Remember me
▼ Content

study on how climate science is being perceived


study on how climate science is being perceived23-11-2016 10:31
GAP
☆☆☆☆☆
(7)
In this page you'll find a short questionnaire on how climate science is being perceived by scientists and the general population. It is part of a study by researchers of the University of Lisbon. Could you be kind enough to participate? It is all anonymous.

http://www.survio.com/survey/d/W2A7R8A9J8Q7H7D1D

Thank you very much
24-11-2016 16:17
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
This study is rubbish.

There are no reasonable answers to most of the questions.
24-11-2016 16:29
GAP
☆☆☆☆☆
(7)
Why do you say that?
I believe all possible answers are there. However, instead of calling it rubbish, why don't you share your opinion and point out what you feel is missing? That would be constructive criticism, which would be positive.
24-11-2016 17:28
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
[b]GAP wrote: Why do you say that?


"Tim the leaky plumber" loves heartland(heartless), the smoking lobby, which now uses the same techniques for the AGW denial lobby.
"Tim the leaky plumber" believes any data other than heartland is in error.
24-11-2016 17:54
GAP
☆☆☆☆☆
(7)
Regardless of his views on the subject, the questionnaire is not biased in any way. It was thought not to be. That is the hole point of a questionnaire: not to guide in any direction. If his views are to contest AGW he can make them very clear answering the questionnaire.
24-11-2016 18:16
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
GAP wrote:
Why do you say that?
I believe all possible answers are there. However, instead of calling it rubbish, why don't you share your opinion and point out what you feel is missing? That would be constructive criticism, which would be positive.


How would you classify the views of a scientist that defends anthropogenic global warming?


Well it would depend upon what they had to say and what they supported this view with wouldn't it??????

That answer is not there.

Is that clear enough for you?
24-11-2016 18:34
GAP
☆☆☆☆☆
(7)
You don't no much about this type of survey. But in either case, it is not the question about how they defend their views. Anyone who follows climate science knows the basic arguments on each side of the debate. We do not care about people who uses invalid arguments.

A scientist that defends AGW views will generally use these arguments: CO2 is a greenhouse gas; CO2 causes greenhouse effect; raising temperatures of the last 150 years are in part a consequence of CO2 increase.

A scientist that contests AGW views will generally use these arguments: temperature variations are within normal variations, at least, since the last glacial maximum; the greenhouse effect of CO2 is to small to contribute significantly to the warming of the XX century; the rise of CO2 does not correlate with the temperature variation (for example the stable temperatures of the last 15 years, or the cooling and stable period between the 40s and 70s, etc.)

The idea is how you classify valid views. Not the view of someone who says that there hasn't been any warming in the last 150 years or that says that it doesn't matter what CO2 does we should keep pumping it to the atmosphere just because we want.

The idea of the questionnaire is not to debate the causes of GW or the physical mechanisms. Is for people to say how they feel about the current views, and how they feel about the opposite view of their own.
24-11-2016 18:43
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5022)
GAP wrote:
Why do you say that?
I believe all possible answers are there. However, instead of calling it rubbish, why don't you share your opinion and point out what you feel is missing? That would be constructive criticism, which would be positive.

There is no response for those like me who recognize Global Warming and Climate Change to be two denominations of a WACKY overarching religion.

Therw is no science to any of it.

There is nothing falsifiable about any of it. Remember, the verifiable/falsifiable is weather, and that's not "Climate".

All of your questions need to be fitted with responses that account for the "It's nothing but a WACKY religion with rabid followers who are scientifically illiterate" perspective.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
24-11-2016 19:12
GAP
☆☆☆☆☆
(7)
Let me see if I understand. You're saying that over the past 100 years there has been no temperature change? Or that over the past 15,000 years climate has been exactly the same? You're saying that anyone who states or recognizes that temperature has changed over the past 150 years is scientific illiterate? Or you just give climate such a definition that a small change in temperature is a weather issue and not climate?
24-11-2016 19:26
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5022)
GAP wrote:Let me see if I understand. You're saying that over the past 100 years there has been no temperature change? Or that over the past 15,000 years climate has been exactly the same?

I'd be more than happy to discuss your scientifically illiterate perspective, but suffice to say that your devotion to Global Warming has completely tainted your survey (you won't allow the perceptions that threaten you to be represented) and thus your survey is, as Tim the Plumber points out, rubbish.

Religions like yours NEED to silence any and all threatening perspectives, especially those that reveal that your WACKY religious dogma runs counter to science. A valid survey would include that option and count all those who select it. You, however, cannot permit it, i.e. you are fully aware that your survey is not valid.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
24-11-2016 19:38
GAP
☆☆☆☆☆
(7)
First of all, how do you know my views on global warming and climate change? I never expressed them. Second, again, to put that option would be to look for how many people recognize the temperature variations over the past 150 years and how many don't. I'm not looking for who acknowledges or not the temperature variation. Based on the temperature variations for the past 150 years registered (which in climate discussions are not questioned by either side. What has been questioned is if NASA and other institutions have tempered the data, in order to increase the warming), what are your views on this issue and how do you position yourself in the debate.

There is no option for "that is religion and you are all scientifically illiterate" because this study is not looking for how many people acknowledge temperature variations or not. However it is a valid point and it may be integrated in this study in future surveys.
24-11-2016 19:40
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
GAP wrote:The idea of the questionnaire is not to debate the causes of GW or the physical mechanisms. Is for people to say how they feel about the current views, and how they feel about the opposite view of their own.


Which you can't do with the options given.

If they had asked "If a scientist said that we should consider drastic action to avoid global warming do you expect you would support that view?" I could answer but, being somebody who thinks that I should make sure I don't mislead and be rigorous, science like, in my answers I will not be able to answer.
24-11-2016 19:50
GAP
☆☆☆☆☆
(7)
But there is no such question. There is a similar question only to who defends AGW. You know why? Because I don't expect someone who does not support AGW to have measures to mitigate GW!
Someone that does not defend AGW can have many ideas about how we should change some behaviors regarding pollution, fisheries, deforestation, among others. But not regarding GW! And since this survey is about climate, it would make no sense to ask about mitigation to people that don't support AGW. That is why that question is optional (is only for supporters of AGW) and that is why it has only answers adequate to that view.

I'm still having difficulties in understanding your criticism. Is because the survey does not give a chance to anyone who defends that there is no climate change?
24-11-2016 22:12
spot
★★★★☆
(1108)
Be aware that this forum is left largely unmoderated and that for some trolling people who don't want the world turned to shit is the only joy they have in life.
24-11-2016 23:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9860)
GAP wrote:
Let me see if I understand. You're saying that over the past 100 years there has been no temperature change? Or that over the past 15,000 years climate has been exactly the same? You're saying that anyone who states or recognizes that temperature has changed over the past 150 years is scientific illiterate? Or you just give climate such a definition that a small change in temperature is a weather issue and not climate?


Are you saying in the last 12 hours there has been no temperature change?

Gee. It sure must be a cold day for you or a warm night!


The Parrot Killer
24-11-2016 23:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9860)
spot wrote:
Be aware that this forum is left largely unmoderated and that for some trolling people who don't want the world turned to shit is the only joy they have in life.


The End of the World is Nigh!

More Religious chanting from you.


The Parrot Killer
25-11-2016 03:10
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
GAP wrote:
Let me see if I understand. You're saying that over the past 100 years there has been no temperature change? Or that over the past 15,000 years climate has been exactly the same? You're saying that anyone who states or recognizes that temperature has changed over the past 150 years is scientific illiterate? Or you just give climate such a definition that a small change in temperature is a weather issue and not climate?


Are you saying in the last 12 hours there has been no temperature change?

Gee. It sure must be a cold day for you or a warm night!

Given the timescales involved, it doesn't take a genius to work out that GAP is referring to the global average temperature.
25-11-2016 04:29
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5022)
Surface Detail wrote:Given the timescales involved, it doesn't take a genius to work out that GAP is referring to the global average temperature.

What is certain is that neither GAP nor yourself are willing to consider science, only WACKY dogma.

You're both in a world of hurt.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist




Join the debate study on how climate science is being perceived:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Year Long, Arctic Climate Change Study... How 'Green'?121-09-2019 03:46
Argument against AGW science314-08-2019 20:51
Objectivity of Environmental Science109-08-2019 02:13
Still No Climate Change Science1111-07-2019 04:23
Trump Administration's Attempts to Limit Climate Change Science 'Like Designing Cars Without Seat128-05-2019 20:13
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact