The Science Skeptical Blog here has released some fascinating results from Hans von Storch’s Klimazwiebel blogsite’s survey here. Although the survey is not representative, 578 valid participants from 28 countries took part and interesting results have been produced. Here are the most interesting results:
1. Climate science skeptics have been involved in the topic for a long time. More than 50% of the participants have been following the topic 5 years or more. And skeptics are not born as skeptics. Skeptical Science writes:
More than 75% of the participants started off as neutral or even alarmist. That shows the longer one looks at the climate issue, the more skeptical one becomes with regards to alarmism.
2. Skepticism is deepening. Skeptical Science blog writes:
The last two years have been predominated by the debates on the 2007 IPCC Report, failure in climate negotiations at the international level, and Climategate. These have served to deepen skepticism.
3. Skeptics are shown to be competent. More than 2/3 of the participants have a scientific or technical education.
4. Skeptics like to quote highly competent experts, by a wide margin they like citing Steven McIntyre and Richard Lindzen.
5. Skeptics characterised three blogs (Realclimate, Skeptical Science, Klimalounge) as alarmist. Meanwhile Klimazwiebel and Lucias Blackboard were viewed as moderate or neutral.
6. Skeptics do read the alarmist blogs mentioned in no.5, and thus are informed of both sides of the issue. Both “neutral” blogs were viewed very positively.
7. WUWT and CA were the sites skeptics preferred to visit.
8. German skeptics liked visiting EIKE, WUWT and Klimazwiebel the most. [Next time they ought to put NoTricksZone on the ballot, I’d clean all their clocks out. :)].
Now the following are the summary results from the Klimazwiebel website, in case you’re interested:
Q1: The reason for being a skeptic.
2/3 are skeptic because they find that knowledge about the earth’s climate system would be insufficient for legitimating mitigation measures.
Q2: How long engaged/interested in climatic issues?
25% of the respondents became interested after the hot news issue of IPCC 2007. Most layman are no longer than 10 years, and the skeptical scientists are generally engaged for a longer time.
Q.3: Initial opinion upon first contact with climatic issues?
There is a clear warmist (38%)/”neutral” tendency.
Q.4 Which experience had respondents upon having asked their first critical questions?
Two of the six possible answers were clearly on top of the votes:
– The answer was an attempt to promote a political point of view (35%)
– The answer showed limited competence of the other side.
Q.5 How did attendants get to skepticism?
Internet resources was the most ticked choice in this multiple-options question (63%). The hockey stick discussion also represents a major factor. Both of these are clearly less a factor for skeptical climate scientists (Internet 27%); for these scientific publications are an important factor (up to 69%).
Q.6 What is the tendency, related to the past two years?
A vast majority (74%) tends clearly towards skepticism in this time scale. Attendants from web pages as eike-klima-energie.eu and nelson.blogspot as well as oekowatch.org are ticked around 83% (or even 100%).
Copyright reminder: It is not allowed to reproduce this post without first obtaining permission from No Tricks Zone. Other sites and media may cut and paste max. 25% of the content, and then followed by a link to this site. Let’s all be fair and let credit go where credit is due. Thanks!