

[YellowJacketGT]

"Who knows-- maybe Lindzen is on to something."

Lindzen is currently batting zero for a million on the topic of AGW. He isn't on to a damn thing.

Water-vapor feedback:
http://climateprogress.org/2008/10/26/study-water-vapor-feedback-is-strong-and-positive-so-we-face-warming-of-several-degrees-celsius/

"...They concluded that the 'water-vapor feedback implied by these observations is strongly positive' and 'similar to that simulated by climate models.'"

"In the real world, key climate change impacts — sea ice loss, ice sheet melting, desertification, and sea level rise — all are either near the top or actually in excess of their values as predicted by the IPCC’s climate models."

"The major climate models are missing key amplifying feedbacks..."

[sabril]

"so if we were, at random, to pick a regionally accredited university with a climate studies department and we were to ask each faculty member, do you believe a majority -- or even a sizeable number -- would discount the idea of the water vapor feedback hypothesis?"

I'm not sure, but I would say that's analagous to polling members of an African-American Studies department about the causes of black failure in America.

However, I'm pretty confident that if you surveyed scientists whose work relates to climatology (many of whom work as geologists or meteorologists) and asked them if the water vapor feedback hypothesis is solidly supported by the evidence, you would not find a supermajority responding "yes."

In any event, you have the burden of proof here. You are claiming that there is a consenus of scientists adhering to the water vapor feedback hypothesis.

Let's see your proofs.

[sabril]

"Lindzen is currently batting zero for a million on the topic of AGW."

Would you care to show me 3 predictions he's made which turned out to be wrong?

[JohnM]

"I'm not sure, but I would say that's analagous to polling members of an African-American Studies department about the causes of black failure in America."

Not quite. Climate studies is based upon hard sciences. Sounds like a cop out to me.

"In any event, you have the burden of proof here. You are claiming that there is a consenus of scientists adhering to the water vapor feedback hypothesis."

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

"It seems that the debate on the
authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how
to effectively communicate this fact to
policy makers and to a public that continues
to mistakenly perceive debate
among scientists.

[sabril]

"Not quite. Climate studies is based upon hard sciences."

So what? By limiting yourself to "climate studies departments" (if any such departments exist) you are likely to be skewing your sample. For example Richard Lindzen is in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences at MIT. Professor Robert Carter works in the "Marine Geophysical Laboratory" at a University in Australia. Would these departments count in your survey?

___________________________________________
___________________________________________

"It seems that the debate on the
authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent . . . ."

Let's look at what your source actually says:

"Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 96.2% of climatologists who are active in climate research believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 97.4% believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 80% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature."

Umm, this says absolutely nothing about water vapor feedback.

Even as a skeptic, I agree 100% that global surface temperatures are higher than pre-1800 levels. I also agree 100% that human activities have or are very likely to increase global surface temperatures.

So what you have shown is the classic warmist bait and switch. You are confusing consensus about X and Y with consensus about Z.

In this case,

X = global surface temperatures have risen;

Y = CO2 emissions are likely to cause increases in global surface temperatures; and

Z = such increases are likely to be greatly amplified through feedback.

Without Z, we don't have a problem. And you have failed to produce any evidence about consensus for Z.

[sabril]

And now I can answer your question, JohnM.

You asked me, in essence, why I am going against the consensus. The answer is that your question contains the (apparently) mistaken assumption that I am actually going against the consensus.

In fact, I agree with the consensus as set forth in your source in my previous post. I agree that global surface temperatures have risen and that mankind's activities are likely to cause an increase in global surface temperatures.

What I disagree with is the claim that such temperature increases are likely to be strongly amplified through positive feedback. However, you have not demonstrated that any consensus exists with respect to such claim.

Do you have any other questions?

[JohnM]

"Z = such increases are likely to be greatly amplified through feedback.

Without Z, we don't have a problem."

Where did you get that idea? Does the scientific community aggree with that?

[sabril]

"Where did you get that idea?"

From Warren Meyer.

"Does the scientific community aggree with that?"

I don't know, but I've never heard of any scientists claiming that non-amplified warming of 1 to 1.5 degrees C will cause serious problems.

As Warren Meyer points out, it warmed by that much between 1850 and 2000 without causing serious problems. If it weren't for modern measurement techniques, most people would not have even noticed.

[Wiibii]

Read this: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1299495&cid=28661901

Your claim: "The AAAS is a liberal organization with stated goals such as "Increase diversity in the scientific community," "Use science to advance human rights" (sometimes in collaboration with leftist-sympathizing Amnesty International), "Sustainable Development" and "Women's Collaboration"."

As the Slashdot comment points out:

"I challenge you to support your claims. You have several quoted items there, but I sure don't see those quotes on the AAAS Website, so where are they from? The closest thing I see is the 6th of their stated goals which is "Strengthen and diversify the science and technology workforce;" which maybe you read as some sort of affirmative action or something, but which seems to be a practical goal, not a liberal agenda, to me. Diversity is a kind of strength, providing flexibility and range for organizations. Finally, although I don't see it listed as an AAAS goal, since when is advancing human rights a liberal agenda? I thought both liberal and conservative ends of the political spectrum were human rights advocates."

[sabril]

Oh comon. When an organization talks about promoting diversity and human rights, everyone knows those are liberal code words.

Or do you think the AAAS is running around supporting the right to keep and bear arms? Somehow I doubt it.

[Gil]

Conservatives don't like science and technology anyway. As sabril asks "where my right to keep and bear arms?" Science and technology liberates women and minorities, empowers governments, makes you owning a gun look antiquated or a loony. Conservatives would happily sacrifice modern technology for 19th century values as it empowers the right people.

[Wiibii]

"Oh comon. When an organization talks about promoting diversity and human rights, everyone knows those are liberal code words."

This is not a valid argument. This is a subjective assertion without any supporting argument.

"Or do you think the AAAS is running around supporting the right to keep and bear arms? Somehow I doubt it."

Is the AAAS running around supporting free vouchers if you buy a meal at McD? That's about how much sense your comment makes. You bring up some completely irrelevant issue and try to promote it as a valid "argument". It isn't.

[JohnM]

"From Warren Meyer."
Ah, who wrote "A Skeptical Layman’s Guide to Anthropogenic Global Warming"
How delightfully prole. "I don't care what those fancy-pants liberal scientists think, I'll get my scientific advice from a layman. He must know what he's talking about because he's a layman. And he's skepitcal! Double Win!"

I don't see any difference between that and some 'tard getting medical advice from a 'healer' rather than a medical doctor. Except of course, that idiocy over global warming directly affects me.

"I don't know, but I've never heard of any scientists claiming that non-amplified warming of 1 to 1.5 degrees C will cause serious problems."

Again, virtually all scientific groups oriented in climate science state emphatically that global warming is going to cause some pretty massive problems. Whatever details about amplified warming are irrelevant.

"As Warren Meyer points out..."

"Hey, I don't want my kids to get vaccines because, as jenny Mccarthy points out, certain vaccines are related to autism. Never mind that the medical community overwhelmingly disagrees. Of course medical doctors are going to promote vaccines. It keeps them in business! It supports their liberal agenda!"

Come back when you have some peer-reviewed research.

[sabril]

"Conservatives don't like science and technology anyway"

I would say it depends on the conservative. My impression is that there are many liberals and conservatives both who have a somewhat luddite view of things.

None of this changes the (apparent) fact that AAAS is a liberal organization.

"Science and technology liberates women and minorities"

Exactly how? It seems to me that it's white men who have liberated women and minorities.

" makes you owning a gun look antiquated or a loony."

Again, exactly how? And does that mean it's antiquated or loony for the police to carry guns?

[JGP]

Gil writes...

"Science and technology liberates women and minorities, empowers governments, makes you owning a gun look antiquated or a loony."

Science certainly does liberate women and minorities. The question is to what exent they are able to create it.

It empowers governments which is why constraints on govenrment are more important than they were in the Middle Ages.

But guns are a form of technology, great equalizers. Gun control was originally intended to keep guns out of the hands of minorities (read blacks.)

Liberals don't like genetically modified foods too much do they? And are they not hostile to mega-engineering projects and HBD? Every one has their pets and ogres. It's not limited to the Right.

[sabril]

"He must know what he's talking about because he's a layman."

Lol. Are ad homenim attacks all you can manage?

"I don't see any difference between that and some 'tard getting medical advice from a 'healer' rather than a medical doctor."

If a "healer" advises you to quit smoking, does that make the advice wrong?

Of course not. I'm not relying on Warren Meyer as an authority here. I'm simply relying on the strength of his arguments.

You are the one who is arguing from authority. And yet you are unable to cite any authority actually supporting your position.

"Come back when you have some peer-reviewed research."

:shrug: You have the burden of proof here. I don't need any peer reviewed research to support my position.

"Again, virtually all scientific groups oriented in climate science state emphatically that global warming is going to cause some pretty massive problems"

Actually you didn't say that before. Your earlier claim was that there was a consensus among individual scientists. The statements of a scientific group do not necessarily represent the views of the rank and file members.

But, now that you've shifted the goalposts, I bet you cannot even back up that claim. Show me 3 "scientific groups" who state "emphatically" that global warming will cause massive problems.

[sabril]

"This is not a valid argument. This is a subjective assertion without any supporting argument."

:shrug: It's a statement based on my general experience. If you seriously dispute that "diversity" and "human rights" generally mean "liberal," then so be it.

"Is the AAAS running around supporting free vouchers if you buy a meal at McD? "

I don't know, but I wouldn't at all be surprised to learn that AAAS supports government food aid for the poor.

Would you?

[Wiibii]

@sabril

I'm still waiting for you to make a valid, coherent, rational argument. It seems that so-called "conservatives" are unable to form coherent arguments.

Too bad I wasted by time trying to get something useful out of you.

[sabril]

"I'm still waiting for you to make a valid, coherent, rational argument."

I'm not sure exactly what you are waiting for. I made a statement based on my general experience.

Let me ask you this:

What evidence would you consider competent to demonstrate that an organization is "liberal"?

"It seems that so-called 'conservatives' are unable to form coherent arguments."

Some are and some aren't. I would guess your generalization is more a result of your own bias than anything else.

[Wiibii]

I rest my case.

[sabril]

"I rest my case."

Lol. i.e. you have no good answer to my question but you wanted to get the last word in.