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!
17 responses to “International Skepticism Is Growing – Skeptics Are Well-Informed”
#don´t know where post this link. So I just post it here. Its also only in German. Maybe some1 can translate it. 😉
“Rahmstorf vom PIK bestätigt: Anthropogenen Klimawandel gibt es nicht!”
“In the vast majority of stations we did not see indications
for a global warming of the atmosphere.” Prof. Schellnhuber
orginal article about Rahmstorf is from EIKE:
Thanks Ike! Good tip!
I’m working on it right now
Strange enough, Rahmstorf seems to be at the PIK since 2000. It was a little difficult to find because his own homepage doesn’t state it but here is a fact sheet about him:
“Seit dem Jahr 2000 arbeitet er am Potsdam-Institut für Klimafolgenforschung (PIK)”
I’m a little confused; he’s the number one warmist attack dog in Germany yet he publishes papers in which he says he found no signs of warming?
Looked at the Rahmstorf paper at EIKE. This can only mean one thing: They know exactly that they’re playing a game, and they know it since at least 7 years.
…the Funding Game…
I just put up my post in English on this. Very interesting!
Rahmstorf in my view is a fraud: At agenda21
“Zwar erhöht sich durch die globale Erwärmung die Wahrscheinlichkeit für Wetterextreme und daher ist im Schnitt über viele Jahre mit häufigeren und stärkeren Wetterextremen zu rechnen.”
The ACE is at a record low. The guy is full of crap.
[…] gärna detta intressanta inlägg på No Tricks Zone som handlar om framväxten av internationell skepticism till AGW. Undersökningen det talas om är visserligen inte representativ, men kan ändå vara av visst […]
I read WUWT, I come here for the European perspective and very good it is too.
If one looks hard, there are some very good sites, Jo Nova, The air vent, the Chiefio, Joe Bastardi, CA, the Bish’s, all excellent (and many others) – you’re in good company PG.
This is encouraging, but I must admit this is a very small sampling. I would like to see a larger sampling taken from a more random set of individuals.
Indeed it is not representative…but is a good indicator.
My favourite stat was that 26% had tagged Al Gore’s movie “an inconvenient truth” as one source of their scepticism.
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Khephra Maley, P Gosselin. P Gosselin said: International Skepticism Is Growing – Skeptics Are Well-Informed: The Science Skeptical Blog here has released som… http://bit.ly/bts6Yr […]
Martin Durkin’s “The Great Global Warming Swindle” reinforced my skepticism, a skepticism that developed with the release of the first IPCC report.
In my opinion, it is a crime against humanity that $80 billion has been spent on trying to prove that CO2 emissions from human activity is causing catastrophic global warming, and is the key driver of climate change.
Just how many more billions will be spent before the IPCC finally must accept that its CO2/global warming quest has been a complete waste of resources?
😀 เว็บเกมออนไลน์ รวมเกม มันส์ๆ
สถานที่เที่ยว-ค้นหาข้อมูลท่องเที่ยวทั่วไทย เที่ยวเมืองไทย ไม่ไปไม่รู้
🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂