Friday, November 09, 2007 ... Deutsch/Español/Related posts from blogosphere

Diversity of opinions in the IPCC

Steven Milloy received answers to his questions from 54 U.S. members of the IPCC. While some questions might be a bit vague and different answers shouldn't be unexpected, there are others - such as those about the ideal temperature - where you would expect agreement if there were a "consensus".

Among the two PC fashionable but completely opposite words, there is much more diversity than consensus inside the IPCC. Look at their answers. We always sketch the question and write the percentages of people who chose particular answers. See the full report.

The main driver of climate change is

  • 63% mainly human plus nature
  • 20% human
  • 11% mainly nature plus human
  • 4% natural
  • 2% no opinion

The role of CO2 emissions is

  • 70% the greatest among other important reasons
  • 17% the key
  • 6% also important among other key effects
  • 6% not among the important ones
  • 2% no opinion

The impact of CO2 regulation on the climate would be

  • 72% strong
  • 19% some
  • 7% undiscernible
  • 2% no opinion
  • 0% none

Current mean temperature is

  • 56% unprecedentedly warm and increasing
  • 31% within natural variability but getting unprecedented
  • 5% no opinion
  • 4% within natural limits and stable
  • 4% not a useful metric

Average warming by 1° C is

  • 48% undesirable
  • 39% desirable for some not others
  • 7% too difficult to say
  • 4% desirable
  • 2% no opinion

The ideal global climate

  • 61% doesn't exist
  • 17% is today
  • 13% is cooler than today
  • 7% no opinion
  • 2% is warmer than today

Moreover, the answers that almost all environmental journalists would probably give you - with a lot of certainty on their faces - are supported by random percentages of scientists, sometimes more than 50% and sometimes less than 50%.

One more comment. Another source of bias in Milloy's results is the fact that only some people chose to participate. The most alarmist members told him f*ck o*f, some of them explicitly. So there is a selection bias in his results. But at the same moment, we must realize that there exists precisely the same kind of selection bias of the opposite sign that determines which people chose to collaborate with an institution that turned out to be as shameful as the IPCC.

And that's the memo.

Add to Digg this Add to reddit

snail feedback (0) :

(function(i,s,o,g,r,a,m){i['GoogleAnalyticsObject']=r;i[r]=i[r]||function(){ (i[r].q=i[r].q||[]).push(arguments)},i[r].l=1*new Date();a=s.createElement(o), m=s.getElementsByTagName(o)[0];a.async=1;a.src=g;m.parentNode.insertBefore(a,m) })(window,document,'script','//','ga'); ga('create', 'UA-1828728-1', 'auto'); ga('send', 'pageview');