Official global warming PF Earth forum poll

[Mk]

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..)

 

[Bystander]

You omitted "insufficient data to say anything."

 

[Mk]

I only get 10 options, I can't fit everything it. That is under skeptical, no?

 

[Bystander]

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?

 

[Andre]

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

 

[reasonmclucus]

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.

 

[Pythagorean]

There is controversy concerning global warming

check

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

check