Much commentary (and perhaps his book which I haven’t read) is predicated on figures resulting from a poll/survey of scientists, presented with an underlying assumption that climate change is legitimately occurring. Given the underlying assumption, the survey solicited opinion on whether global warming/climate change is the result of human activity.
The results claimed and that “…99.8% of the world's climate scientists are in agreement that humans are causing climate change, and only 0.2% opposed that view.” This poll has been widely quoted, but in reality it is misleading.
What these statistics did not show was that the survey was sent to 1800 scientists, and only 77 responded. 1723 declined to respond, for whatever reason. So the statistics are derived from only 77 scientists, 75 of whom agreed “yes, man made,” with 1 responding “undecided” and 1 responding “no, climate change is not man-made.”
Considering only 4% of the total polled responded, this data is useless unless we know why the others refused to participate, or at least it should be cited in the original data how many were polled and how many declined to respond. To say “99.8% of scientists agree” that climate change is caused by industry, pollution and cow flatulence, etc., is at best misleading. No, 75 out of 1800 agree. Anything less than presenting all of the data is insufficient; it must include the total number polled, respondents and plus non-respondents for any “conclusion” possibly to be drawn. More information needed.
Taken to extreme speculation, it is possible that only 1 person out of 1800 thinks climate change is not man-made. On the other extreme, it is also possible that only 75 think it is man-made, and 1724 out of 1800 think climate change is not, one is undecided and only one of the 1724 dissenters chose to respond to the survey. And again talking extremes, if that is the case, then only 4% of scientists believe climate change is caused by man-made activity and 96% do not. And there are any number of possibilities in between.
Given the high level of censorship we are experiencing — which is an undeniable, easily observable fact — we simply cannot know what scientists think.
I have no idea about David Ray Griffin. I have always been a skeptic, but it took a while to figure out there is no Santa Clause, Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy. All the evidence supporting their existence was there — the gifts that magically appeared on Christmas morning, the eggs and candy, the silver dollar under my pillow, the endorsement by 100% adults — even though logically it made no sense. There was even a highly published letter called “Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Clause.” At what point do we begin to think clearly about what we are told by authorities whether our skepticism confirms or denies the stories we are told?
It might be useful to read the customer reviews of Griffin’s book on amazon.
https://www.amazon.com/portal/customer-reviews/0986076902/ref=cm_cr_dp_mb_top?
Much commentary (and perhaps his book which I haven’t read) is predicated on figures resulting from a poll/survey of scientists, presented with an underlying assumption that climate change is legitimately occurring. Given the underlying assumption, the survey solicited opinion on whether global warming/climate change is the result of human activity.
The results claimed and that “…99.8% of the world's climate scientists are in agreement that humans are causing climate change, and only 0.2% opposed that view.” This poll has been widely quoted, but in reality it is misleading.
What these statistics did not show was that the survey was sent to 1800 scientists, and only 77 responded. 1723 declined to respond, for whatever reason. So the statistics are derived from only 77 scientists, 75 of whom agreed “yes, man made,” with 1 responding “undecided” and 1 responding “no, climate change is not man-made.”
Considering only 4% of the total polled responded, this data is useless unless we know why the others refused to participate, or at least it should be cited in the original data how many were polled and how many declined to respond. To say “99.8% of scientists agree” that climate change is caused by industry, pollution and cow flatulence, etc., is at best misleading. No, 75 out of 1800 agree. Anything less than presenting all of the data is insufficient; it must include the total number polled, respondents and plus non-respondents for any “conclusion” possibly to be drawn. More information needed.
Taken to extreme speculation, it is possible that only 1 person out of 1800 thinks climate change is not man-made. On the other extreme, it is also possible that only 75 think it is man-made, and 1724 out of 1800 think climate change is not, one is undecided and only one of the 1724 dissenters chose to respond to the survey. And again talking extremes, if that is the case, then only 4% of scientists believe climate change is caused by man-made activity and 96% do not. And there are any number of possibilities in between.
Given the high level of censorship we are experiencing — which is an undeniable, easily observable fact — we simply cannot know what scientists think.
I have no idea about David Ray Griffin. I have always been a skeptic, but it took a while to figure out there is no Santa Clause, Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy. All the evidence supporting their existence was there — the gifts that magically appeared on Christmas morning, the eggs and candy, the silver dollar under my pillow, the endorsement by 100% adults — even though logically it made no sense. There was even a highly published letter called “Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Clause.” At what point do we begin to think clearly about what we are told by authorities whether our skepticism confirms or denies the stories we are told?
In our post-truth era, is truth it possible?