Climate Change Confuses Most Americans
solarfeeds.com
solarfeeds.com
This gets on my nerves -- science is not the same as running a business. I'm pretty sure that a large part of the said 98% are dogmatically accepting the view of the majority and are too afraid to test any hypotheses...
That said I think there's a bigger flaw in this survey and that's the question itself. The question, as stated in the graph, is "Credibility of Evidence for Anthropogenic Climate Change". Not "Scientists who believe Climate Change will cause a cataclysmic change in our environment"
I think everyone agrees that our presence on Earth is having some impact on the environment. It seems insane not to believe that. The question is to what extent and that isn't addressed in the survey.
The intent here is that disagreement is a sign of stupidity. It's the unmistakable mark of a closed mind heading down the avenue of groupthink. Whether you agree with everything about climate change or not, you would have to agree that dismissing your opponents views as 'less knowleadgeable' is disengenious and shows a dogmatic love of position rather than a desire to increase knowledge. I appreciate this works both ways, but it's a feature of the 'debate' nowadays - the entire process is so full of dogmatic positions it's hard to be clear of where anything is.
Science is a weighing machine and not a voting machine. Consensus matters for very little, results matter a lot.
Also, no real scientist would find a result convincing if there wasn't enough information published to allow them to independently verify the experiment. Using this criterion, 99% of "climate science" is not science.
"Poll after poll has shown that almost 100% of climate scientists accept the evidence of climate change and believe we're the main cause"
Let me see : 100% of the people employed in a field agree that the field is important? Obviously there is so much bias in that I'm surprised anyone would make such a statement.
Let me restate : 100% of butchers agree that being a vegetarian is not good for you.
It's interesting, though, the HN crowd rarely gets into arguments over CC/AGW anymore. I guess it's already been said and there's nothing new.
And if you want a glimpse of some thoughtful scientific discussion of the other (skeptic) side of global warming, go find the blog "Climate Audit" (and no, they're not funded by big oil or the Republicans, and I have no connection with them other than being a reader).