Official global warming PF Earth forum poll

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the skepticism surrounding anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and the perception of educated individuals in this context. It highlights that many skeptics possess knowledge beyond mainstream media narratives and emphasizes the need for rigorous scientific methods in climate data analysis. Concerns are raised about the reliability of temperature data, particularly regarding the averaging of irregularly distributed temperature readings, which may not accurately reflect true conditions. The conversation also points out that media often misrepresents information about climate change, leading to misconceptions about the facts. Overall, the thread underscores the importance of critical evaluation of data and the scientific process in understanding climate issues.

Poll concerning what you think of the global warming. Check all that apply.

  • I am a "global warmer" who sides with AGW

    Votes: 6 30.0%

  • I am a "global warmer" who sides with non-anthropogenic global warming

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I am skeptical of AGW

    Votes: 9 45.0%

  • I am skeptical of a global warming occurring right now

    Votes: 3 15.0%

  • There is controversy concerning global warming

    Votes: 9 45.0%

  • There is little or no controversy concerning global warming

    Votes: 1 5.0%

  • Information regarding the subject is often incorrectly regarded as fact in the media

    Votes: 10 50.0%

  • Information regarding the subject is usually correctly regarded as fact in the media

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Actions must be taken to fight the menace, whether anthropogenic or natural

    Votes: 3 15.0%

  • We should not take action, either because actions are futile, or there is nothing to fight.

    Votes: 7 35.0%
  • Total voters
    20
Mk
Messages
2,039
Reaction score
4
Ok guys, this is the poll. Is there only a very small minority of educated people that are AGW skeptics? Global warming skeptics? I think most of us here are aquainted with the subject's aire de academia, but, please vote only if you know more than what was served to you on a silver platter, i.e. the mass media (magazines, editorials, blogs, newspapers, television news, internet news, radio, gossip and rumors, etc..)
 
Last edited:
Earth sciences news on Phys.org
You omitted "insufficient data to say anything."
 
I only get 10 options, I can't fit everything it. That is under skeptical, no?
 
Conditionally --- I know the quantity and quality of the data --- I can state minimum quantity and quality necessary for constructing hypotheses about climate --- I can compare the minimum quality and quality to that extant --- (no skepticism so far) --- do I have doubts about the qualifications and motives of the people constructing the "Rube Goldberg" cause and effect mechanisms? To some extent. Can I accept n-fold "if" statements as "science?" No --- science proceeds through tests of a single "if" at a time.

Fair 'nuff?
 
That is like:

If I'm driving too fast and
If the brakes are worn down a bit and
if there is a sharp turn ahead and
if there is a abyss next to the road and
if the guard rail is too weak then
I'm in big trouble
endif
endif
endif
endif
endif
 
There is a real problem with the temperature data. Averaging the high and low numbers in an irregularly distributed series of numbers does not produce a mathematically reliable result. The high or low number on a specific day may represent the temperature for a few minutes or for a few hours.

If average temperatures are going to be used the readings must be taken at specific intervals during each day.
 
There is controversy concerning global warming

check

Information regarding the subject is often incorrectly regarded as fact in the media

check
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top