'Climate Change Scientists' Numbers Dropping Dramatically


By Elmer Beauregard

There used to be 2,500 scientist who believe in Global Warming now there are only 250.

Today in a desperate attempt to restore their reputations a mere 250 scientists came forward to do damage control from the hacked emails that exposed their Ponzi scheme last fall.

The open letter, signed by only 11 Nobel laureates, and published in the May 7 issue of the journal Science, reads, "When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action."

It seems they have also created a new category of scientist, they call themselves "Climate Change Scientists". Which I think makes them seem more like a political group then a scientific one, because they are already assuming the science is proven and are moving on with a political agenda.

On the other side of the debate 31,000 regular old "Scientists" have signed a petition saying they don't believe in Global Warming.

So let's see, that means 123 Out Of 124 Scientist DON'T Believe in Global Warming!


You got your math wrong

that means 124 Out Of 125 Scientist DON'T Believe in Global Warming.


Actually I think I'm right. If you divide 31,000 by 250 you get 124. So 1 in 124 of scientists believe in Global Warming the other 123 don't. Either way there is a consensus forming just not the one we are told.


What are the credentials of these scientists? how many of them are actually working in the field of climate science? Who's payroll are they on, and how much funding are they losing whilst we argue the premise of AGW?

Also there is the question of the 'recent attacks on climate scientists'..... errr excuse me but by their very mis-behaviour in fixing and adulterating climate data and hockey stick graphs, they have left themselves open to attacks - read criticisms! Cherry picking of data is not the scientific method!

Actually Elmer, you will never arrive at the true figure by using the raw numbers.
You have to first feed the raw numbers into a wind-powered computer, seasonally adjust and peer review it and finally beat the answer out of the machine with a hockey stick. In the absence of an urban heat island the true answer will be somewhere in the region of 55,000,000 or roughly equivalent to Al Gore's weekly income.

This is amazing misinformation. The vast majority of scientists believe in global warming.

Here's a survey from CNN:

"Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.

Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement." No surprise there.

The subtitle of this blog is right - it is stupid to politicize the weather. But that's just what's being done here.

This isn't about protecting obscure species - it's about protecting all of us. Rapid climate changes will damage or destroy many coastal cities, creating economic and social chaos in the near future. And that's just one effect - there are many many more. We bury our heads in the sand at the peril of our children and grandchildren.

It's been a long time since I did a statistics course (back in my university days) but ...

TOTAL sample size = 31250 (31000 "Regular Old Scientists" + 250 "Climate Scientists"). The 2 lists are almost certainly mutually exclusive.

250 of these, or 1 in 125, believe in "Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming".

31000, or 124 in 125, believe that it is possible that the "Catastrophic" part could be exaggerated (by an as yet undetermined amount, "more research is needed" as scientists often say).

There is evidence, e.g. the Vostok and EPICA ice cores, for both "Global Warming" and "Global Cooling" periods in the past (on all timescales greater than 60 years).

My bad, you're right I forgot to add the 250 to the 31,000

Its certainly an interesting bit of math. But your sample size is wrong. What you're doing is taking the Oregon Petition (and for argument's sake, lets say we overlook the flaws in that)and these 250 scientists. But these are only the 250 scientists who have written a letter. If you want to say your fact, then you need to take into account all the scientists in the world. Otherwise, this logic only applies to the room with 30,000+250 people. So, lets take the number of scientists in the world, and divide it by 30,000. In 2006, there were 5.8 million scientists.


So, now, do the math: 5,800,000/30,000 = 1/194 people who don't believe in global warming.
Thats a little less, hmm?

And the opposite, 193/194 people who do believe
Thats a little more, hmm?

Your logic is faulty.

#1 the Oregon Petition is only for U.S. Scientists.

#2 You are assuming that every scientist in the world believes in Global Warming, and they don't.

#3 There is no comparable petition on the Pro Global Warming side of the issue.

The closest is the IPCC which the largest number they have ever touted was 2,500 and that was from scientists around the world not just the U.S. Plus many on that list are skeptical.

September 2012

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Powered by Movable Type 5.12

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Elmer published on May 7, 2010 10:03 AM.

More Grief for Mann was the previous entry in this blog.

Greeny Weenies Conflicted Over Solar Sight is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.